A new survey  says U.S. consumers have greater faith in activists and retail grocers than the government or food companies.  The survey sponsors (an ag communications firm) say 64% of the general population believes consumer advocates and activist organizations “have their best interests in mind.”  Wow.  What’s sad about this is that the government came in fourth on the list at 47% after retail grocers and food manufacturers, but ahead of also-ran fast food companies.  Does this really mean that a majority of randomly selected Americans believe teenage grocery clerks are going to advise me on my food choices?  Or that I should listen to an activist group that attracts its members and funds by putting out press releases that terrorize us about our food? Ummmm, anyone got a better idea? 

There was a report released by the Hudson Institute on the environmental benefits of growth-promoting hormone implants in beef production. Keep in mind that the Hudson Institute is, at heart, a political organization.  Also keep in mind that many other sources of information are too.

I read the entire report.  It has lots of good statistics that address some of the perceived harm of traditional beef production practices.  However, it is definitely a paper with an agenda.  The credibility of their facts is severely hampered by the blatant slant toward discrediting the grass-fed and natural movement.  Shame on them for referencing an economic model from the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture and implying that their stance is supported by that institution.  The original model from Iowa State is a paper for farmers who are considering conversion to organic or natural beef production.  The Hudson report leads one to believe that it is upon this report that the environmental claims are based.  In actual fact, the Hudson report references to “the model” more often refer to their own model, than to Iowa State’s.  The Iowa State model does not address environmental impact in any way. 

Read the rest of this entry »