5 FOOD LABELS YOU SHOULDN’T PAY EXTRA FOR

Food labeling is something I love to talk to people about. I love that we live in a society that gives us so many options when it comes to the food we choose to buy for our families, but some of these labels are entirely misleading. It has simply out of hand. Marketers are taking advantage of uninformed consumers and getting more money for a label that doesn’t exactly mean what it implies.

So, what can you do about it? Get informed. Be an educated consumer and don’t let food marketers take advantage of you and your hard-earned dollars!

Here are 5 commonly misleading labels you should be aware of before paying extra:

1. NATURAL- This label isn’t bad, but it doesn’t necessarily mean what you think it might. In order to be approved for this label, the food must be minimally processed after harvest. In other words, any production methods can be used to grow the food (hormones, pesticides, genetic engineering, etc.). As long as it isn’t heavily processed afterwards, you can label it as natural.
2. NO ADDED HORMONES- If you see this label on a chicken or pork product, it is 100% meaningless. There is currently no hormone use in hog or chicken production at all; therefore, any chicken or pork you can buy is sans added hormones.
3. CAGE FREE/FREE RANGE- Again, these labels aren’t bad, but they might not necessarily indicate what they imply. To qualify as “cage free,” chickens can roam freely in a building or room. This does free them from a cage, but exposes them to other chickens who often peck and cause injury to one another. As for “free range,” those same chickens would have unlimited access to the outdoors. You might be surprised to find that, regardless of their access to the outdoors, most chickens would opt to stay inside due to fear of predators.
4. NON-GMO- This label is so widely overused. There are currently only 8 crops that are commercially available with GM varieties: corn, soybeans, canola, cotton, alfalfa, squash, papaya, and sugar beets. If you are buying any other vegetable, this label is not relevant.
5. PASTURE RAISED- The USDA definition for this label is as follows: “Due to the number of variables involved in pasture-raised agricultural systems, the USDA has not developed a federal definition for pasture-raised products.” I think that one speaks for itself.

If there are any other labels you often look for and are curious about, visit the USDA’s website to see their definition of each label: http://fnic.nal.usda.gov/food-labeling

It’s always good to “know before you buy!”

What's the beef with GMO's, anyway?

I'm not late to the conversation, I know GMO's have been a widely controversial issue for a while now... but I had a thought today that totally slammed everything into perspective for me.


The first GM crop I remember learning about was Golden Rice. In developing countries where rice is the main food source, we see a huge issue with vision impairment/blindness simply due to a lack of nutrients; namely: Vitamin A. In an attempt to help these people, scientists started working on ways to create a rice crop with more Vitamin A.
And I thought, "How cool is that? We have so much knowledge and technology at our disposal and look at the amazing, life-changing things we can do with it?"


That was about 7 years ago. Since then, I have had countless conversations/arguments with people about genetically modified foods. My arguments are often based on scientific facts and anecdotes from my experience growing up on a farm... but maybe I've been doing it all wrong.


From day 1 of learning about GMO's, they have seemed like such a positive thing to me. We can make food with more nutrients, crops that need fewer pesticides sprayed on them, etc. How is that perceived as something so negative by so many people?


Maybe, from a fundamental level, I need to understand where you are coming from if you're anti-GMO. Have a conversation with me. Don't be defensive or try to convince me that your opinion is all-that-is-right in the world... just talk to me. Tell me your concerns. I want to hear your experiences and understand where you're coming from.


Maybe, just maybe, if we all do that... we will understand each other a little bit better and be able to have more educational conversations about these issues. Leave me a comment. Let's talk.

CONGRATULATIONS! THIS IS THE LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY YOU ASKED FOR.

U.S. Research Lab Lets Livestock Suffer in Quest for Profit


This makes me angry. And you know what? I saw this coming.


Over the past few years, I have been involved in discussions about the ag industry and doing my part to explain to people that, while they may not like every method used in food production, there is a reason we do things this way. There is a "why" behind every production method out there. We don't just slap chemicals on crops for the fun of it. We don't just use gestation stalls because we think they look cool. We don't raise animals indoors because we feel like it.


THERE ARE VERY GOOD REASONS WHY WE DO THESE THINGS.


But do any of those radical activists listen? No. Because they want everything to be sunshine and rainbows and butterflies and until you agree with them, they wont listen to a word you have to say.


So, the industry has changed because of this huge consumer demand for more "free range, natural, GMO-free, *insert your favorite label here*" products. We are a consumer driven industry, so of course we made adjustments to accommodate the wishes of our customers.


Many of these changes have taken place within the livestock production sector. Less hogs are in gestation/farrowing crates, more animals are being raised outdoors for that "free range" label, and less antibiotics are being used to promote the health of the animals.


And now, the farmers are under attack again for being negligent.


"Hundreds of those newborn (piglets), too frail or crowded to move, are being crushed each year when their mothers roll over... In an effort to develop “easy care” sheep that can survive without costly shelters or shepherds, ewes are giving birth, unaided, in open fields where newborns are killed by predators, harsh weather and starvation... A single, treatable malady — mastitis, a painful infection of the udder — has killed more than 625."


ARE YOU F*CKING KIDDING ME?! Excuse my language, but sometimes, you just have to call people on their sh*t.


ALL of this is a direct result of consumer demand for different production methods! This is NOT the fault of the farmer!


You wanted pasture-raised meat? Okay, fine. But now you're mad that predators & severe weather are a threat to the poor baby animals?
OF COURSE THOSE ARE THREATS. THAT'S WHY WE MOVED THE ANIMALS INDOORS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
You don't want pigs placed in gestation stalls or farrowing crates? Okay, sure. But now it's abhorrent to hear about the number of piglets crushed by their mothers every year?
ONCE AGAIN, YOU ASKED FOR THIS. THERE IS A REASON WE PUT THOSE SOWS IN THE FARROWING CRATES.
You demand an antibiotic-free meat product? Sure thing! But now the farmers are terrible people for not handling common & easily treatable infections in their animals?
(You see where I'm going with this?)


I have said for years that, for whatever reason, people have completely lost touch with the fact that there is a very good reason behind everything that we do as a production ag industry. We have learned from past failures, we have adjusted our practices to create safer living conditions for our animals, we have asked our parents & grandparents these questions about why we do things a certain way, and there is always a reasonable answer. How do we fix this lost connection between consumer & understanding that there is a why behind what we do?


We give the consumer what they want.


And what was my hypothesis about what would happen? They would be so appalled at what the conditions in our industry look like and start demanding that we put those animals back inside where it's safe, and find a way to stop those mama sows from crushing her babies, and for goodness sake we need to be responsible for our animals and treat them with medicine when they are sick!


Bingo. I hate to say I told you so, but I TOLD YOU SO.


So, can we farmers get back to doing what we do best and take proper care of our animals now? Do you believe that our methods involve generations worth of research and work with animals that gives us the knowledge to know the best way to care for them? Do you finally understand why we use some of these practices that you are so unknowledgeable about and yet so against?


I'm angry. I love my industry and I have worked to defend it for years. All we have done is concede to the demands of our consumer, and now we are catching the heat for it once again. We are NOT bad people. We CARE about our animals, probably more than you do.


With that being said... Congratulations. You have gotten exactly what you asked for. I hope you're happy.

RED MEAT: TO EAT OR NOT TO EAT?

Rumor has it the USDA is preparing to release the latest dietary guidelines according to their research. This time, they have been getting recommendations to lower the recommended amount of red meat that we should all consume. Now, it isn’t exactly news that the health benefits/effects of red meat have been heartily debated in the past. This time, however, the recommendations are coming from an environmental standpoint.


The argument some people are posing here is that the carbon footprint of the meat industry is exponentially higher than that of plant-based food production. To which I say… duh! Of course a cow is going to have a greater carbon footprint than a soybean plant. But what does this have to do with dietary recommendations that are supposed to be based on research regarding health of the human body?


Here is my disclaimer: I have been raising beef cattle since I was 7 years old. Obviously, I’m biased here. However, I am NOT here to tell you that “RED MEAT IS THE BEST AND ALL OF YOU SHOULD EAT STEAK 3 TIMES A DAY.”


So, hear me out.

1. The issue at hand is the latest version of dietary guidelines. Is environmental impact really a relevant piece on information to be considered here? Of course, I’m not saying that environmental impact should be disregarded altogether, I just don’t think it should be a consideration for this particular case. If we start taking sustainability into consideration for this, then we must also consider economics, ethical issues… it’s a total domino effect. While each of these issues are important, should they really be a part of nutritional recommendations?

2. Can we just take a moment to remember that every person has different health issues such as dietary restrictions, heart health, etc.? I know people from all walks of life that choose to eat in completely different ways. And do you know what? I don’t think any of them are wrong. I know vegetarians, and I know people who eat meat almost exclusively. They all have their reasons, and what other people eat isn’t really your business. If it works for them, awesome. You do what works for you and your body.

3. For most of us, the USDA’s list of dietary guidelines is something we can take into consideration or not. At the end of the day, we get to eat whatever we choose to eat. The problem is, this isn’t the case for everyone. The biggest effect this change would made is on federal feeding programs (i.e. food stamps, school lunches, senior care…). Is red meat really what we should be providing less of in these programs? I personally don’t think we should be limiting access to a great protein source for those individuals who rely on one of these programs.

I love red meat. I eat it once or twice a week, and it works for me. That’s not going to change based on these guidelines. But we really do need to think about the bigger picture with these sorts of things, not just ourselves. Would this change really be for the best?
Food for thought.

ARE YOU LISTENING TO UNDERSTAND, OR TO RESPOND?

“Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.”

–Stephen R. Covey

Think about that for a minute.


(Okay, has it been a minute? Did you think about it? Good.)


Aren’t we all guilty of this in one way or another? During arguments or heated discussions, most of us have a tendency to get defensive- and when we are being defensive, we are no longer participating in a discussion to try to better understand the opposing viewpoints. We come by it honestly. Heck, even kids are guilty of this! Have you ever tried to argue with a stubborn 5-year-old? They will come up with the craziest excuses to prove that they aren’t wrong or guilty.


I think all adults are equally as guilty of this when it comes to discussions about GMO crops, organic versus non-organic, food additives, etc. I have had countless conversations with people who have differing views from me and many of those conversations end with me just giving up. I enjoy having conversations in order to better understand where people are coming from, and I would like for them to learn a little something about my viewpoints in return. But some people are just impossible; they are only listening to what you have to say in order to come up with a response to prove that you are wrong. To me, that is a pointless conversation.


Once in a while, I get to have a real conversation with someone who genuinely wants to learn more about these topics and hear about my experiences and opinions. And in turn, I want to know what their concerns are and where those concerns came from. AND IT IS MAGICAL. Both people always walk away from those conversations with a better understanding and a little something to mull over.


You may be asking yourself, “Hmmm… I wonder what brought this topic up for Rosie today.” I am so glad you asked!


The Food Babe visited the University of Florida last week and gave a speech to the students and faculty about “how to avoid bad foods” based on her opinions. Keep in mind this woman is not a scientist, nor does she have any experience in the food industry whatsoever. She has made a living for herself by using fear mongering on social media to build an army of scared and angry consumers who attack various companies and get them to change the ingredients they use in their food. A professor from the horticulture department on campus wrote a blog in response to her visit, and I think it is wonderful. You can read it here.


Okay, I’m getting off my soapbox. Just do me a favor and take a moment before your next discussion about food to remind yourself to listen to understand, not just to reply. Please and thank you!