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.

By Mike Barnett

I'm sick to death of "swine flu."

No, I don't have the H1N1 flu virus. I don't have chills and sweats and coughs and all of those other symptoms. Not yet.

What I do have is a pain in my butt from reading newspapers accounts and watching local television news and listening to radio broadcasts using this misnomer that has gleefully been adopted and spread via our local and many national media outlets. And no matter how many times we call them to task and no matter what we do or say, the mindless babble continues.

"Swine flu" apparently is much sexier than H1N1. It slides off the tongue easier and carries that touch of wariness and hint of danger that pigs might be giving us the flu after all. Not many media are letting the truth stand in the way of a provocative name. What they are not taking into account is the very real cost to those who make their living raising hogs.

Pork producers are pinching pennies paying the price for this preposterous porcine prattle as consumers shun their product at the grocery store. Prices plummeted last spring when H1N1 first garnered headlines, raised a bit this summer when the virus faded into the background and have resumed their downward spiral as H1N1 emerged once again this fall. Blamed are consumer misconceptions about the true origin of the flu and the continuing ban by some countries of U.S. pork products.

Let's be clear about one thing. Because the flu is called something it ain't is reason enough to put pork on your plate. H1N1 didn’t come from pigs. You're not going to get the H1N1 flu from eating pork. Period.

In fact, it's probably time to stock the freezer. I picked up an incredible 3 1/2 pound pork loin roast the other day for under 8 bucks. What a bargain. That's some mighty fine eating when slow cooked on the grill. Or in the oven. Or any other way you care to fix it.

You know the industry has a real problem when soccer moms kick "swine flu" around harder than their kids kick balls on the field. I heard three different conversations in the span of 10 minutes about swine flu at my granddaughter's game this weekend.
 
"Don't blame the pigs," I told all. "They're innocent. Call it H1N1.  And have a bacon sandwich. "

Then there's my daughter, Amanda.

I had guests in my home this weekend and invited Amanda over for dinner. I served that incredible pork loin roast I talked about earlier and some beautiful baby back ribs.

My good friend Steve bit into one of those meaty, fall-of-the-bone delights at the same time my daughter decided to tell us about the local outbreak of "swine flu" at my grandkid's school.

There was an audible clunk as one half-eaten rib fell to the plate.
 
First, I told Steve not to worry. He wasn't going to get swine flu from a rib, pork chop, bacon, ham, pork roast, pork rinds or any other part of the pig he cared to eat. A look of relief flooded his face. I could tell he really liked those ribs.

"And you, Amanda," I directed my youngest child. "You of all people should know better than to call it swine flu. How many times have I told you it doesn't have a thing to do with pigs?"

"About a hundred," she replied. "But the lady on the news keeps calling it swine flu..."

"And if she told you to jump off a cliff...oh never mind," I scolded. "Don't let me hear that come out of your mouth again. Ever. Call it H1N1."

Amanda called me a few days later. The voice on the phone indicated a really sick daughter.

"What's wrong?" I asked, suspecting but not knowing for sure.

"I have H1N1, she replied.

"Good," I said.

"What do you mean good? I'm sicker than a dog and all you can say is good," she lamented, a bit testy. "What kind of dad are you?"

"Not good that you have H1N1," I clarified. "Good that you finally learned what to call it."

Beef Causes Cancer
That'll catch your attention. You've probably seen plenty of headlines like that the past few years.

Beef Doesn't Cause Cancer
Chances are that's a headline you have missed. That’s because few media outlets have told this story.

It's kind of like the man bites dog theory of news. Man bites dog...that's news! Dog bites man...who cares?

What’s my point? The author of an epidemiological study which came out two years ago, declaring there was "convincing" evidence linking red meat consumption to cancer--specifically colorectal cancer--recently admitted the study was flawed, according to Feedstuffs newspaper (see the story here)

That study, an extensive literature review of previous research, was conducted by the World Cancer Fund (WCRF) and the American Institute of Cancer Research (AICR). It recommended limiting consumption of red meat and processed meats to 18 ounces per week because of the cancer link.

A review of that research was conducted by Exponent Health Sciences at the request of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. Funded by checkoff dollars, the review revealed "no conclusive evidence" of a link between red meat consumption and cancer.

Exponet and NCBA met with the two cancer prevention advocates in what was termed not a "public spat but an effective engagement in dialogue." According to a NCBA source quoted by Feedstuffs, WCRF and AICR acknowledged the report's errors, said they would address the errors with continuous updates, and said they would write a letter to inform USDA of their omissions and errors.

Why is this important? The USDA Advisory Committee who is writing USDA's 2010 Dietary Guidelines was going to defer to WCRF/AICR studies in a number of their recommendations. Hopefully, the revelation that their red meat/cancer study was flawed will hold water with that committee. A recommendation by the committee to limit consumer consumption to 18 ounces of red meat a week—based on admittedly faulty scientific review—could be devastating to beef, pork and lamb producers.

More important, this issue has been studied and reviewed and studied some more, and findings linking red meat to cancer remain weak and inconsistent. The cancer prevention groups admitting that can bring peace of mind to consumers who might have shunned a steak, pork or lamb chop because of its "cancer risk."

Too bad those consumers won't hear about it on the evening news.