Chipotle - Back to the Start Rebuttal

I enjoyed reading this official comment on the recent Chipotle commercial that aired during the Grammy's. The gross misinformation presented in the video made a lot of agriculturists feel offended.

You can read the comment put out by the American Society of Animal Science here.

I think what I enjoyed most was the following direct quote -

“The world can afford for a few wealthy people to get pork and other animal products produced in outdoor extensive systems,” said Pettigrew. “But we cannot sustainably produce nearly enough for all the world’s people that way. Such systems require too much land and feed to be sustainable if applied across the industry.”

Sourcing food from places that Chipotle does is not wrong. It's a valid option to give consumers. However, I disagree with presenting it as a replacement for conventionally produced meat products. We have a lot of mouths to feed and we have to provide protein products for people who make $5 an hour AND for people who make $50 an hour. 

What are your thoughts?

Tailgate Lectures: A New Language

“Simbaws! C’mon cows, simbaws! Tera run down by the windmill around that drawl and round up that last mamma!”

Working the cows with my family is always a fun experience. First off, it is always a big production, everyone gets involved, and we always had bets placed on the new words that would fly out of Grandpa’s mouth. Nobody really knows what the word, “simbaws” means or how to spell it for that matter, but my brother and I have a pretty good idea of what the “drawl” in our south pasture is. My grandpa’s language was definitely one of a kind!

Now, there is another language in production agriculture that can be pretty hard for consumers to understand. Walking down the meat aisle at the grocery store got me to thinking about how people are expected to understand what this food language really means. At least our meat choices aren’t labeled with words like, “simbaws” but some of them don’t seem any better!

These are some common labels found on meat products that are recognized and defined by the USDA. There is an Agricultural Marketing Service department of the USDA and they take care of this language:

NATURAL:

A product containing no artificial ingredient or added color and is only minimally processed. The label must also explain the use of this label. For example, if the product does not include added color that is what must be stated in the label.

NO HORMONES:

The term "no hormones administered" may be approved for use on the label of beef products if sufficient documentation is provided to the Agency by the producer showing no hormones have been used in raising the animals. This label cannot be used on pork or poultry products because the use of hormones are not allowed with those two species.

KOSHER:

"Kosher" may be used only on the labels of meat and poultry products prepared under Rabbinical supervision.

FREE RANGE or FREE ROAMING:

Producers must demonstrate to the Agency that the poultry has been allowed access to an outside environment.

CHEMICAL FREE:

The term is not allowed to be used on a label.

ORGANIC:

This is a whole new blog topic! If you’d like to learn more about this program, please refer to these factsheets put out by the USDA. 

I would like to point out that while food is often placed in a category with these labels that explain different production practices, it does not change the nutritional value of the product. Organic beef is just as healthy as conventionally produced beef. Kosher poultry has no nutritional differences from free range poultry. If you ever have questions about food labels, the USDA is a great source of information.

 - Tera Rooney

The real food crisis

As Americans most of us are lucky to have food on our plates and disposable income left over to do with as we please. However, this isn’t the case in many places around the world where hunger and starvation are the reality. It amazes me that while obsessing about our own food choices (organic, natural etc.) is very in style, advocating for feeding the hungry around the world has somehow fallen out of fashion.

A recent Foreign Policy article titled “Attention Whole Foods Shoppers - Stop obsessing about arugula. Your ‘sustainable’ mantra -- organic, local, and slow -- is no recipe for saving the world's hungry millions” addresses this topic.

The article is written by Robert Paarlberg, B.F. Johnson professor of political science at Wellesley College, an associate at Harvard University's Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, and author of Food Politics: What Everyone Needs to Know.

Here is one quote that spoke to me in particular:

“If we are going to get serious about solving global hunger, we need to de-romanticize our view of preindustrial food and farming. And that means learning to appreciate the modern, science-intensive, and highly capitalized agricultural system we've developed in the West. Without it, our food would be more expensive and less safe. In other words, a lot like the hunger-plagued rest of the world.”

Click here to read the whole article.