This is an interesting article about small farmers and raw milk/eggs. It's particularly interesting to me because when we moved here and acquired livestock, I saw all of the catalogs containing all of the medicines and supplements that are available for livestock, and I was shocked. I have always been concerned about the hormones and such in milk and meat, but I guess it was just more "in your face" when I saw the catalogs that sold the stuff. It's easy as a consumer to live with your head in the sand.
When we created our business plan, we were determined to avoid giving any unnecessary supplements to our animals. Totally organic would mean no antibiotics, no deworming, and only organically grown feed. While, in theory, this is an ideal practice, for us just starting out, the potential for loss of animals is too great. Several animals have been treated for something in their time at our farm. Organically grown feed is nearly 3 times as much as the feed we buy.
We do, however, refrain from overuse of antibiotics, we do not use growth hormones or steroids in any way, and we only deworm if we actually find worms. We do not worm on a regular basis, or proactively. We feed hay grown on our farm, which is not sprayed with insecticide or contaminated with feces (fertilized with manure).
Folks who sell organic meat can usually command prices high enough to afford the additional costs and risk of organic practices. However, our land is surrounded by farms on all sides, and because they do not practice organic farming, it makes it difficult to avoid any residual pesticide or runoff, and that would exclude us from organic certification.
Anyway, I'm sort of digressing from my point, which really is that it's a shame that someone who wants to avoid hormones, antibiotics, processing, or other changes/supplements/additions to their food is precluded from the freedom to buy it. If a person wants to buy it, the government should not intervene and say that they cannot. However, if someone should not do the research and become sick because they bought food that was unhealthy, neither should they count on the government to bail them out via litigation. It's a buyer beware situation.
It's just that you can't really go in the store and look at a steak in the stryofoam package and tell if that cow has been fed growth hormones or antibiotics, or has been treated cruelly. It's really limiting the freedom of the consumer to choose.
Stepping off the soapbox...
Monday, November 13, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
One of the problems is the "food disparagement" laws that so many states have. These laws basically say that you can't say anything bad about a food--or anything good about your food product--because you might be "disparaging" the item (or competition). Monsanto and others have used this in the past to target small organic dairies that had the nerve to put "no rBGH" on their labels. Monsanto says that's disparaging, that there's absolutely no evidence that there's anything wrong with milk from cows fed rBGH.
I'm with you, though, as a consumer. I feel I should have the right to know what's in the food I'm eating: let me make the choice and I'll vote with my dollars.
Post a Comment