If there were one thing that you could do to make the biggest difference in the shortest amount of time, what would it be?

Every dollar invested in agriculture is twice as effective in reducing poverty as investing in non-agriculture sectors. I truly believe it’s not the producing of food that will eliminate hunger; it’s the access and ability to afford food that will eliminate hunger! The economy of a society must improve. And it’s my understanding that agriculture is always the basis to begin improving an economy.

But where do we start? I believe we start with kids. If you have listened to Trent Loos this week, you know that human milk is medicine. Good nutrition during pregnancy followed by mother’s milk gives a child a great start! This time frame is so critical to the brain and its future functioning. How can an economy flourish with stunted bodies?

Food aid programs in the past have been pretty much all reactive. When there is a crisis, you want to get people fed! I was thinking about this a lot last week as I traveled to Washington, D.C. I kept thinking of the saying, “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him to fish and you feed him for life.” This sounds simple, but I think we all know it’s complicated!

First of all, it takes money to do anything in this world. That’s one of the reasons I was in D.C. last week with a group of farmers who are part of The Farm Journal Foundation’s Farmers Feeding the World initiative. A group of 21 farmers from 16 states are making a special effort to make a difference in the world by combating hunger.

How can we make the world a better place? Well-fed people are less likely to fight wars. Well- fed people can build a better economy. Although some people wonder why U.S. farmers are concerned about the well being of others around the world, I’m looking forward to this new challenge!

Guest blog post by Aaron Putze, APR

Director of Communications & External Relations

Iowa Soybean Association, Iowa Food & Family Project

We’ll soon celebrate Independence Day commemorating the adoption of the Declaration of Independence and our severance from the British Empire. The popular holiday features fireworks, parades, family reunions and baseball games. As with most events, food is a central part of the celebration with picnics and barbecues among the most popular Fourth of July activities.

As we gather next Monday around grills, picnic tables and fire pits to enjoy time with friends and family, perhaps we can declare another form of independence – this one from the ongoing food fights that needlessly sap precious time, energy and money while undermining the health of humans and the planet.

The idea came to mind when, as if on cue, the U.S. Senate leadership last week brokered a “landmark” agreement seeking a compromise on the long-standing dustup over the labeling of food that includes genetically modified ingredients. The bill, crafted in response to a Vermont law set to take effect July 1 requiring the labeling of GMO foods, would establish a national standard of mandatory disclosure of GMO ingredients through a variety of options including quick-response codes, 800-numbers, websites and on-package labeling.

The setting of a national mandatory standard (action on the bill is expected before the July 4 holiday) would pre-empt state labeling laws like that of Vermont. Doing so would avoid a patchwork of differing requirements between states while avoiding a $400 to $1,000 annual increase in what the average U.S. household spends for food, according to a studies provided by John Dunham & Associates of New York City and the Biotechnology Industry Organization.

Now, keep in mind that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration requires labeling only if an ingredient poses a health or safety risk (like calories and allergens). A GMO shouldn’t be in the conversation because it’s not a product. Biotechnology is technology based on biology; a process that has improved lives by making food products such as bread, cheese, grain and dairy products more plentiful and useful.

What makes the ruckus over GMOs so nonsensical is that time and time again, genetic modification has been declared safe. Countless health and wellness officials, organizations and institutions and federal agencies and authorities have studied and rendered their judgement. The latest to give GMOs a clean bill of health is the National Academies of Science. Its 388-page report summarizing a review of 900 studies and data covering 20 years since genetically modified crops were first introduced struck a familiar conclusion. Genetically engineered crops, it declared, are safe for humans and animals to eat and have not caused increases in cancer, obesity, gastrointestinal illnesses, kidney disease, autism or allergies (or any number of other maladies that have been blamed on GMOs). Read more here.

The report will do little to calm the shark-infested waters surrounding GMOs. Too much time and treasure have been invested by those who profit from making consumers fearful of this important and life-saving practice, not unlike other food issues.

The GMO issue, after all, is just the tip of food fight iceberg. Every day, it seems there’s something else wrong with our food, whether the topic is hormones (news flash: they’re naturally present in both food and our bodies), the use of antibiotics to care for livestock (second news flash: there can be no antibiotic residue on the food you buy) or what in the world makes something “natural” or “local” (on the latter, consumers define local from as narrow as “across the street from where I live” to as broadly as “grown somewhere in the United States”).

Indeed, food conversations have evolved from “clean your plate” and “take it or leave it.” Now, it includes what’s in food, where it comes from, who grows it and how it’s grown.

This scrutiny about what we put in our bodies didn’t materialize out of thin air. Some of the interest is real and sincere, and that’s a good thing. What’s dangerous, however, is the context hyped by a small group of food elites (cue the Humane Society of the United States’ Wayne Pacelle and affluent world traveler and author Michael Pollan), bloggers and reporters, TV personalities and non-government organizations intent on dictating how food is grown and how we eat.

In the path of the wave of supposed consumer discontent are those who prepare, market and sell food. When reacting, they have two options: fight or flight. Most have chosen the latter. At first, the decision was made out of fear of being bullied by those who have made food a religion.

Over time, however, another justification has emerged – one that’s even more powerful. You see, the confusion over food can actually be good for business. Using the powerful persuasion of emotion, a growing number of processors, vendors, brand managers and food retailers are distinguishing themselves in the marketplace by making clever and often unsubstantiated claims about food (ever heard of “Food with Integrity?” or “Eat Consciously, Live Responsible?”).

Emotion is the powerful engine driving consumer behavior, a fact not lost on retailers and brand managers, most of whom operate in a high-volume, low-margin business. To boost revenue, a wise tactic is to increase sales of higher-margin offerings. If consumers are willing to spend 15, 25 or 50 percent more or double or triple the price of a conventional offering based on how it makes them feel or look, than food marketers will eagerly make the sale. To justify the increased cost, they attach specific attributes to that product to differentiate it from its competitor. This holds true whether we’re talking mayonnaise at your favorite grocer or the “grass finished” steak sold for $28 per pound.

Today, perception is the new reality. It also drives value. Popular labels proclaiming a product as “local,” “sustainable,” “farm fresh” and “natural” are nearly impossible to define or validate. But consumers will pay more because they have been conditioned to believe products claiming to be those things are better, safer and healthier.

Yet documented nutritional, health and safety differences between traditional products and the “new-and-improved” offerings are negligible at best. In fact, most often the only discernable difference between the two is price. One could even go further, however, and make the case that the food labeling craze is actually harming human health, animal care and the environment because it’s dismissing practices founded on science and substance in favor of splash and sizzle and what’s best for shareholders this quarter. By disparaging the use of GMOs and antibiotics (to name just two) , they’re altering the use of safe and sound agricultural practices that have been adopted over generations of continuous improvement to the benefit of human health, the environment and the family budget.

Undefinable and unsubstantiated marketing claims. Instantaneous communications. Well-funded activist groups. Less personal and individual understanding of agriculture. The dismissal of science in favor of feelings and emotion. These realities are just a few of the reasons confusion reigns in the food conversation.

It doesn’t have to be this way. Let’s declare our independence from irrational fears, unsubstantiated claims and meaningless food labels by taking the time to study and understand the issues and to ignore those who profit from pedaling fear and confusion.

Now please pass the barbecued ribs, potato salad, baked beans and cherry cheesecake. Let’s eat!

As I’m writing this morning, I’m preparing to visit the offices of our elected officials in Washington, D.C. I’ve made this trip as a member of the Farm Journal Foundation’s Farm Team. This nonprofit corporation is dedicated to sustaining U.S. agriculture’s ability to serve the vital needs of a growing world population. This team is a group of farmers, working together to fight world hunger!

Preparing for today’s meetings on Capitol Hill got me thinking about the perception of agriculture – and especially of farming practices – around the world. I’ve written about different perceptions in the past (and you’ll find links to these posts below), but today I’m going to address this topic from a different angle.

Recently I read a post on Facebook to an article, claiming that glyphosate is much worse than feared! People were jumping all over each other with comments like, “I told you so!” The headline of this article supported their own beliefs, so many of these folks jumped into the discussion without obviously reading the copy. If you read the copy and checked the sources, it stated that glyphosate has helped reduce herbicide use and is safe when the rules, including use of Personal Protective Equipment, are followed.

“Roundup and glyphosate is a hot button topic… When you really take the time to digest some of the facts, read the labels, and put it into perspective with other common household items, the toxicity of glyphosate is extremely low. I’ve written an article before on fear. We don’t need to make our lives more complicated by buying into these fears spread much like the article above,” writes Jenny Dewey in a Huffington Post article.

It comes down to perception and emotion. People’s perception of danger is not just based on the facts. If consumers don’t like the way those “facts feel,” they believe all the negative comments. No wonder it’s so difficult to convince people of the great things farmers are doing!

We’ve seen first-hand in North Iowa how much weight negative words and actions can carry when Prestage Farms was considering building a pork processing facility in Mason City. Old arguments about modern livestock production resurfaced. I thought we were doing a great job sharing why we farm the way we do. Climate-controlled barns are better for our pigs, better for the environment and better those of us who work on the farm! But our voice got lost when a group of anti-modern farmers started beating their drums louder.

This week I’m trying very hard to keep an open mind while having conversations in D.C. I’m trying not to let naysayers keep me from accomplishing – or at least advancing – some progress in world hunger. Let’s all keep open minds! Remember to “listen” and dig deeper into the discussion.

Related Posts:

• What’s Your Perception of Farming?
• Regardless of Perception, Do What’s Right!
• North Iowan’s (Mis)Perception of Family Farms

Recently, I’ve been addressing common questions people have about Prestage Farms and the new packing plant this company is considering to build in North Iowa. I believe Prestage is a great fit in my home county of Franklin! Last week I wrote about family farms versus “factory farms.” Two weeks ago I covered pig poop and why it’s a valuable resource.

This week I’d like to talk about “animal welfare.” There is a distinct difference between treating animals humanely and humanly. In the past, I’ve described how modern pig farms are not Old McDonald’s Farm. Many positive changes have occurred since the 1950’s and 60’s, yet many Americans have almost a romantic notion about “the good ol’ days.”

Those of us who “live farming” can see how technology has led to improved production systems that are better for the environment and for the animals. Those who grew up on a farm but moved away years ago – or those who are three generations removed from the farm – may need a comparison. Here’s an analogy that may help…

Imagine you’re enjoying a beautiful spring day with blue skies, bright sunshine, gentle breezes and a high between 72 and 75 degrees. (We’ve experienced this recently, so it’s not too hard to image, right?) Now think of a day when you can’t buy a breeze, and the sun is so scorching hot it feels as though you could fry an egg on the sidewalk! Contrast this to the discomfort you feel when the north wind is gusting at 30 miles an hour, the mercury is dipping below zero and your eyelashes freeze in the few minutes it takes you to walk across a parking lot.

Iowa weather can be extreme. Our summers can get miserably hot, and the winters can be bitterly cold. When we raised pigs on pasture, they were miserable and so was I! Some people think it’s better for pigs to remain outside than it is to stay cool inside a climate-controlled pig barn.

There’s no way I’d trade a modern barn for pig huts on pasture. I’m often reminded of how much better today’s production methods are. For example, last week I was called to adjust some air ventilators inside a gestation barn. It was 95 degrees outside, but inside this stall gestation barn it was 79 degrees! I couldn’t help but notice the contented sows. Many were sleeping comfortably, and a few woke up and curiously checked me out as I worked to adjust new ceiling vents.

These vents prevent warm air from coming inside. When it’s warm outside, fresh air is pulled through “cool cells” to keep the inside temperatures consistent. One end of the building is lined with specially treated corrugated cardboard that has water continuously soaking it. The fresh air comes in through the corrugations, which cools the air down about 20 degrees!

Modern pig barns are a good place for people to work and a good place for pigs to live. Farmers make their animals as comfortable as possible. They provide their livestock with fresh food, fresh air, and fresh water. Livestock should be treated with respect and receive the best care a farmer can give them. After all, it’s the right thing to do!

We must also keep in mind that the animals we raise are livestock. Since the beginning of time, people have had dominion over animals. This means humans have the reasoning power to make life and death decisions for our livestock. We give our livestock the best quality of life that we can, and then we respect them in death because their purpose is to feed our growing population. I have blogged in the past about how developing nations increase their meat consumption as their economy improves. When an emerging economy wants to improve its diet, the country’s ruler doesn’t say “let’s eat vegan!” The people in these countries want the best protein they can afford, and that protein is meat.

Meat production facilities and a new processing plant can help grow our locally economy, as well as the Iowa economy. This is Iowa, folks, and we grow pigs here! We have great resources that makes agriculture – and pork production – a great fit here.

Farming has been a great means of growing the economy since the beginning of time! Our towns, our schools, our Main Street businesses need a growing economy. Let’s welcome new industry! Sure, there are always growing pains but we can overcome any challenges… together!