Let me preface this entry by saying that John Besh is my favorite chef. He’s actually one of my favorite human beings. Not only has he served our country, but he is the model of locally and regionally-based cooking and cultural food preservation in the Gulf states. I’ve not had the pleasure of meeting him, but my colleagues and I have done everything within our power–and nonprofit salaries–to dine at nearly all of his restaurants over the past few years. In short, I adore John Besh. There is no place I would prefer to spend my money than in his restaurants.
This week we received in the mail an invitation to participate in the Food Dialogues, a “town hall” meeting of sorts produced by the newly formed U.S. Farmers & Ranchers Alliance. I wrote about this organization in April here and they are a puppet regime.
Organized at the behest of AgriBiz, the U.S. FRA has nothing to do with actual farmers. Less than 1% of farmers still live on the land they farm in the U.S. and as you likely know, if you are reading this, you are aware that those represented by Ketchum, Zocalo and the multinational conglomerates they represent, have absolutely nothing to do with local and regionally based food economies. And everything to do with the bottom line, despite co-opting the terms “sustainable” and “environmentally responsible.”
Over the past week I have considered reaching out to John Besh directly. Given my work with chefs I am well aware of the limitations on their time. And so I am positing that Besh, most likely through no fault of his own, has, through someone close to him, become a party to those who would undermine all that we collectively stand for.
It is quite plain, even if one had no background knowledge of the issues at hand, that U.S. Farmers & Ranchers Alliance, is at minimum a trade group bankrolled by the entities stated quite plainly in their “Meet Our Affiliates and Industry Partners” page.
The USFRA “Premier Partner Advisory Group” includes Monsanto and DuPont.
“American consumers are interested in learning how their food is grown and raised,” said John Raines, vice president of customer advocacy for Monsanto. “Billions of people depend upon what farmers and ranchers do on a daily basis. Monsanto is proud to support USFRA’s efforts to lead a dialogue – bringing together the voices of farmers, ranchers and agricultural partners – to address questions consumers are asking.”
On September 22nd, this puppet entity will hold a Town Hall-style meeting in which our beloved chef, John Besh, is involved. The purpose is ostensibly to unite all scales of producers in dialogue about how America’s food is produced. It is, in fact, a propaganda mechanism by AgriBiz. Won’t you join me in saying “no” to this thinly-veiled attempt to sway Americans’ hearts and minds toward an agriculture that pollutes, kills and holds false arguments that misframe the issues before us all?
cc: @michaelpollan @tomphilpott @FARFA_org
You are very passionate about farming and where our food comes from, so I sincerely hope you won’t choose to dismiss USFRA’s Food Dialogues without experiencing it. USFRA is an organization comprised of more than 50 national, regional and state agricultural groups and their partners, marking the first time such a wide range of farmer- and rancher-led organizations are leading a dialogue about how food is raised and grown. USFRA affiliates represent all types of farmers and ranchers, as well as all types of farming and ranching. It’s not exclusive to large or small; organic, natural or conventional; or free-range, cage-free or confinement operations. It’s a broad organization with room for many voices all aligned in an effort to better inform consumers about their food choices. We invite all types of farmers and ranchers to unite and participate in this effort. We have also invited agribusiness partners to join us, as they too have a stake in the many shapes and forms or today’s agriculture. However, the vision and the activities of (and the primary funding for) what USFRA is undertaking is directed by farmers and ranchers who serve on the USFRA Board. We are creating a “big table,” inviting everyone who cares about the future of food to engage in this dialogue. Which is why it is unfortunate for you to dismiss it so readily without giving it a chance to first take place. Our initiative is definitely a shift in how farmers and ranchers of all shapes and sizes listen to, and communicate with, our ultimate customers – the American consumers.
I invite you to participate in our Town Hall sessions on Thursday, September 22, to learn more. We are live streaming the event so anyone can participate. Please visit http://www.usfraonline.org or http://www.fooddialogues.com for more information.
Thanks.
Hugh Whaley
USFRA General Manager
Hugh, thank you for your response. I certainly understand the need to urge activists like myself to participate in Food Dialogues. Thirty million dollars a year per year, at least, rides upon it–and that is just for the marketing by Ketchum and Zocalo. The Financial Times got it right in their August 16 article by Alan Rappeport. I echo farmer Joel Salatin’s words that the U.S. Farmer and Rancher Alliance campaign is “laughable.”
I’m not dismissing your efforts. As you can plainly tell, in fact, I am following your moves with a keen interest. Dismissing a person or an entity prior to thorough research is not something that I do. The language with which you responded to me above is cohesive and inclusive-sounding. I implore you to see that the industry agenda in which you are involved is anything but. Though most of your response is USFRA boilerplate, and shared near-verbatim in the letter to the Financial Times editor by your CEO. Be an original. You did fail to mention the thirty-million-dollar word, however: local. Where do local economies and local producers fall into the place settings at your “big table?”
Until four years ago I was like you. A mouthpiece for industry devoid of truth. The income I derived was made selling the public food and drugs they did not need, largely at the expense of public health.
And then I read Wendell Berry. Michael Pollan. Wes Jackson. Marion Nestle. Have you read any of these writers’ books, Hugh? I offer you a challenge: if you can read any one of these writers’ works and still look at yourself in the mirror each morning, continuing to pursue the role you occupy, without reproach from your conscience, very well. If, however, you read these words and realize the truth: that you are being used as a cog in the machine of industry, to the detriment of life, I offer you my hand across the darkness; my counsel and my respect. Come away.
Susan
Susan, thanks for allowing my initial response to be posted, and also for your follow-up comments. Unfortunately, Mr. Rappeport’s article was not correct in several instances, despite the fact the three of our farmer leaders sat across the table from him and answered his questions about USFRA. And Mr. Salatin’s remark that our effort is “laughable” also comes without a single conversation with me or anyone else in USFRA about our mission and objectives. I would certainly welcome that conversation.
Regarding the funding figure you mention, that’s nowhere close to what our current budget is. When we first announced the formation of USFRA in November 2010, we noted that many successful long-term communications efforts had budgets up to $30 million. Our 2011 operating revenues are just under $11 million, with 75% of that funding coming from farmers and ranchers and 25% from our industry partners. And those funds have been received throughout the year, not all at once. While we anticipate our program and budget to grow, there is absolutely no guarantee of that. The majority of the USFRA Board is comprised of working farmers and ranchers and they make the budget allocation decisions.
A little about myself, Susan. I’ve been working for or with farmers and ranchers for about 30 years. All sizes. All operating methods. I’ve found the folks that grow and raise the basic food commodities we eat the most honest, hard-working and completely transparent people I’ve ever had the pleasure to work with and/or for. My wife’s parents are still farming in North Central Iowa, mostly crops now but they had livestock several times in their farming careers. They almost lost it all in the mid-80s as did many involved in agriculture due to over-extended credit, high interest rates and poor crops. My father- and mother-in-law both took off-the-farm jobs to save their land and home. My wife even sent portions of her paycheck home in the late ’80s to help. We take our kids to the farm they saved every chance we get. My wife and I sleep, breathe and eat agriculture every day of our lives. As a family, we participate in a CSA that one of my colleagues and her husband run on their local farm. Had some great fresh green and red peppers just last night.
I do what I do because I love and appreciate today’s agriculture (all forms), not because I earn a living from it. Yes, I can most assuredly get up in the morning, look myself in the mirror, and continue to do what I do. And, I am familiar with two of the authors you mentioned (Pollan and Nestle). They were both invited to participate in our Food Dialogues/Town Halls on September 22. Both declined due to scheduling conflicts, but thanked us for asking them to participate. We were disappointed because we really wanted them to be a part of this event.
What I find interesting (and perplexing) is that USFRA is being taken to task a lot by those who are proponents of local or organic agriculture. USFRA has never been critical (and won’t) of any forms of today’s agriculture. All forms (local, organic, natural, conventional, small, large, etc.) have a role to play in feeding the U.S. and global population. People want healthy choices. Why can’t we all exist? Minus the “bad actors,” of course. None of us are at all tolerant of those.
Again, I invite you to participate in the USFRA Food Dialogues/Town Halls on Thursday, September 22, (www.fooddialogues.com and http://www.usfraonline.org) and encourage your readers to participate as well. I trust you will find it interesting, informative and a good investment of your time.
Thanks for listening.
Hugh
Thank you for your thoughtful response, Hugh. While I appreciate the background information you have shared–particularly the meaningful family story–I still find that USFRA and Food Dialogues lack transparency and inclusion. The reason you all are finding that “USFRA is being taken to task a lot by those who are proponents of local or organic agriculture” despite a lack of criticism of these farming methods on USFRA’s part, is that we see none of our friends, colleagues nor familiar small to mid-scale farmers on the list of affiliates and partners on your “Meet Our Affiliates and Industry Partners” page. To the eyes of anyone working in (true–not semantically co-opted) sustainable agriculture, this list speaks for itself: http://usfraonline.org/about/affiliates/ Whomever at the agencies is responsible for throwing this page up should be reprimanded. Not one small farm/CSA listed? Let me know if there is another section I missed. I’m being serious.
The name U.S. Farmers and Ranchers Alliance itself sounds so alike to that of our friend Judith McGeary’s Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance http://farmandranchfreedom.org/ that when I first read it in April, I had to go back and look again to make sure I wasn’t mistaken. Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance has been doing outstanding work for years, advocating for farmers, ranchers, and homesteaders through public education and lobbying to assure their independence in the production and marketing of their food; and to prevent the imposition of unnecessary regulatory burdens that are not in the public interest. FARFA also advocates for consumers’ access to information and resources to obtain healthy foods of their choice. FARFA promotes connections between rural and urban communities to support diversified, local agricultural systems.
Why did USFRA’s leaders and funders not align with a category-leading existing organization such as FARFA for advocacy and marketing?
This is just a guess, but I think it’s because Industry has a much bigger stake in maintaining the status quo than in true dialogue between producers and consumers across sectors. And as Farm Bill 2012 approaches, commodity crop corporate farming is panicked–probably for the first time–because small to mid scale locally based and organic farming has gained a toehold in the American public’s consciousness.
I’m glad to hear USFRA reached out to Pollen and Nestle. That they declined, and that Salatin declined to even have a conversation, knowing how much he loves discourse, speaks volumes. I don’t mean this disrespectfully, but it is telling: when we need participation or support from these very people, we get it. They, and small to mid scale farmers growing food without chemical fertilizer or pesticides, are our advisors.
I’ve not yet responded to your 9/22 invitation. Not to fret; we’ll be listening.
Susan
Good mornng, Susan. I certainly hope that the massive drought ends soon in Texas, as I know it is having a tremendously negative impact on farmers and ranchers of all sizes and methods of operations. I was born and raised there, and have family members still living in the Houston area.
As you know, there are lots of organizations inside and outside of agriculture that have similar names. When our founders selected the name, they did so with the intent of accurately describing who were going to be the participants in the organization. And the U.S. Farmers & Ranchers Alliance moniker reflects that. We can’t align with the organization you mention, FARFA, because our functions are too different. USFRA is NOT a policy or lobbying organization. We’re an educational and informational organization. The founders identified two items in the very beginning that would be “off the table” regarding any internal discussion or external position: biofuels and Farm Bill policy. The USFRA core message is this: We are America’s farmers and ranchers who are committed to continuous improvement in how we grow and raise food that provides healthy choices for people everywhere.
Just because you don’t see any organizations of which you are familiar as current USFRA affiliates, please don’t assume that USFRA is not interested in having all ALL types of farming and ranching operations participate in the organization and in what we are trying to accomplish…an open and honest dialogue between consumers and those who produce food. Again, our affiliates have members that engage in providing local and organically-produced foodstuffs, and organize CSAs. We are also actively engaged in conversations with the organic community. In fact, one of our USFRA representatives will be attending the Organic Trade Association convention in Baltimore on Friday, September 23. If you plan to attend, please let me know and I will put you in touch with him. We will engage in discussion with and welcome participation in USFRA from any farmer and rancher organization that recognizes the right and need for all types of farming and ranching to exist in today’s agriculture.
On the topic of sustainability, many of our affiliates have adopted definitions of sustainable as it applies to their particular commodity. Of those, many have subscribed to the Keystone-developed version. As you know, sustainable has taken on many definitions and usages outside of agriculture in such a way that it has probably been diluted to the point of non-recognition and non-consumer impact. But, that’s not to say or imply that being “sustainable” in one’s agricultural operation is not something in which USFRA believes strongly. We most certainly do believe that all agricultural production needs to be sustainable and environmentally respectful and responsible. How else would the farmers and ranchers of this country continue to produce the food necessary to feed Americans and a growing global population? Just curious…what’s your definition of sustainability?
To clarify, Michael Pollan and Dr. Nestle were directly approached and formally invited to participate as panel members for next Thursday’s (September 22) Food Dialogues/Town Halls. Joel Salatin has not been approached (to date) to have a discussion with USFRA on our mission. Mr. Pollan and Dr. Nestle respectfully declined, according to them, due to schedule conflicts. With all due respect, I would like to believe they were being truthful in that response rather than what you imply may be the reason…that they don’t want to be “associated” with USFRA by participating in our Town Halls. Mr. Salatin didn’t “decline” to have a conversation with USFRA; he electively chose not to have a discussion with anyone from USFRA before being asked to provide a quote to the Financial Times. I think there’s a difference.
I still hope you will be able to join the “dialogue” next Thursday, September 22, at http://www.fooddialogues.com or http://www.usfraonline.org.
Thanks, again, for listening.
Hugh
Good Morning, Hugh,
Thank you for your well-wishes regarding our drought. The fires have claimed many homes and some farms, and we have been collecting donations at our farmers’ markets for them.
To launch a new organization led by farmers and ranchers and to hold “Food Dialogues” that exclude discussion of biofuels and of Farm Bill 2012 is lacking, in my view. The good news for USFRA’s Industry Affiliates is that the majority of the public is unaware of the high stakes both issues present. The masses have been lulled into complacency (and obesity) by the recent decades of highly processed convenience food, and our citizens have ceded control over growing and preparing their own food to corporations whose leaders share a revolving door with the heads of government agencies managing the food system.
My definition of sustainability, to answer your question, is the Webster’s Dictionary definition. I find the truth is easiest to remember:
sus·tain·able adj. \sə-ˈstā-nə-bəl\
-of, relating to, or being a method of harvesting or using a resource so that the resource is not depleted or permanently damaged
In the current issue of The Nation, Michael Pollan gives an assessment of how our movement is faring in the policymaking arena. To further illustrate what I mean when I speak in terms of agricultural sustainability, I cite his article out this week: “For the past forty years, food reform activists like Frances Moore Lappé have been saying that the American way of growing and eating food is “unsustainable.” That objection is not rooted in mere preference or aesthetics, but rather in the inescapable realities of biology. Continuing to eat in a way that undermines health, soil, energy resources and social justice cannot be sustained without eventually leading to a breakdown. Back in the 1970s it was impossible to say exactly where that breakdown would first be felt. Would it be the environment or the healthcare system that would buckle first? Now we know. We simply can’t afford the healthcare costs incurred by the current system of cheap food—which is why, sooner or later, we will find the political will to change it.” http://www.thenation.com/article/163399/how-change-going-come-food-system
Again, this is why it’s impossible to have a true Food Dialogue without confronting the very real possibility that our country’s way of life, our civilization, will fail if we do not change the dominant AgriBusiness structure and begin to shift funding to, at minimum, the USDA Nutrition Guidelines–meaning a reduction in commodity crops like corn, wheat and soy, and an increase in fruits and vegetables. As I trust you’re aware, being a fellow PR man, the statistics on public health today speak for themselves. There is a direct correlation between ag policy and physical health. Over 66% of Americans are now overweight, and of that number, more than HALF are obese. Of all children born after the year 2000, 1 in 3 will be insulin dependent due to diabetes by the time they reach adulthood. And that’s Anglo children. Early onset diabetes projections go up to 1 in 2 for children of Hispanic and African American descent.
Thank you for the offer to meet the USFRA representative participating in the OTA conference. I’ll not be attending, but I do have concern about how much longer any OTA members will be able to call themselves Certified Organic, given the recent USDA cave-in to biotech approving GMO Alfalfa. To quote Tom Philpott of Mother Jones, formerly of Grist, “Alfalfa is a prolific pollinator, meaning that GM alfalfa can easily cross-breed with non-GM alfalfa. If organic producers find their crop contaminated with GM material, they risk losing their organic certification and, likely, their livelihoods. The organic dairy industry, which relies on a steady supply of organic alfalfa, would also be imperiled.” http://tinyurl.com/5rtn7lw
But no one’s going to just walk away from farming at that point. As we both know, farmers aren’t quitters. They’ll just cede organic certification and quietly become dependent upon chemical fertilizer and pesticides.
We are having a national event in which you are welcome to participate as well, on October 24th: http://foodday.org/ Given our conversation to date, I believe its tenets are among those you could get behind. We have events taking place in every part of the country, and like USFRA, we will be taking questions from the increasingly concerned public and providing suggestions and maybe even some answers.
In closing, I’d like to revisit the question I asked you in my first response: have you read Wendell Berry or Wes Jackson? One, a writer, economist and farmer; the other, a plant geneticist and founder of The Land Institute. I have yet to meet anyone who has listened to what these men have to say and has not walked away from chemical agriculture. Another way to say this would be that any person who can read and comprehend the crisis of topsoil loss, the lack of access to whole, unprocessed food by vast numbers of Americans and the pandemic of obesity and diet related disease is either in denial or not ready to walk away from the material comforts afforded by conventional farming.
To underscore my point I’d like to share this excerpt from Berry and Jackson’s co-authored “50 Year Farm Bill” op-ed in The New York Times, 2009:
“For 60 years, we have let ourselves believe that as long as we have money we will have food. That is a mistake. If we continue our offenses against the land and the labor by which we are fed, the food supply will decline, and we will have a problem far more complex than the failure of our paper economy. The government will bring forth no food by providing hundreds of billons of dollars to the agribusiness corporations.”
Berry and Jackson don’t just frame the problem, but offer solutions that are the result of thinking and working on these deeply complex issues for decades. I’m not sure whether you’re familiar with the “hub and spoke” model of local and regionally-based agriculture, but it’s an idea which is actionable and bubbling to the surface through the work of organizations like Slow Food, Slow Money, FoodFirst and the members of the Community Food Security Coalition. It doesn’t lead by asking the hysteria-inducing propaganda based question, “How will we feed the world!?” but rather, “What grows in this place?” and “What economies of scale are appropriate to this region’s market?” It is not easy work. It is hard work, and doesn’t fit with the prevailing American psyche which demands fast and cheap. But we are doing it. And little by little, we are succeeding. Or you and I would not be having this conversation.
Respectfully,
Susan
Susan, I am sorry for the delayed reply but we have been extremely busy with the myriad of details involved in getting ready for the Food Dialogues later today.
None of the production methods…organic, natural or conventional… ,in isolation, currently employed by the hard-working and conscientious farmers and ranchers of America is absolutely perfect in providing the adequate amounts of foodstuffs required by our burgeoning population, and the burgeoning population of our global neighbors. Based on current consumer demand, we need them all. The challenges we face regarding obesity and diet are related to a number of lifestyle choices such as the type of food we choose to eat, the quantity we choose to eat, and other environmental factors such as lack of exercise, economics and personal convenience. I don’t believe the problem is related to how food is grown and raised as much as it is our own personal decisions in how we utilize the food choices we are provided. I’ll use my own personal situation as an example. I was a heckuva a lot skinnier as a young kid when my parents kicked me out of the house to go play instead of watching TV, engaged in regular exercise at school recess and regularly participated in physical sporting activities than I am now where I spend most of my day sitting behind a computer, sitting on an airplane for hours on end, driving to and from work (and everywhere else I go) instead of walking or riding my bicycle. And, I ate a larger quantity then than now. As a society, we’re consumed by how much we can accomplish in 24 hours. Do more, sleep less, eat conveniently or when we can. I believe balance is key. Achieving that balance is really hard. I say that as I respond to you at this hour of the night (or morning). As a parent, I try to limit “screen time” (TV and computer) with my kids, get them into physical sports, and kick them out of the house too, weather permitting, to achieve a balance between physical activity and food intake.
As I indicated before, I’m not familiar with Berry or Jackson, but I will attempt to.
I don’t think any conscientious farmer or rancher would necessarily disagree with the definition of sustainability you provided. However, they would also stress that economics is part of sustainability, For all farmers and ranchers to be able to continue to provide our nation’s food supply, they must remain economically sustainable. That’s not at all meant to discount the need to have their natural resources (land, water, air) be sustainable as well. Without employing sustainable production practices, they can’t be economically sustainable.
Those of us in agriculture (whatever production methodology one chooses to adopt) must respect the right and need for each other to exist. There’s room for everyone.
Respectfully yours,
Hugh
There is great thought and consideration is this exchange, and I appreciate the polite civility and sugary pleasantries sprinkled throughout these posts. But, the sweet personal perspectives do little to mask the fact that US Farmers and Ranchers Alliance seems to be a front multinational corporate agriculture interests with a too-strong flavor of high fructose corn syrup and scented with the stench of manure from cruel and toxic confined animal feeding operations.
Mr. Whaley may suggest that the negative use of terms like HFCS and CAFO’s, seeming to demonize agriculture, are the very reasons the group formed in the first place – to defend the image of agriculture (read – large-scale, industrial agriculture, evidenced by the affiliates and leadership organizations of USFRA). The truth, however, is that farmers and ranchers who are serving as stewards of the land, air, and water; engaging in financially just business models; and strengthening our rural communities by preserving our heritage of food production need no multi-million dollar ad campaign to defend them. Small- and mid-scale farmers who participate in localized, decentralized and independent food systems already have a reputation beyond rebuke. In fact, they and the food they produce are celebrated and honored in their communities and throughout the country. I believe that part of the reason for the honorable status of these producers and their products is that most, if not all, of these family farmers will gladly welcome anyone to their farm to share directly the details of their operations – a transparent personal touch that no hi-powered PR campaign can ever achieve, no matter how well funded. So, i pose the question to others – why do some farmers have a good name in their communities while other agricultural businesses struggle to defend their public reputations?
The repeated refrain throughout the USFRA seems to be that all farmers are welcomed at the table. However, the table has already been set by Monsanto, a corporation that patents life and that sues family farmers; by DuPont, which is a primary player in the consolidation of food production and spread of untested, potentially dangerous seed technology; and by BASF that promotes the use of toxic “herbicides, fungicides, insecticides and seed treatment technologies” over environmentally sound and safe practices. While the organization claims to be farmer- and rancher-led, the list of affiliates and supporters who set this table reads more like a guest list to a power lunch for the power hungry. I see no farmers listed as affiliates, and certainly see no names of farmers or ranchers designated as board participants. I suspect that if all the farmers and ranchers with a stake (or steak) in this conversation were to come to this table, it would turn into a brutal food fight. So, I’ll suggest an alternative set of strategies so that USFRA can exhibit real transparency – 1. Back up the claim that farmers and ranchers have contributed the 75% of the USFRA budget by making the list of contributors public; 2. Name the individuals who make up the board; 3. Open the dialogue more widely by not censoring posts to the USFRA blog and question board. Yes, some of the perspectives may be difficult to read, biased against the primary affiliates, or uninformed and emotional. But, they are all part of the conversation. I’d also ask that individuals who submit primary posts or responses be required to reveal their affiliation if they are employed by or represent the PR firms or leadership organizations of USFRA.
This challenging conversation will undoubtedly continue. I do think it’s rather arrogant for an industry-led group to claim that it represents all farmers, and resent the attempts by USFRA to try to co-opt the national conversation about food. I’ll look forward to hearing the voices of small, sustainable producers and the consumers that support them – whether in the USFRA forum or in the countless other places that these decentralized, open, and honest discussions are taking place around the country.
Thanks for the comment, “Think.” Do you have a blog? Would enjoy meeting for coffee some time, as I believe you are local. Pardon the pun; couldn’t resist.
Blog is under construction, but i’ll keep you “posted.” See you at the coffee shop – I’m about as local as they get.
Hugh, thank you for your response. I completely agree that we must take into account both sides of the energy balance equation, as well as the economics of the matter. I’ve spent the last year immersed in different writers, thinkers and economists’ theories on how we go about this–building an American economy which affords a living to all while not at the expense of our finite resources, nor the basic rights of human beings–and the two who can better articulate viable solutions than me are Woody Tasch of Slow Money http://www.slowmoney.org/about and John Ikerd, Professor Emeritus of Agricultural Economics at University of Missouri Columbia http://www.johnikerd.com/johnikerd.com/Home.html
i know you have a busy day, so I’ll not keep you, but I’d like to suggest that we continue our discussion after you have had a chance to read some of these economists’ writings, as well as Berry and Jackson. If you have any recommended readings for me I’d be interested and obliged. I have already read all of Norman Borlaug’s work, but if there are any living economists or writers you believe are relevant to today’s vital discourse on shaping the food system, please send me links.
Good luck with today’s Food Dialogues,
Susan
For those of you who wish transparency from USFRA, all you have to do is go to http://www.usfraonline.org to find out who the financial supporters are…affiliates and industry partners…and our leadership. Those board members directly involved in ag production as farmers and ranchers include Bob Stallman, Phil Bradshaw, Bart Schott, Dale Norton, Doug Winter, Brian Greenslit, Weldon Wynn, David Dick, Gary Cooper and Lisa Kunz.
Today’s Food Dialogues are funded entirely by America’s farmers and ranchers, not industry.
Currently, affiliates provide 70-75% of the funding; industry provides 25-30%.
A marketing budget of $11mil, with $7.5mil from individual farmers – now that’s an impressive fundraising effort! I’m curious if the farmers who have contributed did so willingly, or via their Farm Bureau dues and checkoffs, contributions that just appeared as an automatically added line-item to their dues or withholdings. I’m also curious if the list of contributing farmers looks similar to this list that makes up the leadership.
Bob Stallman, president of American Farm Bureau
Phil Bradshaw, United Soybean Board
Bart Schott, president of National Corn Growers Association
Dale Norton, National Pork Checkoff program, Michigan Farm Bureau, National Cattleman’s Association, National Corn Growers Association and the American Soybean Association
Doug Winter, Illinois Soybean Association
Brian Greenslit, president, NM Farm Bureau
Weldon Wynn, vice-chair, Cattleman’s Beef Board (beef checkoff)
David Dick, federation chairman, National Cattleman’s Beef Association
Gary Cooper, president of Southeast Ag-Net (media)
Lisa Kunz, no freakin’ idea; sorry Ms. Kunz.
I’ll admit that I honestly wanted to believe that USFRA was working on behalf of all farmers. However, after seeing this list, i’m totally disappointed.
Let’s break this down – not a single organic grower; only one woman (Hi there, Ms. Kunz); no ethnic minorities; no vegetable producers; no urban ag practitioners; no consumer representatives; no one representing the community-based, sustainable movement (except maybe Ms Kunz, who i can’t quite identify yet). Maybe it’s just the commodity croppers and the CAFO protein peddlers who have the image problem.
In fact, no one in the leadership is beyond the sphere of Farm Bureau and big industrial ag – an industry characterized by the use of chemical and genetic manipulation technology, tax-payer funded subsidies and entitlements (those won’t last long); and check-off programs implemented at the whim of what can only be considered a trust in need of busting (more for the reading list: http://www.frbkc.org/publicat/econrev/PDF/2q01bark.pdf and http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/processing/).
I have recently read of a few of the authors and scientists that Ms. Susan recommends, and others, too, like Raj Patel (Stuffed and Starved), Mark Winne (Closing the Food Gap), Kelly Brownell (numerous papers; Rudd Center, Yale University) and – hell – even James McWilliams doesn’t look like such a dope anymore (well, still kinda) in light of this Big Food facade that is USFRA. So, I believe I’ll stick with my current dialogue about food – at my local farmers’ markets and community garden, at the feed-n-seed store, and around the dinner table. And, I believe I’m inspired to raise my voice even louder now, too, to support real food (and real economies and cultures) with my food dollars. I believe i’ll make those calls to my lawmakers. I believe that I’ll encourage my friends and family to do the same.
Apologies, Mr. Whaley, since I know this may come off as somewhat offensive – divisive even. But, I’ll encourage you to follow up on Ms. Susan’s advice and read, learn, and know. Then we can all get back to the work of building the food system that people want and can trust – changing our food system instead of raising funds and raising a ruckus to change people’s minds.
Upon returning to and rereading this chain, it seems to me that I have disrupted what was a civil dialogue and inserted an impolite discourse. As a ‘commenter’ on another person’s blog, that was not my intention. I stand by what I’ve written, but will stand aside and allow the two of you, Mr. Whaley and Cake, to continue the exchange. It is my hope and expectation that your conversation will be productive without my voice. And, I’ll look forward to food conversations returning to the forums where it really matters – markets and gardens and community gathering places and, of course, the family dinner table.
Please let me offer a few corrections about the USFRA Board of Directors that are erroneously described above. Bob Stallman’s family has engaged in organic rice farming. Dale Norton, in addition to raising hogs, also grows tomatoes (for Red Gold) and peppers. Lisa Kunz is a small soybean farmer in Nebraska. Gary Cooper is president of the U.S. Poultry & Egg Association and a farmer, not the farm broadcaster from Florida who I know well or the late actor who I don’t, but admire his work. Weldon is a small farmer and beef producer from Arkansas. USFRA has all forms of ag in its leadership roles. All the farmers and ranchers on the USFRA Board, as well as all the farmers and ranchers who are members or constituents of the USFRA affiliates, want to provide the best products they can grow and raise for all of us, no matter what production method they employ.
I will read and learn more, but I encourage everyone to keep an open mind and recognize that all forms of ag…small, medium, large; organic, natural, conventional… are necessary to provide the healthy food choices that are necessary, required and consumer requested to feed America.
“Think”, I appreciate your contributions and hope to see you soon. If you’ll be at the Right2Know Rally for Real Food on Oct. 2nd at the State Capitol, we’ll see you there. http://www.rallyforrealfood.com/ And of course, there are lots of ways to get involved with the inaugural Food Day on Oct. 24 and events taking place in the weeks preceding: http://foodday.org/
Hugh, while I appreciate the additional information to help flesh out the USFRA Board, I agree with Think that we still have only one woman; no ethnic minorities; no vegetable producers (I’ll add: focused primarily on diverse/rotational vegetable production); no urban ag practitioners; no consumer representatives; no one representing the community-based, sustainable movement building economies of scale all across the country.
This theme of “consumer requested” continued to crop up in the “Food Dialogues” of yesterday, and many of us engaged publicly in the conversation on Twitter at the time as well (#foodD) find it’s a weak argument. It’s only a valid argument in light of profit. But viewed through the lens of public health or–heck, common sense–it’s a straw man.
For the American palate has now been engineered to perceive and seek out certain flavor combinations of fat, salt and sugar (or more frequently, HFCS). Former FDA Chief, David Kessler exposed this branch of the chemical industry in his recent book, The End of Overeating: Taking Control of the Insatiable American Appetite.
People want big, cornfed steaks, to paraphrase our changeable Chef Besh yesterday, for example. Well, at some point that’s personal preference, sure–but if we REALLY want to have a dialogue about this we need to examine all of the inputs resulting in that portion of steak: chemical, environmental, worker treatment and safety, and then the health result.
Just because something CAN be done does not mean it should be done, or that it’s without ethical or societal consequences. I truly believe that no one set out 60 years ago with an evil plan for our food system. But by the Nixon administration, it had become just that: a plan of dominance not only over other nations but over our own farmers, to whom, by that time, Secretary Earl Butz had bellowed, “Get Big or Get Out.”
If you read nothing else, Hugh, I implore you to read The Unsettling of America: Culture and Agriculture (W. Berry). And again, I am open to reading suggestions from you.
Susan, the individual farmers, ranchers and senior organizational staff that serve on the U.S. Farmers & Ranchers Alliance (USFRA) Board are selected by the individual organizations that are eligible to participate on the board. The people these organizations select are either current or just past leaders of their respective organizations. With total transparency, farmer- & rancher-led organizations are eligible to participate on the USFRA Board due to their annual funding commitments. Our by-laws allow for 25 board positions. We currently have 15 farmer- and rancher-led board participants, and three industry partners. USFRA would certainly welcome a full-time vegetable and fruit producer if one of the types of organizations wishes to participate at the board level. The U.S. Fresh Produce Association is an affiliate, but not at the board level. As far as more “diversity,” that can certainly be encouraged but, ultimately, it’s the decision of the board participating organization.
We don’t have a consumer on the board because that is not how USFRA is structured. It was structured to be a farmer- and rancher-led effort. However, that suggestion gave me an idea that I will pursue with our leadership. That idea would be to have a Consumer Advisory Panel to provide us feedback on how we approach our educational and informational efforts among other things. No guarantee that it will happen, but I will discuss it with our leaders.
Farmers and ranchers do grow their crops and raise their animals for food based on consumer demand. That demand is communicated back to them through the price discovery system (CBOT, CME, local markets, etc) and by the companies that purchase their output. If the demand wasn’t there for local, organic or natural products, people wouldn’t grow them because they wouldn’t have anyone to buy them. Without customers, products don’t get made. Sure, there are brave souls our there that take a chance on “inventing” or making something new that no one has ever seen or used before. Sometimes it works; sometimes it goes belly up. Most farmers and ranchers are risk averse, even though they are in one of the most risky businesses out there. They need to be assured of a market for what they grow and raise before they will take the chance.
Despite what Dr. Butz said several decades ago, there is room for all sizes, shapes and forms of agriculture. But, only if there is a market for what they produce.
Whether or not our palates have been trained to like certain things is probably up for debate; a debate that I’m not going to enter. I just know that my food preferences were initially shaped by what my parents fed me at home when I was growing up. I will admit that, at times, I can be adventurous and learn to eat new things. (Ever had a squab head?) But, whether or not I continue to eat something I try is based more on how it tastes than anything else. By now, I know what is healthy and good for me and what may not be quite as healthy. That’s why I vary my diet and food intake. Which is also why I have a total lifetime ban on brussel sprouts in my house.
The mission of USFRA is not to try to change consumers’ eating habits. It’s to enable them, through education and information, to feel comfortable in whatever food choice they wish to make. After all, ultimately it’s their choice.
Hugh, the first three sentences of your reply answer my question entirely. Thank you. I understand now that an unaffiliated/independent small farmer would, in fact, not be eligible to serve on the board of USFRA for lack of a backing organization. In addition, the annual funding commitments of small farmers are elsewhere directed, I’m afraid.
Like you, I’m not up for debating the facts of chemical flavor engineering. Whew! Huge time saver. http://addictions.about.com/od/foodaddictio1/fr/The-End-Of-Overeating-By-David-Kessler.htm