I've come across some interesting web links over the course of the last week or so. None are specifically related to each other (except they all have to do with agriculture and food), but I thought I'd share them all here and give you a few of my thoughts.
1) The Washington Post ran a story over the weekend about a recent survey by the Oklahoma State University Department of Agricultural Economics. The gist of the results: over 80 percent of Americans support "mandatory labels on foods containing DNA".
As in "deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), which is contained in almost all food.
My initially reaction, of course, was to shake my head in disbelief. As the article writer, states, "The Oklahoma State survey result is probably an example of the intersection between scientific ignorance and political ignorance, both of which are widespread. The most obvious explanation for the data is that most of these people don’t really understand what DNA is, and don’t realize that it is contained in almost all food. When they read that a strange substance called “DNA” might be included in their food, they might suspect that this is some dangerous chemical inserted by greedy corporations for their own nefarious purposes.
The article also mentions this little nugget as proof that the public's scientific knowledge, well, sucks: "A 2012 National Science Foundation survey even found that 25% of Americans don't know that the Earth revolves around the sun rather than vice versa.
But where does this leave us? I don't think we can just laugh and look away. And it certainly will not do agriculture any favors to declare general stupidity of a part of the population. But how do we encourage more scientific knowledge and critical thinking skills - when we know, at the same time, that science doesn't reach people (at least at first), it's the emotional connections that reach people?
If one thing is clear, it's that those of us who work in agriculture have more communications work to do.
2) The Atlantic Monthly ran an article this past week that declared, "Essential Oils Might be the New Antibiotics." I'm not an expert in this area so I'm not going to debate the details of the studies mentioned in the article. I will say there seems to be some promise behind this science, however I don't know that I would jump on this yet as the "be-all, end-all" solution quite yet. More study is in order, but the potential of new information like this is always exciting.
What's frustrating to me, of course, is that the article itself throws out the usual biases we often hear about antibiotic use in animals. For instance: antibiotic are overused "to speed up growth and to compensate for the cramped, unsanitary living conditions the animals endure." And this: "some farmers need more powerful weapons because they’re trying to compensate for ongoing problems caused by improper cleaning practices and unsanitary living conditions."
There's no doubt that bad management can lead to problems in the barn. But to claim that most antibiotics are used under these pretenses is absurd. The farmers I know make clean barns, safe living environments and good animal husbandry the key tenants of their profession - because they know these things will go a long way toward ensuring the health and well-being of their birds.
3) Finally, I've been watching this story take shape since late December: the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) has recommended that lean meat be removed from foods recommended for a healthy diet.
“The omission is stunning,” NAMI Vice President for Scientific Affairs Betsy Booren told Meatingplace.com. “By not including it, they are completely ignoring any nutritional value that lean meat has to the population.”
Stunning is right. And apparently this was all done behind closed doors, which sounds a little suspect to me.
As I've written before, I eat meat. I love lean protein like chicken, turkey as well as lean cuts of beef and pork and I believe these options are part of a well-balanced diet. If you don't want to eat meat, that's fine and I respect that it's your choice. But to completely eliminate a nutritious source of protein from a set of national guidelines is worrisome and speaks to a larger, behind-the-scenes, political agenda that could have far-reaching future effects on farmers, ranchers, food companies and the rest of us.