Dairy news aggregator

No Differences Found in the Composition of Conventional, rbST-Free and Organic Milk

Terry D. Etherton

A new scientific study by Vicini et al. published in the July issue of the prestigious Journal of the American Dietetic Association (JADA) reports the results of the first in-depth survey study comparing retail milk for quality, nutritional value and levels of different milk hormones, including bovine somatotropin (bST). The study that we published found that there were “no meaningful differences” in the composition of milk with the three different label claims.

Prompted by the recent trend in misleading food labeling based on dairy cow management, the study looked specifically at three label claims: conventional milk, recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST)-free milk and organic milk.

While minor differences were observed in milk composition for the three labels, the differences were not “biologically meaningful.” The coauthors of the study concluded that label claims “were not related to any meaningful differences in the milk compositional variables measured.” The only difference among conventional, rbST-free and organic milk is price, according to the study, with milk labeled rbST-free or organic selling for anywhere from $1 to $4 more per gallon than conventional milk.

Because absence-claim labels can imply that the milk labeled rbST-free or organic is safer or better than conventional milk, the published report emphasizes the importance of consumers being mindful about how product labels impact the food they purchase, that purchase decisions should be based on science and not on perceptions created by retail marketing, which can be misleading.

This peer-reviewed paper is important because it will help health care professionals respond effectively to consumer questions and perceptions about different milk-label claims.

Specifically, the study revealed the following:

· Quality: Antibiotics were not detectable in any milk samples. This is a not surprising result since milk containing antibiotics is not permitted to enter the food system. Bacterial counts were less for conventionally labeled milk compared with organic or rbST-free milk, but the differences were small and not significant.

· Nutrient Composition: Protein concentration was greater in organic milk compared to either conventional or rbST-free milk, which both had similar protein content. Again, the difference is not significant, and protein in milk accounts for little of the recommended protein intake for humans. There were no differences in milk fat, lactose or solids among the three label types.

· Hormone Levels: There were no differences in concentration of bST in milk regardless of label type. Concentrations of IGF-1(insulin-like growth factor-1) in milk were similar in conventional and rbST-free-milk, both were slightly higher in comparison to organic milk. Concentration of the steroid hormone progesterone was greater in organic milk compared to conventionally labeled milk or milk labeled rbST-free. Conventionally labeled milk had less estradiol compared to organic and rbST-free milk with concentrations of estradiol in samples labeled organic and rbST-free being the same.

Milk samples for the study were obtained from all 48 contiguous states, though some states did not have rbST-free milk, and some did not have organic milk samples pasteurized by the more conventional, lower-temperature methods. Samples were obtained during a three-week period, and states with larger populations and greater milk production were oversampled.

Reference for the study:

Vicini J, T Etherton, P Kris-Etherton, J Ballam, S Denham, R Staub, D Goldstein, R Cady, M McGrath, & M Lucy. Survey of retail milk composition as affected by label claims regarding farm-management practices. J Am Diet Assoc. 2008;108:1198-1203.

I thought I would step out of my normal blogging on family, employee and management issues and forward a few observations and notes from conversations with producers across the midwest.  My travels this spring and summer have taken me to most of the parts of the country that have seen weather extremes, so I thought I'd share what I've seen and heard.  These comments are all anecdotal, so use them at your own discretion.....

 --In speaking with a seed sales rep in the central/eastern Iowa area, they cut off re-seeding beans in the flooded areas on July 10.  The reason being that even if they do come up, the same areas that are prone to flooding are the same areas prone to an early frost......

read more

USAgNet

With world wheat stocks at historic lows, some longtime opponents of transgenic (often called genetically modified organisms) are coming to the realization that, without increased adaptation of transgenics, the world’s farmers cannot produce enough safe, wholesome food to feed its people.

According to a non-profit, farmer-founded interest group called Growers for Biotechnology, recent comments by European governments are an indication that public opinion is turning the corner. A news article posted on the Web site, www.growersforbiotechnology.org, reports that in late June, Great Britain’s Environment Minister, Phil Woolas, addressed the world’s food price crisis with this comment: “There is a growing question of whether GM crops can help the developing world out of the current food price crisis. It is a question that we as a nation need to ask ourselves. The debate is already under way. Many people concerned about poverty in the developing world and the environment are wrestling with this issue.”

Europe’s resistance to transgenic crops has been one of the main obstacles to more rapid adoption of the technology around the world. Developing African nations, even those with mass starvation, have rejected transgenics out of fear that they might lose the opportunity to sell any surplus crops to Europe. Now, with a global food shortage exacerbating hunger around the world, the United Kingdom is beginning to see that Europe’s resistance cannot be sustained.

Meanwhile, the chairman of Great Britain’s Nestle, the world’s biggest food company, has told British lawmakers that transgenic crops are critical to combat poverty and hunger.

You cannot today feed the world without genetically modified organisms,” Nestle’s Peter Brabeck told the London Financial Times. “We have the means to make agriculture sustainable in the long term. What we don’t see for the time being is the political will.”

Brabeck said Europe’s opposition to biotechnology had encouraged African policymakers to reject transgenic crops. South Africa is the only country on the African continent to commercialize them, growing transgeneic maize, cotton and soybeans.

What are the benefits to wheat farmers should biotechnology be an option for the world’s wheat geneticists? Herbicide resistance, tolerance to fungal diseases or drought tolerance all are possibilities. In fact, an Australian researcher told Bloomberg News last week that Australia could have transgenic, drought-tolerant wheat available globally in five to 10 years.

GMO wheat under field trials in Australia’s Victoria state contains genes from plants such as corn and moss as well as yeast, Spangenberg said on July 2. Test results show the transgenic grain generated a 20 percent gain in yield compared with non-GMO crops under drought stress, according to German Spangenberg, head of Australia’s Victorian AgriBiosciences Center.

This is a very significant increase. GM wheat for drought tolerance will be important to sustain agricultural production into the future.”

DuPont Co., the world’s second-biggest producer of seeds, plans to engineer wheat and rice to boost yields as rising demand lifts grain prices to records. Growers and buyers have asked Wilmington, Delaware-based DuPont to develop higher-yielding wheat varieties to help keep pace with output of crops such as corn.

Syngenta AG is also developing disease-resistant, transgenic wheat.

Despite this growing momentum, Japan and other Asian countries have vowed to buy non-transgenic wheat and either pay a premium, or rely on their own farmers for wheat production.

According to the farmers of Growers for Biotechnology, the need for more food production will grow exponentially in the next several years, and farmers must have access to new technologies to keep pace with demand. Farmers have known this for decades, but have fought an uphill battle. However, it looks like we may be winning.

Terry D. Etherton

In previous blogs, I have written about the fact that the more consumers know about biotechnology, the more they accept it. Thus, educational programs/strategies are important to accurately inform the public. This is widely recognized…but comes with the reality that large scale programs to educate the public about science and ag biotechnology are challenging and costly.

Animal scientists at the University of California-Davis have just released a wonderful and educational movie on Animal Biotechnology. The documentary is narrated and co-authored by Cooperative Extension Specialist Alison Van Eenennaam and graduate student William Pohlmeier. My encouragement is to clink on the above link, and watch the movie!

It begins with a brief historical description about the development of various animal biotechnologies. Biomedical and agricultural applications of animal biotechnology are discussed. In addition, some of the science-based and ethical issues engendered in the “public discussion” are addressed.

Excerpts from interviews of leading academic and industry scientists in the field are interspersed throughout the movie.

Enjoy watching Animal Biotechnology - The Movie … it is a terrific resource for those who wish to learn more about the wonderful world of animal biotechnology.

Terry D. Etherton

For those who thought the public discussion about recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST) might have faded…guess what? It has not!

A superb paper (“The Environmental Impact of Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin (rbST) use in Dairy Production”) published by Capper et al. on June 30 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reports that use of rbST reduces the carbon footprint of milk production. This is an important contribution to the scientific base documenting the benefits of rbST use in the dairy industry.

The study’s authors include Cornell University professor Dale Bauman, post-doctoral research associates Jude Capper and Euridice Castandena-Gutierrez, and Monsanto scientist Roger Cady.

Producing milk uses large quantities of land, energy and feed. The paper published by Bauman et al. reported that rbST use reduces the carbon hoofprint by easing energy, land and nutritional inputs necessary to sustain milk production at levels sufficient to meet demand.

This research found that, compared to a non-supplemented population, supplementing one million cows would rbST would result in the same amount of milk produced using 157,000 fewer cows. This has an obvious huge benefit on the environment!

Nutrient savings would be 491,000 metric tons of corn, 158,000 metric tons of soybeans, and total feedstuffs would be reduced by 2,300,000 metric tons … importantly, producers could reduce cropland use by 219,000 hectares and reduce 2.3 million tons of soil erosion annually.

Other Important Facts about rbST Use

In 2007, there were 9.2 million cows in the United States. For every one million cows supplemented with rbST, the global village would see an environmental saving of 824 million kilograms of carbon dioxide, 41 million kilograms of methane and 96,000 kilograms of nitrous oxide … amazing!

For every one million cows supplemented with rbST, the reduction in the carbon footprint is equivalent to removing approximately 400,000 family cars from the road or planting 300 million trees.

“Supplementing cows with rbST on an industry-wide scale would improve sustainability and reduce the dairy industry’s contribution to water acidification, algal growth, and global warming,” says Judith L. Capper, the lead author on the paper.

“Sustainability is important in agricultural production, with an emphasis placed upon meeting human food requirements while mitigating environmental impact,” said Bauman. “This study demonstrates that use of rbST markedly improves the efficiency of milk production, mitigates environmental impact including greenhouse gas emissions and reduces natural resource requirements such as fossil fuel, water and land use.”

Other Perspectives

I have written extensively about the benefits of biotechnology, and the importance of adopting products of biotechnology that enhance productive efficiency of animal agriculture, and that have positive environmental benefits. The paper by Capper et al. adds an important new element to the impressive database that demonstrates the many benefits of rbST for consumers, dairy farmers and the environment!

Managing People in Tough Times:

A client of mine who is a Texas dairyman was going through a rough time several years ago, and asked about managing his people.  He realized that he was going out to the parlor more often and looking over the employee’s shoulders, talking about how tough things were and making sure that everything got done right because there was no room for error.  We talked about the parlor manager there, and sure enough—he had been there for 12 years and was considered one of the best in the entire industry.  So why look over his shoulder and nitpick?  We discussed the possibility of not going out there and interacting with the people unless he had a positive attitude and could avoid micro-managing the staff.

read more

“Sweet Bonus” or Survival? Get the Facts and Then Decide!
by Sherry Bunting
Introduction by Terry Etherton

On June 22, 2008, the Star Tribune newspaper (Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota) published an article, “Is Labeling Milk as Free of Hormones a Bad Idea“, written by Lou Gelfand. The story is great example of the lousy and slanted journalism being practiced that focuses on agricultural biotechnology … in this case, rbST and milk labeling.

I have written about bad science journalism before. It continues to mystify me why some journalists fail to practice accurate and informative journalism. Must be easier to present a bias, distort the truth and mislead readers.

Enjoy the response that Ms. Bunting sent to the Star Tribune.

# # # #

As a 28-year veteran journalist, I find several inaccuracies in your article about milk labeling.

First, record high milk prices do not mean good income for dairy farmers. They are facing record high prices for all inputs — particularly feed, fuel, and fertilizer — surging farther and faster than milk prices (up 35-75% over year ago). The U.S. Department of Agriculture figures that dairy farms are profitable when the milk-feed ratio is 3.0 or above. Currently, it is 1.7!

Second, the dairy price support program does not “buoy” milk prices. This very low “floor” on the price of milk has not been triggered in years and it has not been adjusted for inflation. It is a non-factor.

Third, I am from Pennsylvania and our Sec of Agriculture did not “retreat.” A compromise was reached. Bottlers are prohibited from making “absence claims.” They are allowed to make production-related claims only, such as “produced from cows not treated with rbST.” They may not say “hormone free.” In addition, the FDA disclaimer stating no distinguishable difference in the milk must also appear on the label in a font size at least half the size of the claim.

Fourth, the countries mentioned do not ban products from cows treated with rbST (Posilac), they ban their farmers from using it because they market milk in a supply management or quota system. In Canada, for example, dairy farmers buy the right to sell a certain “quota” of milk. This keeps the supply tight and the price high to farmers. A production efficiency tool like rbST is certainly not going to be allowed by a nation that uses supply management.

Fifth, technologies that safely boost production efficiency are conserving our natural resources by producing more with less. In case you have not noticed, the U.S. and World population is expanding and our land base for producing food is shrinking. What could be more “green” than producing more milk with fewer cows, requiring less feed, less land to grow the feed, less manure waste nutrient to manage, etc. You get my drift.

Sixth, the only “sweet bonus” here is the one the retailers are collecting from consumers for “hormone-free” milk when actually all milk contains protein hormones as does nearly every food on the planet — plant or animal. There is no distinguishable difference between naturally occurring bovine somatotropin in the cow and the synthetic hormone used to supplement the cow. These cows actually benefit with greater longevity as they are producing milk at a profitable level for a longer period of time, so a farmer can afford to keep feeding and caring for a cow that does not breed back when she should for her next lactation. In those cases, if the milk production falls to a certain level and she is not with calf for another lactation, she would be sold for beef.

You see, rbST is not the “evil demon” activists and lately, journalists, seem to want to make it out to be. But of course, there are simply not enough journalists today with a solid background in science to discern the truth, and even fewer who truly understand agriculture and razor thin margins farmers operate on.

by Rose Pruyne
Web Administrator,
Department of Dairy and Animal Science

“Great Web sites share everything they learn and hear
(that’s relevant of course) with their users.”
- Andrew B. King

What does it take to be successful on the Web? The answer to that is simple and yet not so simple: Provide relevant information. Make it easy to discover.

How do we make sure that we provide relevant information on the DAS Web Site? We let go of the content.

That is, we entrust its care to nearly 30 content managers - researchers, educators, extension professionals, students - our experts around the state and in neighboring states. Along with regularly contributing their knowledge and expertise to das.psu.edu, these individuals continually seek and apply feedback from you, our clientele.

And to guarantee that this content is accessible to every one of our users, regardless of individual needs or technologies, we continually test and readjust how the site delivers that information.

So, is it working? The message from you, our users, is yes.

From January 1 of this year to the present, the Dairy and Animal Science Web Site was visited 146,288 times - an average of about 841 site visits each day. Compare this with benchmarked sites containing similar content, which received an average of 17,056 visits during the same time period.

Visits to das.psu.edu averaged a handful of page views each and added up to a total of 488,322 page views. This is compared to an average of 55,172 page views in the same time period on similar sites.

Our visitors spent, on average, about 3 minutes reading the Web page(s) that that interested them - approximately the time it takes to give a Web page a fairly thorough perusal. Considering that the tendency of users on the Web is to skim rather than read, this is an impressive amount of time to linger over Web content.

But perhaps the most telling is this: A total of 15,520 users repeatedly visited the pages they consider the most valuable to them - an average of more than 200 times each.

Our statistics show that a large number of our users are viewing das.psu.edu outside the United States - 185 different countries and territories, including Canada, The United Kingdom, India, Australia, Mexico, the Philippines, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Germany, Ireland, Japan, Spain, Greece, Denmark, Costa Rica, South Africa, and so on…

Aside from the United States, countries with the most visitors are Canada, with 4,074 visits; the UK, with 3,420 visits; India, with 2,276 visits; and Australia, with 1,814 visits. In addition, we receive a significant number of visitors from Spanish-speaking regions of the globe, which has lead us to translate much of our key information into Spanish (the DAS Web site is one of a very few sites at Penn State to offer Spanish content).

So far this year, more than 1,300 Web pages in education and industry linking to our site have generated 30,631 visits. By far, however, most users arrive at das.psu.edu using search engines - about 60 percent. (Of those, most are Google searches, with Yahoo coming in a distant second.)

Search engine statistics can be a gold mine of information. By studying the most commonly used words or phrases entered into Web searches, we can better understand what our users are looking for - and if possible bring them to us sooner and make information even easier to find.

• Undergraduate and Graduate Programs
• 4-H
• Información en Español
• News and Events
• Beef

Some commonly used search terms leading to the DAS Web Site

• operational planning
• dairy cattle
• dairy nutrition
• goat health / reproduction / diseases / nutrition
• cow pictures
• ag spanish
• penn state dairy
• meat quality assurance
• block and bridle
• nutrición
• animal science
• equine science

Dairy
Year in and year out, the most popular content on the DAS Web site revolves around the main Dairy Science pages, Dairy Nutrition - including information specific to Calves and Heifers, dairy reproduction, Dairy 4-H, Dairy Digest, the Capital Region Dairy Team, and Penn State Dairy Alliance. Visits to all dairy-related pages total 99,788 since January 1.

Equine
Equine ranks second only to Dairy. Since January 1, equine-related pages have collected 57,226 visits. This includes the main Equine Science pages, the Penn State Horse Newsletter, and the 4-H Horse Program.

Goats
Pages addressing Goat Health, Nutrition, and Reproduction and the 4-H Goat Program received the third most visits - 28,126 since January 1.

Publications
The Publications Catalog is one of the most valued resources on the DAS site, getting 19,096 visits so far this year. The catalog contains articles, fact sheets, presentations, videos, podcasts, and other multimedia.

Faculty-Staff Directory
Users frequently seek contact information (in addition to other material) when visiting a site. So not surprisingly, our Faculty-Staff Directory averages about 2,000 visits each month. So far this year, it has received 15,563 visits. Along with contact information, visitors are interested in vitae, publications, and individuals’ Web sites, such as the Dairy and Animal Science Blogs.

These days, most of our site visitors have high-speed connections and current-generation Web browsers. A significant number, however, still use dialup (nearly 7,000 site visits so far this year) and have older Web browsers. However, this does not pose a problem because the Web Standards-compliancy of das.psu.edu means that its content is accessible regardless of connection speed or browser generation.

We appreciate how our users have let us know that the DAS Web site is providing informative, usable content. You have made this clear not just through usage statistics, but through your comments and feedback.

We want to continue to improve your experience at das.psu.edu. Please let us know what you need.

By Jeremy Cooke
BBC News*

I have to confess, until now the whole debate about genetically-modified (GM) food has pretty much passed me by.

Most of my career has been spent as a foreign correspondent.

But last summer I returned to the UK to start a new job with the BBC. I now glory in the title Rural Affairs Correspondent.

A big part of my new brief is to report on farming. It is my (sometimes painful) duty to attend agriculture conferences and seminars. I also meet many farmers on their farms.

And over the months, time and time again the issue of GM has been raised.

I have been left in no doubt that many UK farmers - and others in the food production industry - think that GM is an important tool which can improve their efficiency, but which has been denied to them.

All of this, you could argue, counts for very little. Of course, farmers want to increase yields, or get the same yield using less land, less sprays, less fertilizer.

And anyway, did not we as a nation make up our minds about GM almost a decade ago?

You remember: environmentalists successfully branded GM “Frankenstein Food” - they warned us of the dangers of contaminating our environment, and of unleashing powerful and unpredictable forces into the British countryside.

As a nation we came down on their side of the argument. Although there is no law against growing GM in the UK, the regulations mean it is a hostile environment for the agri-business brigade. And so it remains.

So why go back to the debate? Well, two reasons strike me immediately.

The first is that - unlike 10 years ago - we are now gripped by a global food crisis. Where there were once grain mountains there are now shortages.

The second thing that has changed is the fact that in other parts of the world GM is now being grown in massive amounts. It is reckoned that an area twice the size of Britain is now under GM crops.

And guess what? There have so far been no reports of the environmental or human health disasters that we were all warned about.

So with that in mind, I set out with a question: is it time to rethink GM?

AMERICA

Let us start in America.

While we in Europe have rejected growing GM crops, the United States has enthusiastically embraced the new technology.

Thousands of hectares of land are now covered in GM crops. Most meals consumed in America’s ultimate consumer society will have some GM content.

It is something that Americans, generally, do not even think about. Certainly, throughout the four years my family and I spent in New York we must have eaten hundreds of meals containing GM in blissful ignorance.

The main GM food crops are soya - which produces important protein - and maize. Both have been genetically modified to produce bigger yields or the same yield for less input (less herbicide, insecticide, fertilizer).

And behind it all (or almost all of it) is the giant Monsanto corporation. A multi-billion dollar world-wide outfit that dominates the world of GM.

As a journalist, getting access to what the green lobby regards as the “heart of darkness” is not easy.

But after some gentle negotiating we were welcomed to St Louis, Missouri, Monsanto’s global headquarters.

Here, some of the leading scientists in the field are working on ways to improve crops and yields.

Chatting to the technicians, you can tell they are a little bemused at being labelled the architects of “Frankenstein Foods”. They say they simply want to make things more efficient for farmers - and so better for consumers.

The chief executive Hugh Grant, originally from Glasgow in Scotland, seems puzzled at the European distrust of GM technology.

“The scientific case is very clear. This does now get down to people saying 12 years have passed, now’s the time to make some calls.

“Europe continues to wait, while countries like India aggressively move ahead, and British scientists fill their suitcases and come here to do this research because they can’t do it at home,” Mr Grant says.

Monsanto is happy to provide stats which say that at least 90% of the farmers they deal with are happy with their product.

But there is no ignoring the fact that Monsanto is a hugely controversial company.

In the US, I found that for some farmers the problem is not so much a distrust of GM technology, but rather the way, they say, it makes them fall under the complete control of the biotech giants.

On his farm in Missouri I met Roger Parry. An old school good ol’ boy, complete with battered old pick-up truck and equally battered baseball hat.

He is one of the minority of US farmers resisting GM. He told me that the big business of biotech is making it tough for farmers to make their own decisions about what to grow. Almost all of the seed available is GM seed.

“I think that if farmers had real choices out here, that they would do things differently. When it’s time to plant, farmers are going to plant.”If all you’ve got is genetically modified soybeans, and it’s time for seed to go in the ground, that’s what’s going to go in the ground.

“So, it’s the availability of supply, and if that’s cut off, it’s awful tough to go shopping around when the sun is shining and you’ve got a few days to get your seed in the ground,” Mr Parry says.

We Europeans could (if we wanted to) view America’s GM project as the biggest field trial in history.

Ten years down the line, there have been no reports of environmental problems caused by GM. Also there have been no reported cases of human illness because of eating GM food.

But does that mean we need GM? Does it mean that GM is safe?

UK/EUROPE

Back in Europe, there are some GM crops growing and the occasional field test, but red tape and activists mean that most crops - especially in the UK where there is no commercial GM - do not make it to market.

Scientists say they are being left behind. They say they could be forging ahead with GM crops specifically for European conditions.

Some small-scale research is being done, for instance, on developing a potato that is resistant to blight. But it really does feel like small beer.

Clearly, the environment here is very different to America. Where Monsanto in Missouri opened their doors to us, researchers conducting the field trial of pest resistant spuds “somewhere in the UK” would not let us film.

It is frustrating, but who can really blame them? Bitter experience shows that once the word gets out that a GM field trial is under way, the environmentalists move in and destroy it.

I get the feeling that most people in Britain instinctively distrust “industrialized agriculture”.

We would much rather think of farms that look like the idyllic 800 acres belonging to Lord Melchett of the Soil Association.

He believes that his organic methods are efficient enough and versatile enough to feed this country, and to feed the world.

And he is 100% against GM crops. For him, the global food crisis and America’s apparently trouble-free GM experience change nothing.

“It’s good for very very large agri-business farmers, bad for everyone else, very risky for the environment, still a huge amount of unknowns.

“Added to which, we know we can achieve what the GM industry has always claimed by other means,” Lord Melchett says.

That is certainly not the view of all British farmers.

In North Yorkshire, I met Richard Lister who is understandably a little confused about the UK policy on GM.

Richard is a pig farmer and feeds his stock on pellets which contain 20% soya. That soya is imported - much of it from the US - and so it will be GM.

Indeed, many of the animals that go to produce UK meat and dairy products will have been fed on GM.

Why then, asks Richard cannot he grow GM feed on his own farm?

“GM is probably a win-win solution for consumers and farmers alike,” he says.

“First of all, GM is enabling farmers to grow more crop from the same amount of acreage in a world where we’re struggling to feed the population. That has to be good. It’s also enabling farmers to grow the crops with less use of insecticides, or fungicides or weed killers. Again, that’s a green win. Together, I think it’s technology for the future,” Mr Lister says.

——–

*Posted on BBC on May 29, 2008.

Terry D. Etherton

The United Nations (UN) Food Summit (High-Level Conference on World Food Security), held in Rome in early June, 2008, was designed to address food security issues in the face of soaring food prices (see Figure below), and the growing challenges associated with rising energy costs, and how this has impacted food prices and food security.

The increase in food prices is astounding! For example, during the early part of 2008, nominal prices of all major food commodities reached their highest levels in the past 50 years. For the first time, the annual global food import bill will surpass $1trillion (FAO, Food Outlook, June 2008)!

Part of the food price “shock” relates to level of current food stocks (reserves) in the World. Since 1995, global cereal stock levels have declined at a rate of about 3.5% per year…which is due to demand growth surpassing supply (FAO, 2008). FAO is estimating that by the end of 2008, global cereal stocks will decrease an additional 5%, reaching their lowest levels in the past 25 years!

Identifying strategies to increase food production (and efficiency) are clearly among the the biggest challenges we confront. I have written about various aspects of this in previous Terry Etherton blogs. It is important to appreciate that developing and implementing solutions to these problem is not easy, cheap…and, certainly doesn’t happen quickly.

Unfortunately, the Declaration published from the UN Food Summit provides little assurance that anything will be done by the UN to solve the problems! It would have been far better to invest the money frittered away supporting the UN Food Summit on research to pursue new ways to improve food production and food production efficiency.

At the core of “research needs” is the need for a much larger investment in biotechnology research for food production. The advances in plant and animal biotechnology and their impact on food production and productive efficiency have been impressive. We, however, must continue to invest in developing new science-based food biotechnologies for application on the farm..to feed a growing World population. This need coincides with a current “funding environment” for agricultural scientific research in the U.S. that is, at best, “modest”. This certainly does not help this situation.

My encouragement is to increase the investment in science. Historically, this has led to the development and application of new discoveries that benefit production agriculture in the World. We should not be “fiddling” away precious time and resources that could be invested in science to help feed the global village.

Unfortunately, many government and inter-government agencies are spending more time fiddling than finding ways to increase food production and productive efficiency. This is unfortunate given the current era of soaring food prices, and the reality we have of needing to find ways to feed a growing World population.

Dr. Barb Glenn
Managing Director, Animal Biotechnology
Biotechnology Industry Organization
Washington, DC

Many of our greatest medical advances have been made through the use of animal models in research. There are, for example, mouse models for Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and any number of animal models for cancer, as well as HIV. There is no question, we owe the progress made in treating these diseases to animal research.

So, I was pleased to see when the April issue of the Journal of Clinical Investigation landed on my desk that scientists (Rogers et al., J. Clin. Invest. 118:1571-1577) at the University of Iowa and University of Missouri had published a paper outlining something entirely new, a pig model for cystic fibrosis. According to the scientists, existing mouse models are inadequate because they don’t develop the lung and pancreatic disease that causes the death of so many cystic fibrosis patients. In addition, the new pigs to be used for the study of cystic fibrosis were produced using the techniques of modern biotechnology or genetic engineering.

The paper was all the more poignant for me because the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), the organization in Washington, D.C. for whom I work, represents Food & Agricultural biotechnology, as well as the Health Care component of biotechnology.

From time to time in our staff meetings at BIO, we are fortunate enough to meet with a patient who has benefited from biotech therapies. Recently we were introduced to a cystic fibrosis patient. She is a remarkable young woman. She is talented, smart, and an advocate for her disease here in Washington. And most importantly, she is full of life. And that is what biotechnology and animal research do – they give the gift of life.

I hope that this new animal model will help her and others like her by giving the gift of life.

A brief note to mention that PORK Magazine has asked me to spend some time in their booth at the World Pork Expo for some Q & A with Employers and Employees.

Their full announcement is:

= = = = = =

Answers to Employee/Employer Questions

Whether you’re an employer or an employee, plan to stop by the Pork magazine booth during World Pork Expo with your employment-related questions and seek advice from Don Tyler, employee and business management consultant and Dear Boss columnist. Tyler will be available at Booth 763 in the Varied Industry Building on the Iowa State Fairgrounds on Thursday, June 5, from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., and again on Friday, June 6, from 10:00 a.m. to Noon.

read more

News comes this week that the Belgium beer brewer, InBev is considering making a move to acquire St. Louis beer maker, Anheuser-Busch. Rapid consolidation in the beer business has been going on world-wide for a long time with many of the local brews with hundreds of years of history in central and western Europe being rolled up into giants like InBev and SABMiller of London. The same has been taking place in Mexico and South America where local beers with brand value are giving way to acquisition as either next generation family members don't want to or can't manage the businesses or the economics of scale make consolidation compelling.

read more

During a recent visit with a client in Iowa, the owners talked about a challenge that they had in getting their employees to “care more about the pigs.” They had discussed ventilation issues, appropriate watering and feeding, watching for sows that didn’t eat, etc.—all the important stockmanship training issues—but it seemed that it was not getting through to their people.

Instead of reviewing their training process and regular monitoring, I asked them about what areas the employees did seem to care about. “Well,” the wife said, “they really like to see the pigs ‘happy.’ They can tell when they walk into a building if the pigs are ‘happy’ and they seem to like seeing the pigs behave that way.”

read more

Terry D. Etherton

It is hard to believe that two years have past since I launched the Terry Etherton Blog on Biotechnology and Terry Etherton’s Blog on Hormones, Biotechnology and Food Safety.

The driving force for the creation of these blogs was to provide a public forum for presenting science-based facts about numerous issues that broadly relate to the use of biotechnologies and technologies for food production. Given all the “stuff” that has been spewed out by opponents of science and biotechnology over the past two years, there is an ever greater need for scientists and concerned consumers to defend the role of science in society.

As I have written in my blogs, the anti-science activist groups are well organized and funded. Moreover, the scientific community continues to remain quiet.

Recently, the American Council on Science and Health presented the first Henry I. Miller Award for Excellence in Public Health Education to Dr. Henry Miller. This award was created to honor scientists who speak out on health and science issues. I applaud Dr. Miller and the American Council on Science and Health! I, too, encourage other scientists to come out of their classrooms and laboratories to take on those who distort science…the luddites who attack science and technological innovation.

For those of you who care about the scientific method and the discoveries made in laboratories, some of which become incredibly valuable products that benefit society, my encouragement is to become involved in the public discussion…to defend science and the right to use safe and beneficial products of biotechnology!

…on to Year 3!

The USDA has just raised its expected food inflation numbers to 6% for 2008 on the heels of a 4.2% increase for 2007.

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?contentidonly=true&contentid=2008/05/0130.xml

My best guess is that they will be back to the well to up that again by the end of the summer. The projections show the greatest increase in food prepared at home with eggs, dairy and fats and oils categories leading the charge. Pork is estimated to increase only 1-2 percent this year.

read more

     One of the more effective tactics of those who oppose modern animal production has been to threaten the global brand of final processors and retailers in order to gain negotiating power in attempts to change production methods.  By raising an ethical argument to modern production they have buttressed their assertions against the counter argument from science. 

     This is a very efficient approach since once their notions are accepted by major retailers like Wal-Mart, forcing change down the chain is greatly facilitated.

     Yesterday the Wall Street Journal published the results of an experiment conducted by a doctoral student from the University of Western Ontario. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121018735490274425.html)

read more

Late last week China revealed that it was about to approve a plan to buy large tracts of land in South America and Africa. The purpose of the purchases is to assure that China is not left to the risks of the market place in the future when its own agricultural production is not able to keep up with its growing demand.

China is essentially self-sufficient in food at the present (something that it cherishes) but rising incomes are changing the mix of demand from lower quality vegetarian diets to meat and more refined and processed foods. China has about nine percent of the arable land and the current global food crisis is helping to fuel the long-held desire by China not to be at the mercy of foreigners. China is currently self-sufficient in corn but imports lots of soybeans. As its livestock production ramps up for future demand, it will need to produce substantially more feed stuffs than its own resources currently can support.

read more

“Helping” Employees with Gas Prices

“If you don’t help me out on what it costs me to drive to work, I’m going to go find another job!”  This frustration is being heard by more and more employers with the increase in travel expenses that all employees are experiencing.  There are many traps that an employer can fall into in this situation, so here are a few suggestions:

read more

Its time to revisit the notion of opportunity costs. Opportunity costs are measured by the value of the next best alternative that you rejected when you make a decision. Opportunity costs and in fact all costs predate the invention of money. Even in our religious and wisdom writings, opportunity costs abound. For instance, what was the cost to humanity of Eve eating the apple? No money exchanged hands but the cost was the loss of paradise in exchange for knowledge. What is the current (and on-going costs) of choosing your current spouse, if you have one? That usually gets the point across.

read more