Minnesota Farmers Union

(August 19, 2011) - Growing up in the 1950s, we learned about the “Basic Four” food groups in elementary school. One of the elements lacking in this food guide was a lack of guidance on appropriate fats, sugars, and calorie intake. But compared to today with easy access to fast foods, large portions, and abundant sweets, childhood obesity was not as serious an issue. Working on the farm and walking to and from school provided plenty of opportunity to burn off any extra calories we consumed.

The Basic Four was a change from an earlier guideline provided by the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) that included daily servings needed from each of seven food groups. It too did not provide guidance on serving sizes and was considered to be too complex to be effective. 

In the 1970s and 1980s, the USDA tried two other food guides before settling on the familiar Food Pyramid that was adopted in 1992. The Food Pyramid was a total diet approach that set goals for both nutrient adequacy and moderation. By using the pyramid, it gave some focus to the issue of proportion and included visualization of added fats, oils, and sugars through five food groups and in the tip. Next to the tip were the words “Use Sparingly.” It also offered guidance on the range of daily amounts of food across three calorie levels. 

(September 3, 2010) - If there is one topic we wish would disappear from our column topic radar, it would be food safety. Every time a food recall is activated, farmers end up with egg on their face—we couldn’t resist the line—even though most had nothing to do with it.

All it takes is a few bad actors to make everyone look bad. There was a time before the widespread availability of refrigeration that rancid butter was a problem. This problem gave an opening for the development of “oleomargarine.” And so to protect their markets and profitability, cooperative creameries began educate and monitor their members so they could consistently provide the public with a quality product. The monitoring was necessary, because rancid cream from a few careless producers would ruin the quality cream delivered by the rest.

While we would be reluctant to classify the industrial-style producers of most of the eggs sold in the US as farmers, there is little doubt that the general public does not make that distinction. Eggs come from chickens and farmers raise chickens; case closed.

(August 20, 2010) - Balance of power issues in the poultry and livestock industries have been getting a lot attention lately.

The focal points for those debates have been the joint hearings held by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of Justice and the new proposed Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) rule. The issues under debate have tended to center on relationships between livestock and poultry producers and the packers/integrators who process their animals. But some would argue that the more important but unacknowledged “elephant” in the livestock pen is the retail sector.

It is not that the changes that have occurred in food retailing haven’t been noticed by us all. Gone are the mom and pop grocery stores and small chains of the past. They have been bought out or driven out of business by the major grocery chains. We have also seen the introduction of groceries into general merchandise retailers like Wal-Mart, K-Mart, and Target.

(August 15, 2010) - As the county and state fair season spreads across America, farmers, ranchers and producer groups from Maryland and Montana will cook rib-eyes, whip up omelets, grill chicken, barbecue pork steaks, butter sweet corn and pour thick milkshakes for their non-farming customers from Baltimore to Billings and nearly everywhere in between.

This fresh, wholesome goodness will come with side dishes like firm handshakes, warm smiles and pleasant banter that will connect producers with consumers, makers with customers, farmers with non-farmers

In fact, this tasty, aromatic face-to-face meeting is the whole point of each farmer and rancher’s existence, the key link that farm and ranch groups spend big bucks and big time—think the $1.25 billion-a-year checkoff industry—to build every day. It’s honest and open and not forced or phony.

And it’s priceless; it’s  retail meat-and-greet, chat-and-chew, cook-and-look, earn-and-learn for both sides.

If this interface is the top of the producer-customer pyramid—and it is—why then did three U.S. senators late this spring write a letter to U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack assaulting USDA’s “Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food” program? After all, KYF puts all 26 USDA agencies to work in unison to “better connect consumers with local producers.”

(August 6, 2010) - On the day that we sent the last column to the publisher, July 26th, the USDA’s Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) made two announcements via a “To whom it may concern:” letter signed by Edward Avalos, Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs, USDA (http://archive.gipsa.usda.gov/psp/avalosstatements.pdf). Avalos extended the comment period on GIPSA’s proposed livestock competition rule by 90 days to November 22, 2010. Secondly, Avalos released a four-page document to “clarify” what is and what is not proposed in the rule (http://archive.gipsa.usda.gov/psp/rulefacts.pdf).

In his letter he says, “it has become apparent that there are misunderstandings” concerning the proposed rule. By way of introducing the accompanying document, Avalos goes on to say, “This rule does not limit or prohibit marketing agreements, the use of premiums, or other value-added activities. The rule does not require anyone to do business with any particular person or require packers to pay all producers the same price.”