FOOD, Inc.

[PureCountry]

Cal these articles your sharing are just as - if not more - biased than the claims made about "FOOD, Inc". To say that this is an attack on farmers and ranchers is absolutely ludicrous. The film tries to support farmers and ranchers from start to finish. It portrays a an Ag. Industry that has allowed a few corporations to control all farmers and ranchers, converting them into a culture of slaves who work the land to make products that fit the system. It advocates people buying from farmers, farmers being more aware of what they grow and where it goes -HOW CAN THAT BE A BAD THING?????

And this whole argument that "American farmers and ranchers are able to produce enough food to feed not only the population of the U.S. - and do so at the lowest cost of any developed nation - but they are also able to export food to many other nations which are unable to feed their growing populations." Let's not forget one of the main points of the film, that I feel should be the focus : the QUALITY of that food!! We overproduce some products on this continent and it allows for that surplus to become a globally traded commodity. However, does it make for healthier societies? Why is Type II Diabetes, heart disease, cancer and many other things on the rise so much in the last few decades? Why are the rates of obesity in youth going through the roof? Is it to be blamed on video games and a lack of physical activity? Or is it just possible that it could have some correlation to glucose/fructose and other corn-based products that are EVERYWHERE in our food chain? Obviously we'd say it's a combination, but these articles you've posted seem to dismiss that aspect of the film.

It sounds like something I would expect from an old boy's ranchers club. As soon as someone - like Oprah or anyone else - makes a comment about beef or anything else - look out 'cause the gloves are comin' off!! Well, let's take a real hard friggin look at what's being done here. No one in the film criticizes farmers and rancher on how they produce beef. They criticize huge corporations for finishing cattle on high corn/barley rations. They criticize huge corporations for the manner in which they process food with anything from methyl bromide to ammonia - including beef - because they can't find any other way to ensure that it's safe. They criticize huge corporations for the lack of respect shown immigrant workers.

WHERE IN THE FILM DOES IT MAKE BEEF FARMERS AND RANCHERS LOOK LIKE THE BAD GUYS? I think it points the finger right where it should - corporate control freaks, the USDA and alot of bureacrats who are getting rich off of the backs of the everyday working American and Canadian farmer, rancher, and taxpayer.

WHY WOULDN"T WE WANT THAT TYPE OF SYSTEM TO CHANGE?

 

[Cal]

Whether it makes farmers or ranchers look like the bad guys or not......will it hurt consumption and price........just like Queen Oprah did? Here's another link. Maybe you'll like this one better. We all know how fact filled An Inconvenient Truth Was;

http://www.meatlessmonday.com/open-your-eyes-with-food-inc/

The producers of the new film "Food, Inc." opening this week have chosen 10 things we can all do to change our food system. #5 is: Meatless Mondays…Go without meat one day a week.

Directed by Robert Kenner and produced by Participant Media (the people behind Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth"), "Food, Inc." takes an unflinching look at the evolution of the food production system. What it uncovers is at times hard to watch, both grim and poignant — less Mr. Green Jeans than insatiable corporate raider.
We're led on a voyage through vast and reeking feed lots, claustrophobic chicken houses and meat cutting-rooms, balanced by images of gleaming control rooms, distant corporate offices and the quiet (and complicit) halls of government.

We also see the human side as we learn how an immigrant family must choose fast-food over healthier options they can't afford. And a mother and food activist relates how her 2-year old son died a few short hours after eating a hamburger tainted with E. coli.

Ultimately, we're left with the sense that the food industry isn't particularly committed to our individual health. That it's up to us to get informed, to remain vigilant of an industry, and a mindset, bent on profit alone. All the same, "Food, Inc." encourages us not to lose hope, that over time, and with greater awareness, greater accountability will follow. We are increasingly coming to understand that the food choices we make impact the environment around us as much as our own bodies.

 

[andybob]

A record number of soya shipments were turned away from European ports this year after the soya was found to be contaminated with GM genes.
An increasing volume of soya is being imported from China which while GM free, I wonder about the safety of in ligh of the melamine poisonin of milk products this year.

 

[leanin' H]

Cal these articles your sharing are just as - if not more - biased than the claims made about "FOOD, Inc". To say that this is an attack on farmers and ranchers is absolutely ludicrous. The film tries to support farmers and ranchers from start to finish. It portrays a an Ag. Industry that has allowed a few corporations to control all farmers and ranchers, converting them into a culture of slaves who work the land to make products that fit the system. It advocates people buying from farmers, farmers being more aware of what they grow and where it goes -HOW CAN THAT BE A BAD THING?????

And this whole argument that "American farmers and ranchers are able to produce enough food to feed not only the population of the U.S. - and do so at the lowest cost of any developed nation - but they are also able to export food to many other nations which are unable to feed their growing populations." Let's not forget one of the main points of the film, that I feel should be the focus : the QUALITY of that food!! We overproduce some products on this continent and it allows for that surplus to become a globally traded commodity. However, does it make for healthier societies? Why is Type II Diabetes, heart disease, cancer and many other things on the rise so much in the last few decades? Why are the rates of obesity in youth going through the roof? Is it to be blamed on video games and a lack of physical activity? Or is it just possible that it could have some correlation to glucose/fructose and other corn-based products that are EVERYWHERE in our food chain? Obviously we'd say it's a combination, but these articles you've posted seem to dismiss that aspect of the film.

It sounds like something I would expect from an old boy's ranchers club. As soon as someone - like Oprah or anyone else - makes a comment about beef or anything else - look out 'cause the gloves are comin' off!! Well, let's take a real hard friggin look at what's being done here. No one in the film criticizes farmers and rancher on how they produce beef. They criticize huge corporations for finishing cattle on high corn/barley rations. They criticize huge corporations for the manner in which they process food with anything from methyl bromide to ammonia - including beef - because they can't find any other way to ensure that it's safe. They criticize huge corporations for the lack of respect shown immigrant workers.

WHERE IN THE FILM DOES IT MAKE BEEF FARMERS AND RANCHERS LOOK LIKE THE BAD GUYS? I think it points the finger right where it should - corporate control freaks, the USDA and alot of bureacrats who are getting rich off of the backs of the everyday working American and Canadian farmer, rancher, and taxpayer.

WHY WOULDN"T WE WANT THAT TYPE OF SYSTEM TO CHANGE?

Except you must belive that the average American doesn't lump ranchers in with the rest of the bad guys! These are the same people who have bought global warming hook, line and sinker! These are the same folks who think Oprah is a religion! The average American see's this movie and decides ALL AGRICULTURE IS TO BLAME!!!!! I understand that the big corporations at the top make up the rules as they go. I understand that the great majority of ranchers and farmers care about the enviroment more than ANY treehugger! I understand that force-fed beef is less healthy! I get that Mosanto is pretty much the Mafia! But millions and millions of Americans put you and I right there with those guys! And films like this, while making great points that i may agree with, further erode the way of life i treasure. We have to stand together as producers or we will fall alone. We need to fight corruption in corporations, congress and the media who all have agenda's against Agriculture. But we can't allow them to divide us into splinter groups and fight ourselves. I can sell my product without tearing down my friends and neighbors who sell their products differently. :wink:

 

[PureCountry]

Geez H, how do you know that the average American sees this film and blames us, or lumps us in with the likes of Tyson, Cargill and Smithfield? But to tell you the truth, if most North American consumers think that all farmers and ranchers raise less than healthy force-fed beef (which I agree with you, it is), apparently the last 3 or 4 decades of industrialized food production has clouded their minds about the image of a farmer. Can we blame them? What have they become accustomed to? Fast food, roasts that come in a tray, pre-seasoned and spiced ready from the oven in 20 minutes, chicken nuggets and Kraft Dinner? This system has totally disassociated US FROM FOOD!!! The industry players have been very succesful in staying out of the lime light, making it appear as though farmers and ranchers are to blame, immigrant workers are taking jobs from the everday Joe and Jane, and they have Government support from start to finish. WE KNOW THE TRUTH, we need to educate the consumer as to the real story. We've told hundreds of people what we do and how we care for our animals. I've told it so many times I get sick of telling people over and over and over. However, I know that they don't know any better, therefore we have to set them straight and sell them on our product. Otherwise they will keep buying the force-fed crap at the supermarket, oblivious to what that single purchase creates as a ripple effect throughout the industry.

I always try to keep this in mind - stirring a little $h!t and enlightening people on some of these attributes of our livestock industry may cause a dip in meat sales. However, if it does, it's not my meat that people are avoiding. They're avoiding the force-fed stuff that comes over the counter at fast food joints, supermarkets and restaurants.

They'll avoid the beef they ought to, and we need to show them that there is a difference. That's my opinion. I'm not trying to say that I can feed the world with my direct marketing, but when something's wrong, i.e. industrial food that's constantly being recalled for health issues, and consumers choose to subsequently avoid it, how can you blame them?

As for that suggestion #5 about having a meat-free day, that to me is just plain stupid. What the hell does that do for anyone? It's not about AVOIDING MEAT, it's about being better educated about what your buying and eating as a consumer, or more aware of what you're producing as a farmer. To say "Avoid Meat", is narrow minded. To say, "Research products and find out where they come from, how they were grown or raised and then make an educated decision.", now that is practical.

And I certainly don't want to tear down my neighbours, or split us into splinter groups bud. I agree with you that we need to stand together, but we need to do it against the corporations and the like - as you said - since they are the ones controlling this crazy ride. We can jump off and take our own road, or stay on and complain about the ones at the wheel.

Goin' to bed, gotta inspect tomorrow at an auction. Have a good one all.

PC

 

[don]

so when will the cattle organizations learn from the direct marketers? people like pure country and grassfarmer know that their interests are more in common with consumers than with nilssons', cargill, jbs et al. the large corporations have convinced producers that the consumer is some sort of adversary whose interests are directly at odds with the rest of the value chain. the corps have also convinced a lot of consumers that they know what good food is and they should eat the gruel put on the supermarket shelves. there is that disconnect between consumers and producers and until it is closed producers will suffer economically and food safety will be compromised.

 

[Grassfarmer]

so when will the cattle organizations learn from the direct marketers? people like pure country and grassfarmer know that their interests are more in common with consumers than with nilssons', cargill, jbs et al. the large corporations have convinced producers that the consumer is some sort of adversary whose interests are directly at odds with the rest of the value chain. the corps have also convinced a lot of consumers that they know what good food is and they should eat the gruel put on the supermarket shelves. there is that disconnect between consumers and producers and until it is closed producers will suffer economically and food safety will be compromised.

Presumably at some point after the majority of producers believe what we believe - that the consumer is our friend, ally and holds the keys to letting us out of the corporate jail commodity beef production is locked in. The cattle organisations are followers not leaders so don't expect them to see the light until the majority of producers do. I think you are right - producers have been conned into thinking the consumer is our enemy - blaming them for a "cheap food policy" and only being interested in buying as cheap as possible - that has not been our experience dealing with consumers.

 

[andybob]

Where I am managing now, is a good example of what can be done with enough financing, but many local producers slaughter through our on-farm abattoir, with cutting and packing available including making up half or quarter packs. The education program on the farm is helping educate future customers not only for this estate but for other direct sellers as well.
Sales through the farm shop, and increasingly,via the internet are increasing as the company invites school visits and has open days for families who can see how the livestock is kept, and a rapport is built up with our customers.
The education is now being extended as the program developed by Mrs Schecter is being included in the national school curriculum, countering the negative imput from the veggie/tree hugger community very sucessfully.
http://www.laverstokepark.co.uk/home

 

[Ben H]

I'll say it again, if the food producer isn't willing to be 100% transparent to the food consumer, something is wrong.

 

[RobertMac]

I'll say it again, if the food producer isn't willing to be 100% transparent to the food consumer, something is wrong.

True, but it is the lack of transparency that is the opportunity...some of us will take advantage while other will complain about how small the crumb is they were given. The commodity industry is simple...all producers are in competition with each other. Producers can be divided into three groups...
The top third are the good businessmen that are profitable most years.
The middle third manages to survive because they love production ag.
The bottom third struggles and many don't make it. Although the bottom third is constantly losing producers, the proportions don't change.

MRJ, said we are producing twice the beef with half the animals today compared to the 1950s...that should mean producers are getting four times the profit. We all know that isn't the case...WHY? Increases in production come at a cost and it is the input suppliers that are becoming profitable from the increased production.

Simplistically, in the beginning, producers would kill a beef, hang the carcass on a cart, go to town, cut and sell beef to the consumer. He got all the profit and controlled his own destiny. Look at the number of jobs we have given up and the lack of control over our destiny...and we wonder why we aren't profitable!

 

[Soapweed]

I'll say it again, if the food producer isn't willing to be 100% transparent to the food consumer, something is wrong.

True, but it is the lack of transparency that is the opportunity...some of us will take advantage while other will complain about how small the crumb is they were given. The commodity industry is simple...all producers are in competition with each other. Producers can be divided into three groups...
The top third are the good businessmen that are profitable most years.
The middle third manages to survive because they love production ag.
The bottom third struggles and many don't make it. Although the bottom third is constantly losing producers, the proportions don't change.

MRJ, said we are producing twice the beef with half the animals today compared to the 1950s...that should mean producers are getting four times the profit. We all know that isn't the case...WHY? Increases in production come at a cost and it is the input suppliers that are becoming profitable from the increased production.

Simplistically, in the beginning, producers would kill a beef, hang the carcass on a cart, go to town, cut and sell beef to the consumer. He got all the profit and controlled his own destiny. Look at the number of jobs we have given up and the lack of control over our destiny...and we wonder why we aren't profitable!

Don't think that all of the street vendors were completely honest, above-board, and "transparent" in those days, though, because they weren't. There was even a fairly good chance it wasn't their own cattle that they butchered to sell the beef from. There has always been scoundrels through the ages, and today's big bad evil corporations are no worse in this regard than many private vendors.

 

[burnt]

I'll say it again, if the food producer isn't willing to be 100% transparent to the food consumer, something is wrong.

True, but it is the lack of transparency that is the opportunity...some of us will take advantage while other will complain about how small the crumb is they were given. The commodity industry is simple...all producers are in competition with each other. Producers can be divided into three groups...
The top third are the good businessmen that are profitable most years.
The middle third manages to survive because they love production ag.
The bottom third struggles and many don't make it. Although the bottom third is constantly losing producers, the proportions don't change.

MRJ, said we are producing twice the beef with half the animals today compared to the 1950s...that should mean producers are getting four times the profit. We all know that isn't the case...WHY? Increases in production come at a cost and it is the input suppliers that are becoming profitable from the increased production.

Simplistically, in the beginning, producers would kill a beef, hang the carcass on a cart, go to town, cut and sell beef to the consumer. He got all the profit and controlled his own destiny. Look at the number of jobs we have given up and the lack of control over our destiny...and we wonder why we aren't profitable!

Don't think that all of the street vendors were completely honest, above-board, and "transparent" in those days, though, because they weren't. There was even a fairly good chance it wasn't their own cattle that they butchered to sell the beef from. There has always been scoundrels through the ages, and today's big bad evil corporations are no worse in this regard than many private vendors.

Only in the magnitude of their effect . . . .

 

[Soapweed]

True, but it is the lack of transparency that is the opportunity...some of us will take advantage while other will complain about how small the crumb is they were given. The commodity industry is simple...all producers are in competition with each other. Producers can be divided into three groups...
The top third are the good businessmen that are profitable most years.
The middle third manages to survive because they love production ag.
The bottom third struggles and many don't make it. Although the bottom third is constantly losing producers, the proportions don't change.

MRJ, said we are producing twice the beef with half the animals today compared to the 1950s...that should mean producers are getting four times the profit. We all know that isn't the case...WHY? Increases in production come at a cost and it is the input suppliers that are becoming profitable from the increased production.

Simplistically, in the beginning, producers would kill a beef, hang the carcass on a cart, go to town, cut and sell beef to the consumer. He got all the profit and controlled his own destiny. Look at the number of jobs we have given up and the lack of control over our destiny...and we wonder why we aren't profitable!

Don't think that all of the street vendors were completely honest, above-board, and "transparent" in those days, though, because they weren't. There was even a fairly good chance it wasn't their own cattle that they butchered to sell the beef from. There has always been scoundrels through the ages, and today's big bad evil corporations are no worse in this regard than many private vendors.

Only in the magnitude of their effect . . . .

Except that with a one-on-one cheating scam, the cheatee takes much more of a beating. How do we know that all big corporations are evil and bad? How do we know that any of them are? Sure, some of the executives get paid exorbitant amounts, but sometimes their expertise is probably worth the big bucks. One thing for sure is that our food systems are very efficient and the safest in the world. You cannot make everything completely safe all of the time. It is completely an impossibility.

 

[RSL]

so when will the cattle organizations learn from the direct marketers? people like pure country and grassfarmer know that their interests are more in common with consumers than with nilssons', cargill, jbs et al. the large corporations have convinced producers that the consumer is some sort of adversary whose interests are directly at odds with the rest of the value chain. the corps have also convinced a lot of consumers that they know what good food is and they should eat the gruel put on the supermarket shelves. there is that disconnect between consumers and producers and until it is closed producers will suffer economically and food safety will be compromised.

Presumably at some point after the majority of producers believe what we believe - that the consumer is our friend, ally and holds the keys to letting us out of the corporate jail commodity beef production is locked in. The cattle organisations are followers not leaders so don't expect them to see the light until the majority of producers do. I think you are right - producers have been conned into thinking the consumer is our enemy - blaming them for a "cheap food policy" and only being interested in buying as cheap as possible - that has not been our experience dealing with consumers.

I think a lot of producers think the auction market is the consumer, and being told that the consumer is the end user doesn't do much for them. It is difficult to see store prices and connect the consumer to the farm gate. The processor/wholesale/retail stage in the system is the least cost to control and exhibits perhaps the greatest economies of scale. I think the problem with a lot of our producer organizations in Canada has been that they tried to serve all producers, rather than the engaged few.
As producers we also have to be responsible for our own marketing program of not just cattle, but the good we provide to the general public, etc. As an example, I bet anyone on here has sequestered more carbon with their cattle operation than the minister of the environment has in the last year.

 

[Blkbuckaroo]

Searched all day in Reno for the movie,finally found it at Barnes and Noble!Very,eye opening! Wow!Glad we raise our own Beef, &Chicken,Think i'll start my little sheep flock again,food safety should start at home,especially for us ranchers!Should be part of home land security!!At least in this area people are behind the local Ag community and want to support local grown Meat and Vegetables grown by folks that care about the wellfare of thier animals and the distance thier food has travelled and the well being of the workers that help to harvest the food they eat,can't see the bad in that.Consumers aren't complacent,and won't stop eating our product,BEEF,they'll see this movie and hunt up some one that cares and is in the food crafting bussiness.Like Ben H says,TRANSPERENCY in your operation goes along way :wink: .It's scary that a company would sue over saving seeds :shock: .You start to wonder what's next :???: .

 

[Ben H]

I guess they could control the animal genetics. Why not, it's no different? Would you be required to castrate everything? Could they sue you if the neighbors bull got out and bred your cow and you decided to keep the bull out of it? Case law.

 

[mrj]

And how do consumers know that some people badmouthing "commercial beef" are not doing so to give their own "local" product an edge, earned or not?

Test and verify.....with independent testing, of course. If you want to claim that "force fed beef" (how is that done, anyway???) is 'tainted' as is implied in some posts here, shouldn't your beef be tested against some randomly chosen commercial beef to see exactly what residues may be in one product or the other?

Consumers hear so much anti-animal propaganda, anti-commercial food propaganda, how can they trust anyone?

With all the claims, and cross purposed claims, how do they know whom to believe. It really is not so simple as "believe the small farmer" and "the big outfit is cheating you or trying to sell you 'tainted' food so he can get rich quick" like some claim. And those claims turn consumers off to most producers, too, as doubt is like an insidious, lingering disease, where our health and safety is concerned.

Be very careful what you wish for, and even more careful of the rumors you monger!

BTW, thanks Cal and Soapweed for speaking in voices of reason and science backed common sense.

mrj

 

[Ben H]

I have seen other local producers who have cattle standing in sh!t eating around a feeder locked up on concrete marketing it as natural. I know one local farm store who drives down to PA, brings them back and puts them in a tie up and feeds them a bunch of grain calling it the same. That's why I bring up the T word, transparency.

 

[leanin' H]

More divisiveness sure solves all the problems in Ag doesn't it? :roll:

 

[leanin' H]

More divisiveness sure solves all the problems in Ag doesn't it? :roll: