By Mike Barnett

How small is too large?

That’s a loaded question, especially when you talk about risk and benefit as it relates to the food we eat.

It often gets dicey when conversation turns to pesticides and food safety and someone starts spouting numbers. And it’s no real help to know how much or how little a unit of measurement is.

For example one-part-per-million can be described as one drop of food dye in 16 gallons of water. 500 parts-per-million of one pesticide may be harmless. Yet 500 parts-per-million for a different pesticide may be deadly.

The trouble is, what seems like an insignificant amount of something can hurt you. That’s why the Environmental Protection Agency’s process for evaluating the potential health risks of pesticides used in food production is so rigorous. The EPA's testing requirements for pesticides used on food are more extensive than for chemicals used in any other category and include testing targeted specifically to assess the potential risks to fetuses, infants and children.

Enter the Environmental Working Group, which posts information called EWG’s Shoppers Guide to Pesticides. The best way to describe the bent of the information is pro-organic, anti-conventional agriculture. As part of their effort, EWG publishes what is called the Dirty Dozen, their guide to what they label the most pesticide-laden fruits and vegetables in the produce section.

What’s wrong with this list—which includes celery, peaches, strawberries, apples, domestic blueberries, nectarines, sweet bell peppers, spinach, cherries, potatoes, imported grapes and lettuce—is that it misleads consumers and possibly discourages them from eating fresh produce. The Dirty Dozen touts reams of exposure data while remaining tight-lipped about available information on the toxicity of pesticides present in the residues. When you measure in parts per million or billion or trillion, you will detect residues. But as the website www.safefruitsandveggies.com says, “Merely detecting a residue does not provide an adequate scientific basis for judging whether or not there are potential health effects.”

Read closer through the EWG propaganda and you’ll find a startling statement in their Frequently Asked Question section:

Q: “Do all these pesticides mean I shouldn’t eat fruits and vegetables?”

A. “No, eat your fruits and vegetables! The health benefits of a diet rich in fruits and vegetables outweigh the risks of pesticide exposure. Use EWG’s Shopper’s Guide to reduce your exposures as much as possible, but eating conventionally-grown produce is far better than not eating fruits and vegetables at all.”

Too bad this information is buried deep within the website.  It goes with what farmers and health professionals have been saying all along.

Dig into your fruits and veggies, organically or conventionally grown. The health benefits far outweigh perceived health risks. It’s nice to hear this coming from an advocacy group such as the Environmental Working Group. Too bad they’re whispering the good news instead of shouting.

Visit the Texas Farm Bureau website at www.txfb.org.
Follow us on Twitter and Facebook for the latest updates on this topic and many more

By Mike Barnett

Am I going nuts?

Okay, don’t answer that.

But the food crazies are driving me insane. Seems that every production practice modern agriculture uses is condemned by some group out there who thinks the world would be rosy if we would only go back to the good old days.

I heard Texas Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples the other night say that modern agriculture is as technically advanced as the Silicon Valley. And he’s right.

Yet many food crazies long for the days of 40 acres and a mule and human cotton-picking machines. What’s this world coming to?

Today’s farmer has to be part computer geek, half techno freak with a good dash of policy wonk just to make it through the work day. Astounding gains in farm productivity have been made with the advance of machinery and tools. Computers and microchips help farmers get the most out of every input. Satellites soaring 12,000 miles over Mother Earth guide the farmer working the field with precise application of pesticides and fertilizers via Global Positioning Systems (GPS).

A chip in a calf’s ear can help a rancher monitor that animal’s growth and productivity. A chip in a dairy cow’s ear can help the dairyman monitor feed intake and milk production.

Through biotechnology, crops are becoming more drought resistant. Fruits and veggies are receiving improved tolerance to frost. Insect-resistant crops will reduce the need for pesticides. Genetic research could lead the way to higher growth rates, better milk yield and quality, tenderness, disease resistance, heat and cold tolerance, and hundreds of other traits important to livestock producers.

Yet all of this is bad. Why? Because someone with no connection to the food they eat—other than sticking it in their mouth—says so.

They watch their anti-agriculture documentaries on their 50 inch flat screens in their air conditioned homes, hop in their gas-guzzling SUVs to take a trip to Whole Foods where they’re faced with astounding array of food and come home, fire up their Netbook or Notebook or I-Phone and label modern food production practices as evil industrial agriculture. Technology drives their lives yet they attempt to create firewalls between farmers and science.

Do these people really long for a simpler way of life? There’s a way for them to achieve it. A hoe, rake, seeds and some backbreaking work could help them reach their goals.

It’s enough to drive me crazy.

Technology is not an option for agriculture or consumers. It is the key for safe, affordable food in this country and to feed an ever-growing world population.

Visit the Texas Farm Bureau website at www.txfb.org.
Follow us on Twitter and Facebook for the latest updates on this topic and many more.

By Mike Barnett

Let’s talk about obesity. It’s an epidemic in this country. It affects old and young alike. We’ve become a nation of slobs. Or so the news says.

What I find amusing are the different theories being presented about obesity on the various news outlets, and how these theories end up as “facts” in the minds of some.

Gene Hall and I have talked about obesity a time or two in Texas Agriculture Talks and have seen a wheelbarrow full of “facts” come back to us from our readers.

One of the most interesting was a thought that was extremely complex. Obesity, the reader said, is caused by farm subsidies. Farm subsidies allow for cheap corn, his theory held, which leads to too many cattle being fed which leads to an oversupply of beef which leads to cheap McDonald hamburgers which are being wolfed down by Americans because they can’t afford “real” food which leads to an obesity epidemic. Or something like that.
 
Another theorist said high fructose corn syrup was the villain, a myth we tackled in a post earlier this year. It’s replaced real sugar as a sweetener, the theory goes, is in everything and is being wolfed down by Americans which leads to an obesity epidemic. Or something like that.

A new twist to the obesity conspiracy is that genetically modified organisms, or GMO plants, make us fat. I’m not real sure about the “science” behind this “fact” but one reader claims that when she quit eating GMO foods her weight dropped faster than a newborn foal on roller skates. GMO ingredients are being used in most foods, the theory goes, and are being wolfed down by Americans which leads to an obesity epidemic. Or something like that.

I did my part for personal obesity this past 4th of July weekend. My brother was here from California, and he being a true Texan, wanted a steaming plate of Tex-Mex food. Saturday night I ordered cheese enchiladas, a taco, ate a bowlful of chips and salsa and ended the meal with a sopaipilla.

The next day we had a houseful of relatives and cooked up a traditional 4th of July feast. I had a grilled hamburger, hot dog, potato chips, strawberries and real whipped cream.

Monday we had friends over for a barbeque. Baby back pork ribs, pinto beans, cold slaw, garlic bread and banana pudding were on the menu.

Today I’m back at work, writing this blog, and I probably weigh three pounds heavier. Why did I gain weight? Take this short multiple choice test:
Mike gained weight because:
  A) Commodity subsidies  led to too much corn being raised to feed cattle and hogs making the hamburger and pork ribs so affordable he couldn’t turn it down.
  B) The high fructose corn syrup in the banana pudding programmed his body to gain weight.
  C) GMO commodities used in at least something he ate this weekend modified the cells in his body into a weight gaining machine.
  D) I ate too much stuff and didn’t exercise.

Bingo, folks if you said D. I ate too much. And when I wasn’t eating too much I was sitting on the couch trying to get comfortable by unbuttoning the top of my shorts. And when I got comfortable I went back and ate some more strawberries and whipped cream or another bowl of banana pudding.

If I ate every day like I did this weekend I’d be morbidly obese.

Which brings to mind something my dad used to tell me.

“Use your head, boy.”

He would tell me that when I’d do something incomprehensible or spout some silly nonsense I had heard in the school yard as truth.

“Common sense will take you far.”

Dad always added that as a reminder.

“Use your head.” “Common sense.”  Those two thoughts have served me well throughout my life.

Too bad there’s a shortage of both in this country today.

Eat less. Exercise more. That’s the cure for obesity in America.

Visit the Texas Farm Bureau website at www.txfb.org.
Follow us on Twitter and Facebook for the latest updates on this topic and many more.

I’m having an ongoing discussion about the food we eat and how it’s raised with one of my childhood friends.

 We friended each other on the social media site Facebook. She started reading my blog posts on Texas Agriculture Talks and we’ve been carrying on a lively discussion about food ever since.

This lady is sharp, smart and has a real interest in the food she feeds her family. She wants their nourishment to be healthy, wholesome and affordable. She’s getting her food education from the likes of Joel Salatin, Michael Pollan and the documentary, Food Inc. And that spells trouble for our industry.

Salatin is an unconventional farmer who looks to maximize production on an integrated system on a holistic farm. And there’s nothing wrong with that. Not a thing. Michael Pollan is the author of The Omnivore’s Dilemma and was featured in the documentary Food Inc. Pollan uses Salatin as an example of what all farming should be.

Pollan is much better at propaganda against agriculture than we are at public relations for agriculture. The problem I have with Pollan is he condemns modern production methods while condoning practices that won’t scratch the world food needs.

Pollan doesn’t like biotech, herbicides, insecticides, modern tillage practices, livestock or processed food. He condemns “industrial agriculture” for everything from unhealthy eating habits to poor diets to the well-being of America. He turns the methods that have produced the greatest food production scheme the world has ever seen into something evil.

This is who my friend is quoting in our food disagreements. And that’s not only sad for our industry, it’s dangerous.

If Pollan and his kind are successful in dismantling American agriculture, we will all pay through lower standards of living, less economic activity, and shortages of food throughout the world. The face of agriculture will change…and not for the better.

Consumers like my childhood friend want to know more about the food they eat. They want to know their food is nutritious. They want it to be safe. They want it to be affordable and abundant.

They’re getting that now, if they make wise choices. They can choose food raised by modern methods or they can go organic or local; whatever they wish, there's a farmer who will grow it. They may have grass-fed or grain-fed beef or no beef at all. They can eat white bread or wheat bread, it's their choice. And it’s all good. The trouble is consumers are hearing a one-sided story.

Industry spokesmen such as Gene Hall and I tell agriculture's side of story every day. Yet the consumer would rather hear from you, the farmer and rancher. Sadly, few in the production end are taking the time to tell them.

The tools are readily available to reach these consumers. Social media such as Twitter and Facebook are a great place to start. It takes minutes a day to start building that network. It takes minutes a day to tell your story.

Imagine the impact thousands of farmers speaking proactively for their industry—day after day—could have against the inflammatory voices speaking out against modern production methods.

We have such a great story to tell. We could truly start a new food revolution.

By Gene Hall

Among those that believe the U.S. food supply is a great evil, depriving us of health and happiness, high fructose corn syrup has become a particular demon.  It is said to be making us fat in unprecedented numbers.  This is a lie that has turned several laps around the world before the truth gets its boots on. 

Here are some facts –

From SweetScam.com – “Some people mistakenly believe that some sweeteners are healthier than others. But the facts don't add up. Whether it’s sugar from cane, beets, or corn, all sweet treats have the same number of calories.”

On SweetSurprise.com – “High fructose corn syrup is simply a kind of corn sugar. It has the same number of calories as sugar and is handled similarly by the body.”

Recently, as unlikely a source as CBS News did a story called – “It’s Just Sugar.”

Check both out for yourselves –
www.sweetsurprise.com
www.sweetscam.com

I think we’ve pretty well established in recent posts of this blog that, for those determined to drag agriculture kicking and screaming back into the 19th Century, the facts are building materials that can be twisted, bent and if necessary, invented to suit your purpose.

Since everyone’s got a theory, here’s mine.  X-Boxes, Play Stations and High Definition TV have as much to do with high rates of obesity as anything we eat.  Genetics and bad luck have a lot to do with some of our health problems.  That’s sad, but all too often, it’s the choices we make that have detrimental effects on our health.

Confession time – I am a Jelly Belly junkie.  These are the small, incredibly sweet gourmet jellybeans with 40 flavors to a bag.  According to the label, they are sweetened with both sugar and corn syrup.  There are 35 Jelly Bellys in a serving, along with 140 calories.  Obviously, I’ve learned that consuming an entire bag – six servings and 840 calories is not such a good idea.  I’d say that when I get a sweet tooth, I do half a serving from the jar that sits by my recliner.  Some nights I just stare at it longingly and leave it alone.

I am a big guy from a family of big guys.  I topped out at about 230 pounds on my 5 foot 11 inch frame.  Recently, I decided to get in better shape.  I’ve joined a gym and can now go for nearly an hour, walking, on a treadmill at 4 miles per hour.  My 56 year old knees cannot take the pounding of running.  I’ve added some light weight lifting.  No macho stuff – as I said – I’m 56. I’m also watching what I eat more.  I’ve not yet lost a lot of weight but I do seem to be in better shape. 

There are lapses from time to time.  I’m eating leaner meat and smaller portions.  I’ve cut down on cheese and replaced 2% milk in the fridge with fat free.  Milk is my favorite food and drink. 

I occasionally dip into the Jelly Bellys too.  Anyone who wants to take them away from me will have a fight on their hands.  Are you listening Food Police?

Health and obesity depend primarily on two things – genetics and personal choice. We can do little about the former and a great deal about the latter.  This is one thing the nanny state should not try to fix.

Forty years ago when my family moved to Erath and Hamilton counties, there were almost no deer in the area. There were no wild turkeys. Like them or hate them, there were no wild hogs. At 14, I started deer hunting. I’d sit for hours and never see a thing. Since that time, wild animals have proliferated. Today, you may harvest multiple deer in a season in each county. Wild turkey are common. Hogs are overrunning us.

I walk and ride through pastures scattered all over Hamilton, Erath, and Comanche counties. There are fewer cattle in the country now than at any time in over 30-some odd years. What were cotton fields 70 or 80 years ago and then subsequently grain or peanut fields are now turned into grassland or woods.

It is amazing how much of this country was actually farmed in the first half of the 20th century. Many more people lived on the land 50 or 80 years ago than today. Our towns were much bigger and schools dotted the countryside as well. Old farmsteads, long abandoned and barely noticeable, dot the landscape. On the 855 acres where we now live, there are four old home sites. Now it is just our family. Our kids will all have left the nest within a few years. The Texas state demographer predicts that from Hamilton County and westward, in general, the population will continue to decline over the next 40 years.

Man’s footprint on this piece of Texas gets smaller in many ways. The footprints of our wildlife become increasingly more numerous. Most would agree that is a good thing. Almost all of us love wildlife, whether we hunt them with guns or cameras or just watch them, or all of the above. Yet, far from pristine, our environment bears the traces of those wild animals in the form of E. coli in our streams and rivers. E. coli bacteria are part of our natural system. All warm-blooded animals, including birds and people, harbor e. coli which are passed into the soil and water through feces. In water sampling of Texas’ rivers and streams, those bacteria are found throughout the state of Texas. Most of the streams in Texas fail to meet the water quality criteria for E. Coli as established by the EPA. As a result, most of the streams in Texas have been listed as “impaired” due to bacterial contamination for the past 15 years or more.

In our part of Texas, the best scientific data we have suggest wildlife contribute 40 to 60 percent of all E. coli in the streams. The balance is from people, pets, cattle, horses, goats, and unknown sources. The amount of E. coli from wildlife alone is often sufficient to exceed the EPA-approved criteria for E. coli in our waters. If we accept that most human activities, including agriculture, will result in some footprint that can be seen as E. coli in waters, there is no room according to the existing EPA standards for the existence of humans within these thousands of square miles of watershed. In essence then, my good stewardship which encourages wildlife on my land is working against me as an agricultural producer.

The EPA has the option to change the standard for E. coli in Texas streams. A new standard has been proposed which still falls within the accepted “safe” range of E. coli concentrations. Adoption of this new standard would recognize the prevalence of wild animals within these watersheds and the bacterial load they contribute, while still leaving room for human activities. People, too, need a place to live and work. We can’t afford to make all the open country outside of the cities a wildlife sanctuary, or there will be no agriculture. Everyone has to eat. We need to make sure farmers can farm and ranchers can ranch. The EPA needs to make this regulatory change.

By Mike Barnett

We all know Texans are rugged. Especially the West Texas variety. It takes hard men to deal with Mother Nature’s antics in this harsh Southwestern climate.

But really, guys, how tough are you? I know you are brawny enough to wrestle a calf to the ground at branding time; hardened enough to brave the blazing sun all day and have enough left to go two-steppin’ at night; mighty enough to hump seed bags all afternoon during planting season.

Are you tough enough to drive a pink tractor?

Now that’s tough.

Many cowboys are “Tough Enough to Wear Pink.” Evidence the campaigns to fight cancer which have been huge successes at rodeos across Texas and the nation. The good folks at Cisco Equipment in San Angelo and four other West Texas locations have taken that idea a step further.

Take one fully-loaded New Holland Boomer 3040 tractor and loader. Wrap it in camouflage decals. Paint it pink. Bright pink. Encourage donations with net proceeds going to the American Cancer Society.

Are you man enough to drive it?

Women love it. Children crave it. Men, well, are men… “What would I do with a pink tractor?”

“You can tell whoever asks, ‘I got it for $5,’ “ laughs Marty Behrens with Cisco Equipment.

One lucky person will be the talk of the Concho Valley and beyond in November, when a drawing for the tractor will be held. Some 2,000 charitable donations of $5 each were collected at the recent San Angelo Stock Show and Rodeo. More has been/will be collected as this tractor with an attitude has appeared, or will appear, at other events including the Sweetwater Rattlesnake Roundup, the Dance for the Cure for Cancer, local and regional Relays for Life, Breast Cancer Awareness night with local semipro sports teams, and “whatever we can come up with in October, which is Breast Cancer Awareness Month,” Behrens said.

“Are you tough enough to drive pink?”

Pugnacious Pink (that has a manly sound to it)… A camouflaged, Pugnacious Pink tractor… One of a kind… A real attention getter…Your wife will love you… Your daughters will clamor to work…  And donations go to a worthy cause…

Marty says the crew at Cisco Equipment has put a lot of time—much of it personal—into promoting the “Tough Enough to Drive Pink” fundraising campaign. He said it has been a real eye-opener.

“I did not know to what extent cancer has affected people in my community. I had no idea of the exposure,” he said. “Until a friend died a couple of years ago, I had no close encounters with cancer. Working on this project, I’ve found out that every third or fourth person has lost someone to cancer; or someone has survived the disease. I had no idea how many lives it affected in our community.”

I plan on donating. It’s a great cause. Personally, I’d like to be known as the “guy with the pink tractor.”

Get Tough. Drive Pink. Help Fight Cancer.

Administrator’s note: To make a donation to the “Tough Enough to Drive Pink” campaign for the American Cancer Society, contact any of the Cisco Equipment Company dealerships: San Angelo (325-653-2121), Odessa (432-367-9181), Midland (432-686-2490), Lubbock (806-745-9595), or Artesia, N.M. (575-748-1314). Donations can also be made through the American Cancer Society in San Angelo, 325-944-2500.

I’ve been thinking lately about the term “factory farm.” I know it angers animal agriculture producers, and it hacks me off, too—I think because it’s spit out of the mouths and keyboards of agriculture’s enemies like a vile and evil thing. Perhaps we overreact. It’s past time I looked into this. Maybe it’s not such a bad thing overall.

The Internet is such a handy tool. It’s almost like an information factory. It would have taken hours with my old Webster’s to find all the appropriate definitions, but it took only minutes online. Here’s what several online dictionaries had to say about a “factory.”

• A building where goods are manufactured or assembled chiefly by machine. A building or group of buildings in which goods are manufactured; a plant

Agriculture, including animal agriculture, fits this to some degree. There are machines that plant and harvest crops. There are machines that milk cows and provide clean food and water to chickens and other livestock.

• A productive place: a place or organization that produces a particular thing regularly and in some quantity

 This one fits, too. U.S. agriculture feeds much of the world—regularly and in quantities that other parts of the world can only imagine.  A productive place?  Darn right—productivity unmatched anywhere in the world

• A building or set of buildings with facilities for manufacturing. A building or other place where manufacturing takes place

I won’t argue with this one, either. Some parts of animal agriculture, especially, need buildings to protect animals from the elements and predators and to keep the feed and water clean.

Now, we need to look at a couple of definitions of manufacturing.

• Something made from raw materials by hand or by machinery

• The process of making wares by hand or by machinery, especially when carried on systematically with division of labor; a productive industry using mechanical power and machinery

Well, I’ll be… These sort of fit too! Animal agriculture producers take the raw materials—grass and grain—and “manufacture” protein for human food. As described before, there is machinery.

To be fair, there were mentions of “industrial” in some of the definitions. This is another of the “bad words” by which agriculture is often attacked, but it also hints at efficiency and cost control.

All these words—“factory, manufacture, industrial” and others—can be used in various ways to suit your purpose. There is some resemblance to factories in what agriculture does. Think of it this way. A great big chunk of the American population decided about 100 years ago they wanted to leave the farm and lead a new and different life. They did so in droves to work in places that fit the conventional definition of factories. The development of these places led to lower costs and ready availability of a wide range of goods. 

The farmers who were left had to get more efficient or go out of business. All this happened. The result is now evidenced in grocery stores where Americans spend on average less than 10 percent of their income to feed themselves. The “factory farms” of U.S. agriculture produce a generally safe and healthy product that almost anyone can afford. These same factory farms create jobs—about 20 percent of the jobs in the U.S.

There would be consequences for outlawing this kind of agriculture. We can send everyone back to the farm. We can all keep some chickens, a milk cow and grow a garden.

Some do this. Not all can or even want to. Of course, there is room in the market for organic and locally grown food. No harm at all in supplying those markets of consumers who are willing to pay. Of course, many of these farms are “factories,” too. There is also another choice. Pay more…a heck of a lot more, and learn to live with shortages. 

There is some resemblance to modern, efficient and beneficial factories and U.S. farms. I’ve always wondered what factory farming meant. After my little research project, I understand it a little better. 

By Gene Hall

One Saturday evening a few weeks ago, my Texas Aggies were losing badly on TV and I turned to some web surfing to get my mind off it.  I stumbled across the Wikipedia site on Luddites.  This was a group that began in the early 19th Century and named for an early leader.  They were against anything that remotely smacked of technological progress.  As the Industrial Revolution took hold, they sometimes attacked factories and destroyed manufacturing equipment.

The followers of Luddism were afraid of change.  They were worried about losing jobs and they were hostile to the free market.  As I gathered these nuggets of information, I realized that Luddism is alive and well in the 21st Century.  The most extreme of modern Luddites was Ted Kaczynski, the infamous Unabomber.  Other notable Luddites include the extreme environmental and animal rights groups that burn subdivisions and laboratories. 

But Luddism has a less extreme, though just as destructive, face.  This includes the people who just stop their collective feet and shout, “No!” to every agricultural advance that science can produce.

I keep thinking about those more than 9 billion people that will inhabit Planet Earth just four decades from right now.  How will we feed them?  The answer is we can’t, if our farmers and ranchers are forced to use the production tools of the 19th Century. 

Modern America has become a nation where most people enjoy a comfortable life.  That will change if acquiring food becomes our top priority, as it was with our great-great grandparents.  Modern agriculture uses efficiencies of scale to feed more people at a lower cost.  It also uses chemical and genetic technological advances to grow food that is less troubled by insects and less dependant on ample water.

There are always those that oppose progress, but this time the consequences are too terrible to contemplate.  If we don’t accelerate our food production, we could face starvation on a global scale. 

Today, in a land of plenty, we don’t worry much about food, other than to make emotional and ill informed decisions that make growing it much harder.  We are going to need much more food than we are able to grow even today.  What will happen if the Luddite agenda is adopted?  Ask the Luddites.  They seem to have all the answers.

By Gene Hall

Let me say at the outset that this country has to do something about health care.  We have far too many uninsured.  We can do better.  However, I can’t accept that we must obliterate a system that works very well for the majority of our citizens to take care of a much smaller number who are not covered by health insurance.

Many of our problems in health care arise from federal mandates.  For example, government mandates that require coverage on virtually everything from major to minor jack up the cost of coverage for everyone.  An “average” American family, one that’s purchased coverage to protect against illness, finds themselves paying a premium that must cover other folks’ elective surgery. 

We need government to back off and let an unfettered market work to provide a wide range of products.  We could have high premiums for people that want everything covered and lower costs for those who elect catastrophic coverage for major illness.  True competition can fix most of this.  We don’t have it now and we certainly won’t if the public option is included in the health care package that is certain to pass in some form this year.  The public option is the first step toward the so called “single payer” system, because it will undercut and drive private health insurers out of business.  We can take care of the uninsured with subsidies, similar to the way food stamp programs work now.  We can also beef up health savings accounts in many ways, including tax forgiveness on dollars deposited in, or transferred to, these accounts.

We can argue about that if you want, but one of the real issues, in my view, is the absolute refusal by the administration and Congress to add true reform of medical lawsuits.  This abuse is widespread and rampant.  Everyone knows about former presidential candidate John Edwards, who made a fortune suing doctors who delivered babies in North Carolina.  For a time, it was very risky for a doctor to deliver a baby in that state.  Many stopped doing it.

The problem goes far deeper than that, though.  Medical liability reforms passed the Texas Legislature in 2003.  Before the reforms, 24 Texas counties had no emergency room physician.  Now they do.  Another 58 Texas counties have added at least one emergency room doctor.  Before the reforms, 12 counties had no licensed obstetrician.  They do now.  Another 26 now have at least one more obstetrician than before.

There are more doctors in our state than before the reforms, with major increases in numbers among the high risk specialties.  Medical malpractice premiums have been reduced in Texas.  Texans can still sue doctors, but the Lone Star State has put a serious dent in jackpot justice, which was and is a national disgrace.

Personal injury trial lawyers would very much like to take all of this apart.  They’ve put millions of dollars behind the effort in Texas.  In Washington, D.C., the power of the plaintiff’s attorney lobby has completely intimidated the White House and the Congressional leadership.  There’s been not a hint of lawsuit abuse reform in any of the health care bills we’ve seen so far.

Come on now – can we honestly even call it Health Care REFORM if we don’t address this?  It affects health care costs in two ways.  First, the cost of doctors’ malpractice insurance is built into every bill we pay.  Worse, doctors often order unneeded tests and procedures to make their actions more defensible in court.

Despite the miracles of modern medicine, not every outcome is positive.  People do not recover sometimes.  Not every one of these should necessarily produce a lawsuit.

We will not achieve true health care reform without addressing medical lawsuit abuse.  Without it, it’s not even an honest effort.