Food in the United States is cheap. So cheap, in fact, that Americans use less of their disposable income on food than people in any other developed country (from Steve Kay, publisher of Cattle Buyers Weekly). As a whole, we are so accustomed to our inexpensive, reliable, and safe food supply that we take it for granted. Slight increases in price create shockwaves throughout the public and ignite a firestorm of criticisms aimed at producers; a single pathogen found in a shipment of beef results in immediate blame placed on large producers, major recalls of the product, and wailing complaints about how awful our food supply is (despite the fact that more people die from pet attacks each year than food borne illnesses). Among all the commotion, the question/statement "Why do farmers place us at risk by raising food in such a terrible way? We need to get back to a more natural food source." always seems to find its way to the surface.
As one of my favorite professors at Penn State would regularly force us to do, lets think about this.
Selling food at the lowest prices in the World places an enormous stress on growers and processors in this country. As I hope we remember from 10th grade economics, operating any business on razor thin margins demands absolute efficiency, something many manufacturers, retailers, and our food growers have adapted to meet. In other words, the result of the public demanding inexpensive food is the concentration of both vegetable and meat production onto very large farms in order to cut the production costs.
When you hear someone getting bent out of shape about the big bad corporate farms and their modern growing techniques (genetically modified crops, animal feedlots, hormone implants, etc.), think what it would be like without them. Hundreds of thousands of acres would be brought back into crop production thanks to significantly reduced yields (imagine tearing down new suburban developments to create ideal farmland...there is an interesting thought), and hundreds of thousands more to be used for livestock grazing. Pollution would immediately rise to unimaginable levels due to renewed use of a wide variety of highly toxic weed control chemicals on crops (modern genetically modified crops are designed to basically take care of themselves - very little spray is used on a field today compared to just twenty years ago). Much of the production would be pushed outside of our borders (to fill the gap created by reduced yields and efficiency) where food production standards and controls are very minimal or completely non-existent...think of human waste fertilizing those vegetables in your salad, and beef being processed in a non-sterile facility...tasty. There are too many other negative consequences to list, but here is a final big one: the major spike in production costs would drive the price of food to life-altering levels - I don't think anyone wants to spend 50 - 75% of their yearly income just to keep the fridge full.
We owe our prosperous way of life in the United States to those in the food production industry. Many of us have never come close to starving to death, few feel genuinely unsafe about biting into something from the grocery store, we don't have to empty the bank account each day to feed our families, and we don't have to worry if there will be enough food for tomorrow. Because of this, we are able to direct our focus towards the advancements that make this such a great country to live in. So, support the little farmers in your community, get excited about an all-organic meal, shop in places you know where the food comes from, and make an effort to understand farming, but do not ever forget that none of it would exist without large farms supporting the backbone of America.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Thursday, February 18, 2010
So True.
I have mentioned Amanda Nolz's blog from www.beefmagazine.com before and encouraged you to check out the website and read her updates. If you have not found the time to do this yet, take a second now and make your way over there. The girl is good at what she does, and, unlike me, she actually updates her blog on a very regular basis.
In her most recent post, Amanda landed on an excellent point that needs to be heard by everyone, especially the creeps in the HSUS and PETA. The reason I am passing along her message is because I (and probably every other farm kid) have experienced the same sense of awe that she is describing, and I am furious that a slew of self proclaimed activists have successfully covered up the greatness of farmers.
Like Amanda, I have looked up to my dad throughout my entire life because of his unwavering strength and commitment to this farm. He spends winters out in sub zero weather wearing frozen Carhartts and ratty gloves with holes worn in them dealing with icicles in his mustache (really) and broken down equipment and snow burying everything just to maintain a cozy situation for our cattle. He has spent countless frozen hours on the old cabless John Deere in howling winds hauling manure away from the barns and moving fresh sawdust into them so the animals can be comfortable. I have watched him chisel ice out of frozen-solid waterers, use his own hands to warm up frozen water pipes, and carry clean water in buckets to provide the herd with something to drink. From sun-up to sun-down (and sometimes well into the night) in all weather conditions he is willing to place himself in uncomfortable situations just to keep the cattle happy and healthy. The only thing I have never seen him do is whine and complain, give up, or throw a fit about how hard he is working. He has chosen to be a steward to these animals, and would not change occupations if the offer arose. It is impossible not to respect him.
This is what I lived and seen my entire life, this kind of self sacrifice is something that happens on every farm across the country every day of every year, and I cannot put into words how absolutely sickening it is to turn on the news and hear some latte-sipping, comfort-craving, PETA supporting clown who can't last a minute without climate control and an imac, someone who is incapable of caring for another living thing (and has never tried, and never will) and is afraid to get their plastic faux-fur dirty, say that farmers are mean and do not care about animals as much as the compassionate individuals in PETA. My blood boils thinking that these idiots are actually ACCEPTED by the public, that their empty, meaningless words are broadcast across the country every time they set up some "trendy" demonstration (remember the Groundhog Day hoopla?) or have some clueless celebrity join their group while the negative image about farmers sets even deeper into the American mindset. I am willing to bet my life that if a group of softies from an animal rights organization were left in charge of a herd of cattle, they would kill the animals within one week because taking care of them is too hard and too big of a drag on their social life. They have no connection to agriculture, no understanding of the effort people like my dad and uncle put into the welfare of animals, and have no idea how much joy it brings to see a young calf grow into a healthy marketable animal, yet they are out there on their soap box telling the world (and SUCCEEDING, for crying out loud) that farmers are horrible, uncaring people who destroy the environment and abuse animals. My skin is crawling right now just thinking about it.
So, here is your mission. The next time you see an anti-agriculture ad, or a "don't be cruel, go vegetarian" sign, or hear someone talking about how abused farm animals are, do not just shrug it off and move on. Tell the person they are wrong. Ask them to seek out the truth from a farmer (not some self-appointed foodie or disconnected radical organization) and get the real story. If people, those involved with agriculture AND everyone who is not, start pushing back against animal rights groups' elitist power grabs they will quickly lose momentum and go away. Only when the public begins to see farming in its true light and accept the fact that American producers are committed to safe food production and are willing to do whatever it takes to provide inexpensive food to the masses will real progress be made for the future.
I am sorry that this is such a hateful post; I do not think it is constructive to angrily bash those with whom I do not agree, but there is no point, I decided, in covering up my distaste for those involved with PETA, the HSUS, and every other anti-agriculture organization. If you read Amanda's story about her dad you will find that it is very similar to mine, right down to the mustache icicles, because everyone who has committed their lives to animal care shares the same devotion to the cause. It is time for farmers to change their ways; no longer will we sit back and let radical extremists touting their "noble cause" manipulate public opinion about farmers. This is the start of a new year, a new decade, a new face for farming, and there is no room in the agenda for misinformed activists.
In her most recent post, Amanda landed on an excellent point that needs to be heard by everyone, especially the creeps in the HSUS and PETA. The reason I am passing along her message is because I (and probably every other farm kid) have experienced the same sense of awe that she is describing, and I am furious that a slew of self proclaimed activists have successfully covered up the greatness of farmers.
Like Amanda, I have looked up to my dad throughout my entire life because of his unwavering strength and commitment to this farm. He spends winters out in sub zero weather wearing frozen Carhartts and ratty gloves with holes worn in them dealing with icicles in his mustache (really) and broken down equipment and snow burying everything just to maintain a cozy situation for our cattle. He has spent countless frozen hours on the old cabless John Deere in howling winds hauling manure away from the barns and moving fresh sawdust into them so the animals can be comfortable. I have watched him chisel ice out of frozen-solid waterers, use his own hands to warm up frozen water pipes, and carry clean water in buckets to provide the herd with something to drink. From sun-up to sun-down (and sometimes well into the night) in all weather conditions he is willing to place himself in uncomfortable situations just to keep the cattle happy and healthy. The only thing I have never seen him do is whine and complain, give up, or throw a fit about how hard he is working. He has chosen to be a steward to these animals, and would not change occupations if the offer arose. It is impossible not to respect him.
This is what I lived and seen my entire life, this kind of self sacrifice is something that happens on every farm across the country every day of every year, and I cannot put into words how absolutely sickening it is to turn on the news and hear some latte-sipping, comfort-craving, PETA supporting clown who can't last a minute without climate control and an imac, someone who is incapable of caring for another living thing (and has never tried, and never will) and is afraid to get their plastic faux-fur dirty, say that farmers are mean and do not care about animals as much as the compassionate individuals in PETA. My blood boils thinking that these idiots are actually ACCEPTED by the public, that their empty, meaningless words are broadcast across the country every time they set up some "trendy" demonstration (remember the Groundhog Day hoopla?) or have some clueless celebrity join their group while the negative image about farmers sets even deeper into the American mindset. I am willing to bet my life that if a group of softies from an animal rights organization were left in charge of a herd of cattle, they would kill the animals within one week because taking care of them is too hard and too big of a drag on their social life. They have no connection to agriculture, no understanding of the effort people like my dad and uncle put into the welfare of animals, and have no idea how much joy it brings to see a young calf grow into a healthy marketable animal, yet they are out there on their soap box telling the world (and SUCCEEDING, for crying out loud) that farmers are horrible, uncaring people who destroy the environment and abuse animals. My skin is crawling right now just thinking about it.
So, here is your mission. The next time you see an anti-agriculture ad, or a "don't be cruel, go vegetarian" sign, or hear someone talking about how abused farm animals are, do not just shrug it off and move on. Tell the person they are wrong. Ask them to seek out the truth from a farmer (not some self-appointed foodie or disconnected radical organization) and get the real story. If people, those involved with agriculture AND everyone who is not, start pushing back against animal rights groups' elitist power grabs they will quickly lose momentum and go away. Only when the public begins to see farming in its true light and accept the fact that American producers are committed to safe food production and are willing to do whatever it takes to provide inexpensive food to the masses will real progress be made for the future.
I am sorry that this is such a hateful post; I do not think it is constructive to angrily bash those with whom I do not agree, but there is no point, I decided, in covering up my distaste for those involved with PETA, the HSUS, and every other anti-agriculture organization. If you read Amanda's story about her dad you will find that it is very similar to mine, right down to the mustache icicles, because everyone who has committed their lives to animal care shares the same devotion to the cause. It is time for farmers to change their ways; no longer will we sit back and let radical extremists touting their "noble cause" manipulate public opinion about farmers. This is the start of a new year, a new decade, a new face for farming, and there is no room in the agenda for misinformed activists.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Food for Thought
Hop in your time machines, folks, today we are going back to sixth grade and talking about hormones.
Hormone-free beef, to be specific. It is a claim that many small producers use in an attempt to gain an edge over their competition, and a phrase health-conscious consumers are seeking out. Unfortunately, advertising such a thing is incorrect; there is no such thing as hormone-free beef, or chicken, or pork, etc. Animals (I will focus on cattle, but this applies to all of them) produce hormones as they grow and develop. So do you and I. So do plants. A lot of them. Knowing this leads one to assume that when a store is advertising hormone-free anything, what they really mean to say is 'no ADDED growth hormones' (even we are guilty throwing around the hormone-free claim at the store, and we are scrambling to change it to 'no hormones added'). When you think about it, the reality makes you smack yourself on the head and think 'I should have known that,' but it is worth mentioning and it will be the focus of this writing.
What prevents us from becoming crazed steroid-jacked monsters when we eat beef (hormone implanted or not) is the fact that we, at any given time, are producing 35,000 times more hormones than could ever be present in the food we eat (this information is from the Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) program). Hormones are difficult to digest, so what finally makes it into our system after we enjoy that delicious grilled Porterhouse (with a huge baked potato and a salad containing every vegetable enhanced with mom's oil and vinegar dressing...) is a drop in the bucket compared to what is already coursing through our veins. Remember, this concerns non-implanted AND implanted beef (and chicken, and pork...).
Which brings me to my point. Everyone has heard from one source or another how bad the "extra" hormones in beef from implanted cattle are for people. And, as usual, I am here to say that the rumors have been blown completely out of proportion. The difference in hormone levels in a serving of non-treated beef (certified organic, for instance) and a serving of beef from an animal on the most rigorous hormone treatment differs by .6 nanograms (less than one billionth of a gram). So yes, there is a difference in the hormone levels, but I think one would have a difficult time arguing that this is a significant variation. Keep in mind that we do not digest all of the hormones in anything we eat, indicating that even with slightly higher hormone levels we will still absorb the same amount, and the difference becomes irrelevant.
I am not saying you should run to your nearest major grocery store and scarf down the first mass-produced sirloin that you see once you read this. I am not even saying that you should agree with animal hormone enhancements, or stop seeking out meats with no ADDED (keep that in mind) hormones. All I am saying is that you should not be terrified of food because of what you hear. American producers and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) know what they are doing and are constantly researching, testing, and promoting food that is not dangerous and will not poison their consumers. Stuff in the grocery store aisles is safe for your family, even if Paul McCartney says it is not.
So remember, do not turn on the food production industry when you hear from an outside source that they are terrible. Our agricultural system has provided us with plentiful, inexpensive food whenever we want it. We need to be grateful for what we have and work with FARMERS, not radical organizations, to shape the future of food production for generations to come. I think the results will be much brighter that way.
Hormone-free beef, to be specific. It is a claim that many small producers use in an attempt to gain an edge over their competition, and a phrase health-conscious consumers are seeking out. Unfortunately, advertising such a thing is incorrect; there is no such thing as hormone-free beef, or chicken, or pork, etc. Animals (I will focus on cattle, but this applies to all of them) produce hormones as they grow and develop. So do you and I. So do plants. A lot of them. Knowing this leads one to assume that when a store is advertising hormone-free anything, what they really mean to say is 'no ADDED growth hormones' (even we are guilty throwing around the hormone-free claim at the store, and we are scrambling to change it to 'no hormones added'). When you think about it, the reality makes you smack yourself on the head and think 'I should have known that,' but it is worth mentioning and it will be the focus of this writing.
What prevents us from becoming crazed steroid-jacked monsters when we eat beef (hormone implanted or not) is the fact that we, at any given time, are producing 35,000 times more hormones than could ever be present in the food we eat (this information is from the Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) program). Hormones are difficult to digest, so what finally makes it into our system after we enjoy that delicious grilled Porterhouse (with a huge baked potato and a salad containing every vegetable enhanced with mom's oil and vinegar dressing...) is a drop in the bucket compared to what is already coursing through our veins. Remember, this concerns non-implanted AND implanted beef (and chicken, and pork...).
Which brings me to my point. Everyone has heard from one source or another how bad the "extra" hormones in beef from implanted cattle are for people. And, as usual, I am here to say that the rumors have been blown completely out of proportion. The difference in hormone levels in a serving of non-treated beef (certified organic, for instance) and a serving of beef from an animal on the most rigorous hormone treatment differs by .6 nanograms (less than one billionth of a gram). So yes, there is a difference in the hormone levels, but I think one would have a difficult time arguing that this is a significant variation. Keep in mind that we do not digest all of the hormones in anything we eat, indicating that even with slightly higher hormone levels we will still absorb the same amount, and the difference becomes irrelevant.
I am not saying you should run to your nearest major grocery store and scarf down the first mass-produced sirloin that you see once you read this. I am not even saying that you should agree with animal hormone enhancements, or stop seeking out meats with no ADDED (keep that in mind) hormones. All I am saying is that you should not be terrified of food because of what you hear. American producers and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) know what they are doing and are constantly researching, testing, and promoting food that is not dangerous and will not poison their consumers. Stuff in the grocery store aisles is safe for your family, even if Paul McCartney says it is not.
So remember, do not turn on the food production industry when you hear from an outside source that they are terrible. Our agricultural system has provided us with plentiful, inexpensive food whenever we want it. We need to be grateful for what we have and work with FARMERS, not radical organizations, to shape the future of food production for generations to come. I think the results will be much brighter that way.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Case in Point...
Very shortly after I posted about the HSUS agenda, I stumbled upon a Feedstuffs Magazine article that completely re-enforces the illegitimacy of HSUS shenanigans.
Consider this: In 2008, the Humane Society of the United States generated $86 million dollars. Knowing only this, how much of the total would you assume HSUS spends collecting, protecting, and finding homes for stray and abandoned pets? Possibly $70 million? The remaining $16 million should be more than enough to cover operating costs, right? Apparently not. $50 million? Wrong. ONE million? Still no. So how much, you ask? The few real HSUS shelters in the US got a minuscule $450,000 to care for dogs and cats in need. That is such a pitiful amount compared to $86 million that I had to laugh (not because it is funny, but because it completely contradicts what HSUS tells the public). $20 million of their budget was spent on 'campaigns, legislation, & litigation.' Remember Proposition 2 (the anti-California agriculture regulations they are forcing into place) from my last post? Advertising something like that is more important to the Humane Society than the animals they say are protected by the organization. $25 million was spent on FUNDRAISING (seems to me like nearly $100 million dollars should be enough, but what do I know?). Recall the compassionate celebrity with the scruffy cat from the commercial? She made more money from her fifteen seconds of airtime than was spent on all of the HSUS animals in the country. The fine Wayne Pacelle, president of HSUS, was given a salary of $250,000 - more than half of what was spent on those he claims to protect. I think if you look up hypocrite in the dictionary the definition is (or should be) 'everyone on the Humane Society of the United States payroll'...
What I have just written is public financial information, meaning everyone has access to it. I would hope, after seeing this, you realize the Humane Society of the United States is flat out lying about what it is doing with donated money. Why does CNN not run a headline story spreading the word about these discrepancies? They can find this information easily. If a high profile bank or a nationally known business lied about their financial agenda it would make headlines and front pages for a month, but the HSUS reality is glazed over by the media and they are instead touted as a kind, caring, honest group of good-doers. Understanding why it happens is too much for my 22 year old mind to comprehend. The only way to spread the word is to encourage everyone reading this to remember the facts and tell your friends.
I have been hard on the Humane Society (and rightfully so). My opinion about the organization, however, does not mean that I think it is wrong to collect and save animals from unfortunate situations. Pets are great, and animals should not be abused by people. If you feel the need to donate time or money to help the cause but find yourself wondering where to direct the funding, consider donating directly to your local shelter. Ask friends who are knowledgeable about animal rescue and care where help is needed (there are a number of such individuals who frequent our store), or check the phonebook for organizations in and around your area. By doing this, we will be able to eliminate funding for a false organization and begin to actually spread the benefits of stray collection and care.
Consider this: In 2008, the Humane Society of the United States generated $86 million dollars. Knowing only this, how much of the total would you assume HSUS spends collecting, protecting, and finding homes for stray and abandoned pets? Possibly $70 million? The remaining $16 million should be more than enough to cover operating costs, right? Apparently not. $50 million? Wrong. ONE million? Still no. So how much, you ask? The few real HSUS shelters in the US got a minuscule $450,000 to care for dogs and cats in need. That is such a pitiful amount compared to $86 million that I had to laugh (not because it is funny, but because it completely contradicts what HSUS tells the public). $20 million of their budget was spent on 'campaigns, legislation, & litigation.' Remember Proposition 2 (the anti-California agriculture regulations they are forcing into place) from my last post? Advertising something like that is more important to the Humane Society than the animals they say are protected by the organization. $25 million was spent on FUNDRAISING (seems to me like nearly $100 million dollars should be enough, but what do I know?). Recall the compassionate celebrity with the scruffy cat from the commercial? She made more money from her fifteen seconds of airtime than was spent on all of the HSUS animals in the country. The fine Wayne Pacelle, president of HSUS, was given a salary of $250,000 - more than half of what was spent on those he claims to protect. I think if you look up hypocrite in the dictionary the definition is (or should be) 'everyone on the Humane Society of the United States payroll'...
What I have just written is public financial information, meaning everyone has access to it. I would hope, after seeing this, you realize the Humane Society of the United States is flat out lying about what it is doing with donated money. Why does CNN not run a headline story spreading the word about these discrepancies? They can find this information easily. If a high profile bank or a nationally known business lied about their financial agenda it would make headlines and front pages for a month, but the HSUS reality is glazed over by the media and they are instead touted as a kind, caring, honest group of good-doers. Understanding why it happens is too much for my 22 year old mind to comprehend. The only way to spread the word is to encourage everyone reading this to remember the facts and tell your friends.
I have been hard on the Humane Society (and rightfully so). My opinion about the organization, however, does not mean that I think it is wrong to collect and save animals from unfortunate situations. Pets are great, and animals should not be abused by people. If you feel the need to donate time or money to help the cause but find yourself wondering where to direct the funding, consider donating directly to your local shelter. Ask friends who are knowledgeable about animal rescue and care where help is needed (there are a number of such individuals who frequent our store), or check the phonebook for organizations in and around your area. By doing this, we will be able to eliminate funding for a false organization and begin to actually spread the benefits of stray collection and care.
Monday, February 1, 2010
The Humane Society Myth...
Briefly, in a previous poorly written thought of mine, I mentioned that the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has a very different agenda than what you see on TV. I realize that saying something like that without any explanation makes it a fairly empty statement, so hear is what I was referring to.
We have all seen the HSUS ads featuring some compassionate celebrity and a bunch of pictures of abused and ragged looking pets asking for your donation of a small monthly fee to help stop the cruelty. Animal abuse is an unnecessary and unacceptable occurrence, so we are emotionally moved and feel the need to help out financially. Unfortunately, what the commercials leave out might be more important than what they include. According to John Dillard, an insightful student at Richmond Law School (I came across his article via a link on beefmagazine.com - check out the website), the HSUS is NOT a nationwide organization of animal shelters like they lead you to believe. They, in fact, do not have any connection to the local shelters we depend on to collect and care for abused and/or stray animals found around our communities. The Humane Society's real agenda (where your donated funding actually ends up) is the complete elimination of animal agriculture in the US. This is not a joke, and this is not some made up fact created in a desperate attempt to win over your approval, it is simply the truth. The organization is completely removed from agriculture (they do not understand it) and well funded - significantly more than $100 million is collected every year that is used to lobby against farmers.
Dont believe me? Think about this: the local animal shelter (that is desperately needed) in Shippenville closed recently due to - get ready - a lack of funding! Why on earth would a collection point that really does help animals (remember how many they cared for before the doors closed?) shut down due to a lack of money if the national organization is pulling down $180 million a year without batting an eye? The answer is simple enough: there is no connection between the HSUS and our small animal shelters. Keep this in mind: if you or someone you know feel the need to help out dilapidated animals, donate your money directly to the shelter in your area where it will actually be used for good, not by credit card in response to a commercial. When your money stays in the area, you will be able to see the benefits instead of watching them disappear.
It frightens me that such a sly organization with a hidden agenda is calling the shots for farmers. HSUS is using their money to place completely unreasonable regulations on agriculture that they have never been a part of and do not understand. Once they have moved enough money around through the right people and succeed with their latest "great" idea, they high-five and move on to the next farm-restricting project while the farmers (like my dad and uncle, our friends who own farms, and every other farm family in the country), the people who provide YOUR food, are left scrambling in the wake trying to comply with new restrictions and stay in business (this is costly and nearly impossible).
Think about the most recent California fiasco (proposition 2) involving chicken, dairy, and hog farmers. Thanks to some tricky ballot placements and some celebrity endorsements (yes, they give most of their money to celebrities instead of directing it to help find homes for abandoned pets), the Humane Society made voting "yes" for the proposition seem like a kind and necessary gesture. Proposition 2 takes effect in 2015 and requires California farmers to completely redesign animal facilities to comply with the HSUS agenda, costing them millions of dollars that simply are not available. Rather than changing to comply with the laws, farmers are going to stop producing in the state. Production will be moved far away to states with reasonable regulations, concentrating animal production even more and increasing the cost and food miles of products in California grocery stores. Good plan, HSUS, way to think that one through.
Unfortunate situations such as this would not occur if media, politicians, and the public would listen to agricultural experts rather than a group of ignorant outsiders. A reality of the coming years is farmers must make a connection to the public in any way possible and spread the real story. Make some effort to learn about new farming technologies and seek out what farmers are doing to help minimize their effect on the environment (I bet you will be surprised - the media is leaving out a lot). Our nation must open its mind to the truth instead of blindly following whoever has the most money and celebrity endorsements before agriculture is forced outside of our borders...if you think depending on other countries for oil is bad, wait until we rely on them for food...
We have all seen the HSUS ads featuring some compassionate celebrity and a bunch of pictures of abused and ragged looking pets asking for your donation of a small monthly fee to help stop the cruelty. Animal abuse is an unnecessary and unacceptable occurrence, so we are emotionally moved and feel the need to help out financially. Unfortunately, what the commercials leave out might be more important than what they include. According to John Dillard, an insightful student at Richmond Law School (I came across his article via a link on beefmagazine.com - check out the website), the HSUS is NOT a nationwide organization of animal shelters like they lead you to believe. They, in fact, do not have any connection to the local shelters we depend on to collect and care for abused and/or stray animals found around our communities. The Humane Society's real agenda (where your donated funding actually ends up) is the complete elimination of animal agriculture in the US. This is not a joke, and this is not some made up fact created in a desperate attempt to win over your approval, it is simply the truth. The organization is completely removed from agriculture (they do not understand it) and well funded - significantly more than $100 million is collected every year that is used to lobby against farmers.
Dont believe me? Think about this: the local animal shelter (that is desperately needed) in Shippenville closed recently due to - get ready - a lack of funding! Why on earth would a collection point that really does help animals (remember how many they cared for before the doors closed?) shut down due to a lack of money if the national organization is pulling down $180 million a year without batting an eye? The answer is simple enough: there is no connection between the HSUS and our small animal shelters. Keep this in mind: if you or someone you know feel the need to help out dilapidated animals, donate your money directly to the shelter in your area where it will actually be used for good, not by credit card in response to a commercial. When your money stays in the area, you will be able to see the benefits instead of watching them disappear.
It frightens me that such a sly organization with a hidden agenda is calling the shots for farmers. HSUS is using their money to place completely unreasonable regulations on agriculture that they have never been a part of and do not understand. Once they have moved enough money around through the right people and succeed with their latest "great" idea, they high-five and move on to the next farm-restricting project while the farmers (like my dad and uncle, our friends who own farms, and every other farm family in the country), the people who provide YOUR food, are left scrambling in the wake trying to comply with new restrictions and stay in business (this is costly and nearly impossible).
Think about the most recent California fiasco (proposition 2) involving chicken, dairy, and hog farmers. Thanks to some tricky ballot placements and some celebrity endorsements (yes, they give most of their money to celebrities instead of directing it to help find homes for abandoned pets), the Humane Society made voting "yes" for the proposition seem like a kind and necessary gesture. Proposition 2 takes effect in 2015 and requires California farmers to completely redesign animal facilities to comply with the HSUS agenda, costing them millions of dollars that simply are not available. Rather than changing to comply with the laws, farmers are going to stop producing in the state. Production will be moved far away to states with reasonable regulations, concentrating animal production even more and increasing the cost and food miles of products in California grocery stores. Good plan, HSUS, way to think that one through.
Unfortunate situations such as this would not occur if media, politicians, and the public would listen to agricultural experts rather than a group of ignorant outsiders. A reality of the coming years is farmers must make a connection to the public in any way possible and spread the real story. Make some effort to learn about new farming technologies and seek out what farmers are doing to help minimize their effect on the environment (I bet you will be surprised - the media is leaving out a lot). Our nation must open its mind to the truth instead of blindly following whoever has the most money and celebrity endorsements before agriculture is forced outside of our borders...if you think depending on other countries for oil is bad, wait until we rely on them for food...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
