Food Inc. Full of...???

vedderman71 · October 2009

As a 38 year old farmer who has "fed the world" my entire life, this deeply saddens me that Pearl Jam would lend it's name in support of a film full with untruths and propoganda. Animal agrilculturalists want our livestock and poultry to thrive and be healthy. The animal science industry takes better care of our animals than we as humans take care of our homeless population.
Write a song about that Ed...

Pepe Silvia · October 2009

you mean he should write a song about how some places add fillers to their cow's food like ground up bones, sawdust, cement....and then pump them full of growth hormones which end up causing infections in the bladders making puss which leads to the cows being pumped full of antibiotics (i saw a report that said up to 70% of the antibiotics used in the country is given to farm animals) to help fight off those infections?

Shawshank · October 2009

Pepe Silvia wrote:

you mean he should write a song about how some places add fillers to their cow's food like ground up bones, sawdust, cement....and then pump them full of growth hormones which end up causing infections in the bladders making puss which leads to the cows being pumped full of antibiotics (i saw a report that said up to 70% of the antibiotics used in the country is given to farm animals) to help fight off those infections?

Please stop being a lazy ass gullible robot and really look into the industry, and maybe even participate in it before you spew the usual bullshit. These vids make it sound like every fucking hamburger out there is pumped up full of garbage. Having farmed and raised livestock (cattle, hogs, turkeys and chickens) most of my life on over 4,000 acres of land, I know a little bit about the industry. Why don't you spend some time on an actual farm and see how much "ground up bones, sawdust, cement and growth hormones" are pumped into these animals. I'm sure you'll be slightly let down that it's not anything like that at all.

mca47 · October 2009

vedderman71 wrote:

As a 38 year old farmer who has "fed the world" my entire life, this deeply saddens me that Pearl Jam would lend it's name in support of a film full with untruths and propoganda. Animal agrilculturalists want our livestock and poultry to thrive and be healthy. The animal science industry takes better care of our animals than we as humans take care of our homeless population.
Write a song about that Ed...

While I think there are certainly a large percentage of farmers who do it right (like I'm sure you do), the industry has become such that the business itself has lead to people cutting cost, and taking shortcuts at the expense of the long term health of the consumer. I have very close friends of my family who are farmers, and growing up in IL, going to school in Iowa...I know dozens of good honest people who really do it right. I also know others who have their hands tied, and have realized that far too often the cost of raising cattle, and growing crops the right way has become just too damn expensive.
I really don't think the band is advocating that all farmers are evil and unless you only eat "certified organic", etc. you are perpetuating the problem.
I happen to be a giant supporter of local farmers and local products. It's really a concept that needs to be pushed more and more. Not only does it support local farmers, but it gives them the means to the capital they need to sustain and flourish in an otherwise difficult industry.
We need to get people out of the idea that the mega-mart is the be all end all of one's shopping needs and to educate people on a) nutrition b) the environment c) supporting the local folks who bust their ass off every day...and perhaps my favorite d) eating some damn good food...because local, un-fucked-with food is the best money can buy.

chiquimonkey · October 2009

i'm all for buying local, and love going to farmers markets just cuz the produce is fresh. but just wanted to share this link as far as 'organic' goes:

http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceN ... ZJ20090729

i just hope people don't buy this movie as gospel (especially if it has a PJ stamp of approval), and try to educate themselves more about the issues.

Travels With · October 2009

chiquimonkey wrote:

i'm all for buying local, and love going to farmers markets just cuz the produce is fresh. but just wanted to share this link as far as 'organic' goes:

http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceN ... ZJ20090729

i just hope people don't buy this movie as gospel (especially if it has a PJ stamp of approval), and try to educate themselves more about the issues.

Great point. It so much better to buy local than to buy organic. I love when people buy organic produce and it's from Chile or some other distant land -- I'm sure that was organic jet fuel that brought over to your Safeway

If you can, buy local!

he still stands · October 2009

this movie is blatantly full of horseshit. It is great that people are wanting to know about everything that goes into their food, but I'd suggest going to a more reputable source for this information. This is a classic hit-and-run documentary full of scare tactics that are either entirely untrue, haven't been practiced for years or decades, or are grossly exaggerated.

Pepe Silvia · October 2009

Shawshank wrote:

Pepe Silvia wrote:

you mean he should write a song about how some places add fillers to their cow's food like ground up bones, sawdust, cement....and then pump them full of growth hormones which end up causing infections in the bladders making puss which leads to the cows being pumped full of antibiotics (i saw a report that said up to 70% of the antibiotics used in the country is given to farm animals) to help fight off those infections?

Please stop being a lazy ass gullible robot and really look into the industry, and maybe even participate in it before you spew the usual bullshit. These vids make it sound like every fucking hamburger out there is pumped up full of garbage. Having farmed and raised livestock (cattle, hogs, turkeys and chickens) most of my life on over 4,000 acres of land, I know a little bit about the industry. Why don't you spend some time on an actual farm and see how much "ground up bones, sawdust, cement and growth hormones" are pumped into these animals. I'm sure you'll be slightly let down that it's not anything like that at all.

please stop being a dickhead

while i'm sure many small farms don't use these practices but i really doubt the huge corporate farms take such care, hell, Monsanto fought a court battle for a decade or so over not wanting other dairies to us a label 'rBGH free' and haven't Canada and the European Union banned use of rBGH?? i guess they are being lazy ass gullible people, too :roll:

and a lot of times hamburgers do have this stuff because a lot of places will use a mixture of meat from different sources and mix them all together, recently a girl got e coli from a frozen hamburger because the company used meat from 4 or so different places and since there is no law or regulation saying they have to test trimmings for things like e. coli it tainted her meat and she got sick and wound up in a coma for a little over 2 months because the company that made the hamburgers wanted to save money

confidential grinding logs and other Cargill records show that the hamburgers were made from a mix of slaughterhouse trimmings and a mash-like product derived from scraps that were ground together at a plant in Wisconsin. The ingredients came from slaughterhouses in Nebraska, Texas and Uruguay, and from a South Dakota company that processes fatty trimmings and treats them with ammonia to kill bacteria.

Using a combination of sources — a practice followed by most large producers of fresh and packaged hamburger — allowed Cargill to spend about 25 percent less than it would have for cuts of whole meat.

so, while i'm sure a lot of smaller and family type farms do not use these practices the major agroindustrial sector DOES, is anyone saying 100% of farmers use these practices?

Pepe Silvia · October 2009

he still stands wrote:

this movie is blatantly full of horseshit. It is great that people are wanting to know about everything that goes into their food, but I'd suggest going to a more reputable source for this information. This is a classic hit-and-run documentary full of scare tactics that are either entirely untrue, haven't been practiced for years or decades, or are grossly exaggerated.

i haven't seen this documentary, what in it is untrue?

he still stands · October 2009

Pepe Silvia wrote:

he still stands wrote:

this movie is blatantly full of horseshit. It is great that people are wanting to know about everything that goes into their food, but I'd suggest going to a more reputable source for this information. This is a classic hit-and-run documentary full of scare tactics that are either entirely untrue, haven't been practiced for years or decades, or are grossly exaggerated.

i haven't seen this documentary, what in it is untrue?

just a few:

the "slow food" model in the movie would be able to feed the world. Untrue: An estimation from the Journal of Animal Science was an increase of 3-5X of today's food prices, making food too expensive for another BILLION people in the world.

Broiler chickens are raised in cages. Untrue: they are raised in open air shelters

Broiler chickens are genetically modified i.e. franken chickens. Untrue: Broiler chickens have been selectively breeded over the centuries, something that has been done since before the time of Christ.

The slow food model is more healthy. Untrue: more "therapeutic" antibiotics would be required which is a much higher dosage than the upkeep done on all animals today. For example, in Denmark there is a ban on a lot of antibiotics, but therapeutic dosages have gone up 96% since they were banned in 2002.

The model would be better for the environment. Untrue: It would require 40 MM additional farmers up from 1MM today. Deforestation would be a problem, meanwhile food production will need to DOUBLE by 2050.

Most farms are corporate farms. Untrue: 98% of farms in the US are owned by individuals.

Corn isn't a natural food for cattle. Untrue: Cattle have been eating corn for hundreds of years and it is digested almost completely when it is broken/cracked.

E Coli only exists because cattle eat corn. Untrue: E Coli exists in the digestive tract of all animals, whether grazing on pasture or fed grain.

Organic crops are better for you and the environment. Untrue: Farmers still have to spray these with "natural" pesticides that include things like copper and sulfur, but since they are less effective they have to use higher amounts which is worse for the environment and for you. People have DIED from this, no one has ever died because of "normal" pesticides used (like RoundUp).

Antibiotics aren't necessary for production of meat. Untrue: (if you can't afford $20 / lb for ground beef and $100 for a steak) Maintenance doses allow farmers to not use "therapeutic" doses when the animal gets sick. Therapeutic doses are dangerous to the person eating the animal. Maintenance doses are not.

http://reason.com/archives/2006/10/25/h ... crust-eats

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/19/scien ... .html?_r=2

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7974995.stm

- Journal of Animal Science, March 13 2009

-28 years of experience in food production (corn, soybeans, beef, pork)

this is just from 20 minutes of research and a fundamental understanding of the industry.

Pepe Silvia · October 2009

he still stands wrote:

Pepe Silvia wrote:

he still stands wrote:

this movie is blatantly full of horseshit. It is great that people are wanting to know about everything that goes into their food, but I'd suggest going to a more reputable source for this information. This is a classic hit-and-run documentary full of scare tactics that are either entirely untrue, haven't been practiced for years or decades, or are grossly exaggerated.

i haven't seen this documentary, what in it is untrue?

just a few:

the "slow food" model in the movie would be able to feed the world. Untrue: An estimation from the Journal of Animal Science was an increase of 3-5X of today's food prices, making food too expensive for another BILLION people in the world.

Broiler chickens are raised in cages. Untrue: they are raised in open air shelters

Broiler chickens are genetically modified i.e. franken chickens. Untrue: Broiler chickens have been selectively breeded over the centuries, something that has been done since before the time of Christ.

The slow food model is more healthy. Untrue: more "therapeutic" antibiotics would be required which is a much higher dosage than the upkeep done on all animals today. For example, in Denmark there is a ban on a lot of antibiotics, but therapeutic dosages have gone up 96% since they were banned in 2002.

The model would be better for the environment. Untrue: It would require 40 MM additional farmers up from 1MM today. Deforestation would be a problem, meanwhile food production will need to DOUBLE by 2050.

Most farms are corporate farms. Untrue: 98% of farms in the US are owned by individuals.

Corn isn't a natural food for cattle. Untrue: Cattle have been eating corn for hundreds of years and it is digested almost completely when it is broken/cracked.

E Coli only exists because cattle eat corn. Untrue: E Coli exists in the digestive tract of all animals, whether grazing on pasture or fed grain.

Organic crops are better for you and the environment. Untrue: Farmers still have to spray these with "natural" pesticides that include things like copper and sulfur, but since they are less effective they have to use higher amounts which is worse for the environment and for you. People have DIED from this, no one has ever died because of "normal" pesticides used (like RoundUp).

Antibiotics aren't necessary for production of meat. Untrue: (if you can't afford $20 / lb for ground beef and $100 for a steak) Maintenance doses allow farmers to not use "therapeutic" doses when the animal gets sick. Therapeutic doses are dangerous to the person eating the animal. Maintenance doses are not.

http://reason.com/archives/2006/10/25/h ... crust-eats

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/19/scien ... .html?_r=2

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7974995.stm

- Journal of Animal Science, March 13 2009

-28 years of experience in food production (corn, soybeans, beef, pork)

this is just from 20 minutes of research and a fundamental understanding of the industry.

like i said, i haven't seen it so i can't really comment on what you said since i don't know the context they made the claims....like the antibiotics...was it saying ALL antibiotics were unnecessary or the overuse of it because of problems related to use of rBGH and rBGT?

also, the ratios of family farms can be kind of confusing the way certain farms are defined. the dept of agriculture says only 90% are 'family' farms but a family farm can still be contracted to a corporation solely (also this report is like 12 years old so family farms could have grown since then)

also, it depends on what crop/product we are talking about in regards to if 'family' farms produce more. here is a study from UC Davis (again, old, from 2000)

http://www.agecon.ucdavis.edu/extension ... v6n4_2.pdf

you can see 'very large/corporate farms' produce far more than the smaller ones, more than the other categories combined.

it also said, in 2000, 55% of family farms had to rely on off farm work to make it by

also, corn isn't that good a feed for farm animals because it is loaded with omega-6's which promote blood clotting and inflamation and the nutrients in grass, like omega-3's, are far better for the animal and us

when i looked up broiler chickens there were a lot of pics of them in pens, though, it did say the majority of these were raised on family farms so i guess it depends on how they run their farm. it also noted

Broiler chickens may often get joint disorders because their legs cannot bear the heavy bodies. A Swedish study by SLU Skara (Swedish farming university) revealed that only 1/3 of studied broiler chickens that were about to be slaughtered were healthy.[4] Additionally, it is very inactive and as a result is a poor forager, prone to predation, and is generally not suited to small free range homestead flocks.

If the litter in the pen is not properly managed to prevent birds from standing and resting in their feces hock burns and foot ulcerations and blisters can occur. Pastured birds which are rotated frequently typically do not have these issues.

Dead Man Walking · October 2009

This board needs more informative threads like this one.

I'm pretty sure Ontario is responsible for something like 90% of Canada's produce (Alberta is primarily responsible for our beef) and I'd like to really look into the information that is currently available on the issues of "improper animal treatments". Unfortunately, I think most of the stuff I'll be able to find will only focus on the small percentage of negatives and not a whole lot of the positives.

he still stands · October 2009

Pepe Silvia wrote:

like i said, i haven't seen it so i can't really comment on what you said since i don't know the context they made the claims....like the antibiotics...was it saying ALL antibiotics were unnecessary or the overuse of it because of problems related to use of rBGH and rBGT?.

Those are growth hormones, not antibiotics. Those should be tabled, given the amount of legitimate science that says they are harmful. Our family farm didn't use them and I don't think many beef farms do... milk on the other hand...

Pepe Silvia wrote:

also, the ratios of family farms can be kind of confusing the way certain farms are defined. the dept of agriculture says only 90% are 'family' farms but a family farm can still be contracted to a corporation solely (also this report is like 12 years old so family farms could have grown since then).

I don't know... it is ambigious. My family farm might be considered a "corporate farm",technically it is, because it is set up as a corporation for tax reasons. But it is a small operation with 1 employee... it just depends on your definition of a "big evil corporate farm." how many acres? lbs produced? bushels? I don't know...

Pepe Silvia wrote:

also, it depends on what crop/product we are talking about in regards to if 'family' farms produce more. here is a study from UC Davis (again, old, from 2000)

http://www.agecon.ucdavis.edu/extension ... v6n4_2.pdf

you can see 'very large/corporate farms' produce far more than the smaller ones, more than the other categories combined.

it also said, in 2000, 55% of family farms had to rely on off farm work to make it by.

very true, and that is because of the "middle-men" Cargill, ADM, distributors, and grocery stores who all are getting paid to do relatively little. For example, when you buy a $2 loaf of bread, the farmer gets $0.02 to $0.04!!! In addition, input prices are sky high (fuel, fertilizer, land, property taxes) so there is pressure on both sides.

Pepe Silvia wrote:

lso, corn isn't that good a feed for farm animals because it is loaded with omega-6's which promote blood clotting and inflamation and the nutrients in grass, like omega-3's, are far better for the animal and us.

I don't know I'd want to do more research on this...

Pepe Silvia wrote:

when i looked up broiler chickens there were a lot of pics of them in pens, though, it did say the majority of these were raised on family farms so i guess it depends on how they run their farm. it also noted

Broiler chickens may often get joint disorders because their legs cannot bear the heavy bodies. A Swedish study by SLU Skara (Swedish farming university) revealed that only 1/3 of studied broiler chickens that were about to be slaughtered were healthy.[4] Additionally, it is very inactive and as a result is a poor forager, prone to predation, and is generally not suited to small free range homestead flocks.

If the litter in the pen is not properly managed to prevent birds from standing and resting in their feces hock burns and foot ulcerations and blisters can occur. Pastured birds which are rotated frequently typically do not have these issues.

Yes, broiler chickens do have problems with their legs. They grow so fast that maybe 1% look like they have a broken leg - in my experience. As far as 1/3 not being healthy, that is a gross exaggeration and oversimplification. What is meant by "not healthy?" Hell, even the Jewish Kosher markets that are sold to typically only turn back a few chickens here and there, and they will turn back a chicken for being the wrong color!!! I'm all for animal rights and do not want any animal to be treated improperly. It is a shame and believe me, there are reputable animal rights groups doing something about it. Good for them.

Pepe Silvia · October 2009

he still stands wrote:

Pepe Silvia wrote:

like i said, i haven't seen it so i can't really comment on what you said since i don't know the context they made the claims....like the antibiotics...was it saying ALL antibiotics were unnecessary or the overuse of it because of problems related to use of rBGH and rBGT?.

Those are growth hormones, not antibiotics. Those should be tabled, given the amount of legitimate science that says they are harmful. Our family farm didn't use them and I don't think many beef farms do... milk on the other hand...

yes, but use of those growth hormones cause infections in the udders of the cows so they have to be given more antibiotics than a cow without the hormone (or just goes untreated)

he still stands wrote:

very true, and that is because of the "middle-men" Cargill, ADM, distributors, and grocery stores who all are getting paid to do relatively little. For example, when you buy a $2 loaf of bread, the farmer gets $0.02 to $0.04!!! In addition, input prices are sky high (fuel, fertilizer, land, property taxes) so there is pressure on both sides.

that is crazy! i guess that's why so many have to have jobs off their farms. i try to buy local stuff as often as i can, luckily there's a few farmer's markets and stands in the area. how much wheat goes into a single load? how do they make it getting so little in return? i've worried about the corporate farm taking over and pushing out the smaller family farms because they can't compete with the prices and cutting corners but i'm glad there are actually so many of them around.

can smaller farms get tax breaks or any kind of help or subsidy?

he still stands · October 2009

i didn't know that about growth hormones... and like I said I think they should NOT be used.

In regards to subsidies, yes, farmers do receive subsidies, including corporate farms. It is based on production, not price, which I also disagree with fervently. It benefits corporate farms too much and doesn't benefit the small farmer enough. Contrary to popular belief though, most farmers are not rich. My brother is trying to get started and working as a teacher and farming, working over 100 hours a week during planting, harvest, etc. (this morning I called him and he got in at 4am and left at 6am to go to work). He still has barely enough to get by but is called "a rich farmer" and is demonized by people who think he is poisoining them with his food... :?

vedderman71 · October 2009

WOW! As a good ole' midwestern farm boy, I'm really glad I started this thread.
Without making this post huge by quoting you fine folks, I will say I really appreciate Shawshank, mca47 and He Still Stands for making some really great points. Many points that I wanted to originally make, but just wanted to see where the thread went.
If we educate just one "Pepe" at a time it will be well worth it.
My best friends run a "farm-fresh freezer beef" business just 20 minutes outside of Indy and their business is booming on word of mouth alone. Though Omega 6's might promote blood clotting, I have yet to ever see a beef animal die let alone have issues with blood clotting. I realize your concern might be with the human consumer having issues with clotting, but those w/ this issues probably have other factors; such as family history or other diet choices.
It still comes down to the simple fact that U.S. agriculture is the #1 supplier of the SAFEST supply food to the world...Period.
University of Illinois (ILL-ini -Fire Ron Zook NOW!)
Ag Education, '93

Jeanwah · October 2009

Haven't seen Food, Inc. yet.

But I have seen The Future of Food. Any of you farm boys want to comment on it and it's accuracy?

Commy · October 2009

my uncle used to raise cattle. he designed a food for calfs, and he had it down to where he could grow a calf to full maturity in 1 year. they were getting enough sustenance form these pellets he designed that they were full grown in a year. this was 20 years ago, i have no idea the culture today. but at the time that was a big deal. and his cows were healthy, the steaks were tender.

what got me interested was that he didn't pump his cows full of antibiotics or corn or anything they use today. it was just a high nutrient food pellet, basically organic. he didn't need all the other shit, his cows were healthy, and it was a pretty big operation.

but his bottom line wasn't profit, he was given the job with some leeway, he ran it his way. and still made a profit.

to me it seems this is another example of greed fucking everything up; what's best for us, whats best for the cows, fuck all that. lets make some money., pump em full of corn and antibiotics and let teh people have ground beef from 10 different plants, and fuck it if they get ecoli or some cow gets cement in its food. profit is the bottom line, fuck the rest.

and that's capitalism for you.

he still stands · October 2009

vedderman71 wrote:

University of Illinois (ILL-ini -Fire Ron Zook NOW!)
Ag Education, '93

ILLINI! I went there for one year before transferring to WIU to be with a love interest :evil: and yes I agree, FIRE RON ZOOK! At least basketball season starts soon and the future is bright in Chambana.

polaris_x · October 2009

similar to that other thread about farming - i think the issues are related to factory farming practices ... at the end of the day - i think most of us are on the same page for the most part ... we want to ensure a food supply that is holistically good for the population ... i would think if you are a farmer and that you are doing things properly then a documentary (which i haven't seen) that highlights the farms that aren't doing it right would be good ... these are the farms that undermine the market price of the food you guys grow ...

the other issue is the state of regulatory standards ... the US allows bovine growth hormone - that in it of itself raises concerns about whether the FDA operates on behalf of citizens or large corporations like monsanto ...

vedderman71 · October 2009

To honestly think that any of you would really believe any decent cattleman would feed their catlle CEMENT speaks to your level of ignorance (let alone comon sence) on this topic.
Since when is profitability a crime in the U.S.? A healthy thriving animal is a profitable animal.
But then again, I am "reasoning" with people with the handle "Commy" and a Canadian...what was I thinking?
Ha, j/k.
Vote with your buying choices. Buy local "farm fresh." Buy organic.
And I agree, we as an industry always need to do a better job of policing our own growers. The few bad apples can ruin it for the rest of us. Just know that the exception is NOT the norm.

Food Inc. Full of...???

Comments

Categories