A New York Times columnist wrote an article about how the grass fed grazing model is not sustainable. I grew up in an era when Edward R. Morrow was retiring and Walter Cronkite was becoming America's uncle. Journalistic integrity was paramount in all mediums of news back then. Yes, there was the National Enquirer and people would sneakily purchase it as a guilty pleasure.
What I see today is that the National Enquirer model has become the standard-bearer for news in general. What is particularly galling about this article is that the reporter did not have his facts correct nor did he try to make it a balanced article. He went as far to attack Polyface Farm and Joel Salatin. Yet, I derive great pleasure from this article. You see it indicates to me that the industrial food complex is becoming concerned. Buy local and sustainable agriculture are making headways into American consumerism. Judging from the backlash and furry that I see on internet posts we are pro-sustainability. I ask myself; why else would this reporter tout concentrated animal farm operations (CAFO’s)? He blatantly or conveniently leaves out the suffering of animals in these CAFO’s and does not even begin to address the pollution and environmental degradation caused by them.
Study upon study points to increased endocrine problems including hormonal imbalance, anti-biotic resistant bacteria, cancers, food allergies and other maladies caused by the exact object he touts as being the proper way of feeding Americans. He goes so far as to say that animals reared outside using management intensive grazing (sustainable techniques) actually adds to the methane levels and global warming.
We have known for years that governments use fear and misinformation as ways to sway public opinion. Look at our last leader and yellow cake uranium. Yellow cake was used as the reason to start the Iraq war. Only after CIA agent Valerie Plame was outed, did we find out that they knew the analysis was wrong. Fear (WMD’s) and misinformation (yellow cake) caused public opinion and congress to sway in the desired direction. I think it started after the “War of the Worlds” incident; someone saw the general widespread panic and learned from the experience. Phsyops or psychological operations are an integral part when trying to sway public opinion, not the facts. Fact has become a casualty in modern society, as has integrity in most aspects of public discourse.
I think Mr.’s. Marrow and Cronkite would be appalled and ashamed at the standards of today’s reporting. The Times article was so skewed towards the IFC to be a blatant endorsement of all that is evil in CAFO’s and its known detriments. To say the least it did nothing to stop the proliferation and use of GMO’s, or Atrizine that castrates and feminizes predictor species or the rise in food born allergies, contamination and resulting recalls. The reporter conveniently leaves out or is ignorant to the pollution and huge carbon footprint needed to generate all these quality CAFO meat products. Joel Salatin responded to the Times article and he addresses the misnomers far better than I ever could.
Lastly, but most importantly the reporter does not even begin to talk about recalls and the devastating affect that contaminated food, supplied by the IFC, has on the general consumer. I have asked this before; have you ever heard of a recall from a local small farmer or a local butcher? Why not? I think it is because your local small farmer or butcher has everything to lose if someone gets sick or dies from his or her product. Besides that, they feed their family and friends. The IFC companies can simply change their name, re-incorporate and keep operating.
The NY-Times article is so biased it leads you to only one conclusion and that is the IFC is the only true food source. What they failed to realize is the breadth and depth of the buy local and sustainable agriculture movements. It is pathetic to say the least but it is an indication to me that the IFC is feeling the affects of these movements. They must be concerned about local food and the fact that you are supporting local small farmers. Maybe the article was a shill for the IFC I do not know and maybe I am to close to the issue to see that the article was balanced and not tipped in anyone direction. However, the logical side of me thinks it is an indication that these times, they are a changing.
Buy Local: We all can and do make a difference, which is an investment for future generations.