The American Farm Bureau is putting PETA and other animal rights groups on notice -- they're not going to let these groups define their industry and spread misinformation about their farms any longer.
That was the message from Farm Bureau President Bob Stallman at the group's annual convention last week.
Batavian Dean Norton, president of the New York Farm Bureau, was there and he said he agrees with Stallman's message.
At a time when New York farmers are facing dire economic consequences from lower commodity prices, high production costs, climate change legislation and proposed migrant worker reforms, the animal rights activists and others who would spread misinformation about farmers are going to face a more energized opposition, Norton said.
"In the current political environment, rallies and campaigns get more attention than just sitting down in a room and discussing issues," Norton said. "That's why we're going to get out and rally and campaign, so we can get our message out."
About 99 percent of America's farms are family owned, Norton said, so the idea that there are these large corporate farms engaged in factory farm is really a myth.
"Sure there are bad apples," Norton said. "There are bad apples in every bunch, but people never look at the good stuff. They only look at the bad stuff. Only the bad stuff makes the news."
Norton said he is particularly concerned about climate change treaties known as "cap and trade."
Cap and trade, Norton said, will drive up costs for American farmers by $5 billion, cost to consumers by $7 billion and reduce agriculture profits by $2 billion, based on a study commissioned by the American Farm Bureau.
"American farmers have fed and clothed American families for more than 200 years and we're the leaders in the world in providing food and fiber," Norton said. "We're not going to let people not part of our industry tell us how to raise our animals healthy. We're already doing that."
Photo: File photo of Dean Norton
I support the right to farm,
I support the right to farm, and the families that work very hard all there lives to supply us with milk, produce, and meat, but as Dean states there are some Bad Apples. Growing up in the middle of this I have seen the changes, the demand, and the decline of profitable farming. I also have seen some pretty lax, and to be honest, filthy farmers. Take a drive down Tower Hill Rd. some time(though the west end is nearly impassable). Notice the pile of dead calves and cows next to the barn there. The sloppy mess of manure all over the road, and the tankers of liquid manure. The cattle with manure caked on their bodies, suffering. This farmer is spreading thousands of gallons of liquid manure all over Elba and Byron, daily. Isnt it the law to plow it under in 24 hours?
It is an Ecoligical Assult, on the land, water table,(once great drinking water) and Spring Creek( A protected trout stream, once teaming with trout), now silted in with manure runoff styfling plant life and fish habitat, now blue with nitrates. The use of pesticides, sprayed in the air for all to breathe without any warning, year after year? Nice How about the rotting cabbage, left in the fields, adjacent to homes in this same area. Have you ever smelled rotting cabbage?? Its like a soiled diaper, in the air every minute, and people shouldn't have to live in and try to enjoy their lives and homes in the midst of it.
Ask any homeowner in the area, about the value of their property,and homes, and how it has plumited. Ask my parents, who for a year were sick, only to find out their Well was contaminated with E-coli and Coloform Bacteria, from liquid manure run-off. Is this why our father is still sick, maybe he got a brain worm, or parasite from drinking the water(it has happened before). They had to spend 5000.00 to drill a new well, but still will never feel safe drinking from it.
There has to be a better way. Arent there certain procedures that have to be followed by our local farmers? I dont see it. Methane Digesters perhaps?? Mandated? Dean, it is indeed time for change, we all have a right to clean water, and enviroment to thrive in.
Dean has chosen as his straw
Dean has chosen as his straw man, PETA. An organization that came to the fore in the 70s, proliferating gory details of graduate school live-experiments. (Pigeons pecking eyes out, skull-less cats with electrodes, parboiled dogs). Since then, PETA has come to epitomize over-the-top Hollywood activism (a charge it somewhat schizophrenically denies and exults). It's an easy target to ignite those too thick to bother over cliches. ...Akin to the Catholic Decency League going after John Waters.
If Dean's intent is to align detractors with PETA, I have news for him. Anti-farmer has a ring of suicide to it. It should be apparent that American consumers have advanced beyond the quandry of "brown or white eggs."
This man is misleading the
This man is misleading the public by stating that factory farms do not exist. They do exist in fact, do some research on Smithfield Farms for example. These factory farms load the animals with many drugs and BGH (Bovine Growth Hormone), so much that it is affecting humans who consume meat drug resistance. Meaning that antibiotics that normally are used to treat bacterial infections will no longer work since there are so many antibiotics in cows that is passed on to humans that the human body is resistant to it. Not only that but the waste that these factory farms produce is destroying the environment and the farms don't care...they get fined but the profits far outweigh the fines they receive so they keep doing it.
Since Ray Kroc opened his first McDonald's restaurant in 1954, farming has changed and not for the good. The demand created for the fast food hamburger created the "Factory Farm". Meat and dairy products could not be produced fast enough for the consumption of the people who eat at McDonald's so the "Factory Farm's" were created to mass produce meat. Since this has happened the health of Americans has decreased due to obesity and many other diseases that are more prevalent now that ever, including many forms of cancer and the instances of it. Compare for yourself how peoples health has changed since Fast Food was created.
These factory farms treat animals horribly. A lot of the cows are so fattened up that they can't walk and are dragged around helplessly though feces. Pigs are kept in crates so small that they can't even turn around, and are impregnated by the use of "rape stands" where the female pig is locked in and can't move while the male pig has at it. Chickens and turkeys have their beaks cut off with a hot blade, hurting them immensely and making it very hard for them to eat. Chickens and turkeys are also drugged and mass fed to where a lot of them can't even walk as well. Workers abuse the animals by kicking them and even worse and this has been documented on several instances. A lot of the workers you will find at these factory farms as well are not even in the United States legally. Really, what kind of human would want to knowingly abuse an animal? Only people who are desperate to find a job in the US or people who really have no conscious.
I am not saying all farms are bad. I personally grew up in a dairy farming family and know that the animals weren't abused like in factory farms. Unfortunately, with the expansion of these huge farms the days of the small farmer who works their own farm to make a living are numbered. The costs for everything are rising and the pay that the farmers are receiving for their milk is lower than ever.
It is my opinion that these Factory Farms are not doing any good for anyone except for the large corporations that own them and reap the profits. To say that they don't exist is just refusing to believe it.
Please support your local farmer, buy your goods at farmer's markets, vegetable stands or a local food cooperative.
FWIW: The comment link on
FWIW: The comment link on this post if fixed again.
Lots of misleading and
Lots of misleading and outright false information here and I don't have the time to address all of it. But that being said let's just address this one by "C. M. Barons"
"One of the inconsistencies that underscores Dean's bombastic ode to agriculture: professional pesticide handlers must have a license- except farmers. Are farmers born with self-activating chemistry degrees or did a paid-off politician change the law."
BONG! Wrong. Farmers do have to have training, take a test and be certified and get a certified private pesticide applicator's license from the DEC. It is in the case of vegetables Category 23. As the DEC website states:
Certified Private Pesticide Applicator Requirements
An individual shall be eligible for private applicator certification if that individual has met the following experience and/or training requirements and has successfully passed the necessary examinations.
"The applicant must be at least 17 years of age at the time of application; and
have at least one year of full-time experience within the last three years in the use of pesticides in the category or categories that the individual is seeking certification; or
have completed a comprehensive 30-hour training course, approved by the department; or
have received an associate degree or higher from an accredited college or university which covers the topics listed in Section 325.18, and related categories in Sections 325.16 or 325.17; or
have one year of verifiable experience as a commercial applicator in a corresponding commercial category.
Individuals must also pass the core and appropriate category examination(s)."
Does the person now have a license for life, with no supplemental training or recertification required? Uhm ... NO! As the DEC website states:
"Recertification
Every applicator is required to either submit recertification training credits at the end of their certification cycle or take a recertification examination. Individuals can click on the Applicator Recertification Dates link in the right column to find out their cycle and recertification date. If you are currently on a three year cycle that will not change. Commercial applicators/technicians that are currently on a five or a six year cycle will be placed on the three year cycle at the time of their renewal/recertification. All private applicators will remain on a 5 year cycle. All commercial certifications will be on a three year cycle by the end of 2009.
Please Note: An individual should only take a particular course once within a twelve month period. Any course taken more than once within twelve months of each other, will only be counted once and the repeat(s) will be disregarded. Private applicators cannot earn their recertification credits in one calendar year, ONLY commercial applicators on a three year certification cycle can do so."
Here is the link: http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/45618.html
Further, the fact is a wide range of pesticides in NYS are RESTRICTED, including most insecticides, some fungicides and a few herbicides. The general public, including a farmer without the certified license, can't legally buy those restricted materials.
You are totally wrong on one of the primary points you made. You didn't obviously bother to do even the simplest of searches to verify what you believed but you went ahead and posted it as fact and tried to make a big point of it. A search would have taken all of 2 minutes.
Is Dean still "bombastic?"
Oh, here is the link found on
Oh, here is the link found on the DEC site for the order form for the various pesticide applicator training manuals. Take note of the various categories:
http://psep.cce.cornell.edu/certification/pdf/LatestOrderForm.pdf
I have to say I just so love the irony that an article about farmers fighting the constant misinformation presented someone posts a comment which is a quintessential example of said misinformation.
LOL!
I concede to Chris Pawelski's
I concede to Chris Pawelski's correction to my statement about licensing- his information is accurate.
My generalization in the earlier post was based on outdated information, and I retract the incorrect statement that farmers are excempt from licensing.
Barons says; "I do, however,
Barons says;
"I do, however, re-assert that agricultural pesticide application is NOT regulated to the same degree as otherwise commercial application."
You can assert whatever you like but your wrong. Further, neighbor notification is an entirely separate issue. That's the reasoning fallacy of the red herring, an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. You claimed at first there was no oversight or licenses required for ag pesticide application and you insinuated that ag evidently bribed politicos to make it so. You have to acknowledge what you asserted was totally wrong and yet you continue to make claims regarding this issue when you obviously have no first hand or second knowledge or information on the topic.
Barons says:
"The documentation of pesticide/herbicide applications with the EPA is significantly less comprehensive than a commercial applicator's required filing. "
First, pesticide and herbicide are not interchangeable terms. A pesticide is a substance or mixture of substances used to kill a pest. Herbicide is a sub classification, it is a pesticide that kills weeds. Using these terms interchangeably demonstrates a lack of knowledge on the topic. And when have you examined what sort of documentation I have to provide as an ag applicator?
Baron says:
"And there is no requirement for groundwater monitoring."
And that is again a red herring.
Baron adds:
"My generalization in the earlier post was based on outdated information, and I retract the incorrect statement that farmers are excempt from licensing. I maintain, however, that there is a distinction that allows agricultural pesticide use to fall under lower scrutiny than other commercial pesticide users- with the obvious exception of private citizens in non-commercial applications."
Share with us what you are basing your claims on? What is your evidence to back your claims apart from your say so? Because you haven't cited anything to me apart from what you feel.
As the article primary discussed, we in ag are constantly dealing with this, people sharing opinions and feelings and those opinions aren't backed by credible facts and evidence and are very often wrong.
I phoned the Avon office of
I phoned the Avon office of DEC. A gentleman named Mike answered my questions about differences between commercial and agricultural licensing, reporting and monitoring of pesticide application.
...Sorry my second post
...Sorry my second post didn't provide as much amusement.
Maybe it was the root canal
Maybe it was the root canal that I underwent between the two.
Barons says: "...Sorry my
Barons says: "...Sorry my second post didn't provide as much amusement."
It did, and I would have said as much, but then Howard would have said I shouldn't make fun of you.
By the way, a phone call this afternoon doesn't really make you much of an expert on this topic. I hope you don't think otherwise.
I am not an expert on
I am not an expert on pesticides.
Between the farmer who uses pesticides and the chemical company that manufactures them exist two organizations with opposing directives: the distributors who sell the pesticides and the regulators who aim to safeguard the public. The onus is on the farmer to mitigate those two disparities.
I am aware that many farmers are college graduates. I am not portraying farmers as ignorant. There may be farmers who have advanced degrees in organic chemistry. I would guess that most college-educated farmers tend toward the agri-business degree. But that is not to assume that farmers on a whole lack a working knowledge of the risks involved with applying pesticides. Their own health is at risk handling poisonous chemicals. In fact most of what farmers do on a regular basis poses hazards greater than the average occupational risk.
Neither is it lost on me that farmers have access to any number of resources including Cornell's Extension Service and other professional development assistance.
As much as I am willing to acknowledge the responsible intentions of most farmers, one year's experience handling pesticides seems to be a stingy curriculum when considering the potential risk to farmer, customer and neighbor.
Actually, my M.A. is in
Actually, my M.A. is in communication/broadcasting studies with a minor emphasis in film studies.
Here is a piece my wife wrote for my local paper you might find interesting:
"Weigh pesticide risk against ability to feed billions"
http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060719/SPORTS0…
Regarding this comment: "As much as I am willing to acknowledge the responsible intentions of most farmers, one year's experience handling pesticides seems to be a stingy curriculum when considering the potential risk to farmer, customer and neighbor."
That's more than slightly flawed reasoning based on a perception of reality that isn't true. Your concern is valid IF the typical farmer is someone that becomes a farmer with absolutely no background and experience with farming, including pesticide use. That is not typical. Persons don't just walk off the street and decide to become a farmer. Your typical farmer is the child of a farmer and as such has more than 1 year of experience in dealing with pesticides. In my case I had 15 + years of experience of working with my father as he handled and applied pesticides BEFORE I took the test and obtained my own applicator license.
I just commented on your post
I just commented on your post but I wanted to add a further detail, my 12 year old son has begun to learn about pesticides from my father and brother and I. Last summer on a few occasions he watched us measure and mix our materials and rode in the tank truck and watched as either my father or brother filled the spray tractors. All from a safe distance and with goggles and gloves, even though he didn't go anywhere near the materials nor did he handle anything. But I want him to learn about them and have a proper respect for them. This is done by always wearing safety gear, and I want that drilled into his brain. I don't anticipate him ever handling or applying materials for MANY years but I want him to start learning about them, including protective safety measures, as early as possible.