It’s been a wild two weeks in DC. In just 14 days, we’ve wrestled with Farm Bill markups in both the House and Senate Agriculture Committees, a vaunted rush to complete the Senate Farm Bill on the floor, a bipartisan immigration reform bill – the first since 2007 – approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee, and a White House increasingly under fire for a host of reasons. I’m going to give my two cents on most of these since it’s rare Congress demonstrates its efficiency while at the same time exposing its inherent silliness.

First, major kudos to Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D, MI) for not only getting her second Farm Bill in 12 months out of committee and to the floor — that’s got to be some kind of historic achievement — but keeping her cool this week as her colleagues continually blocked her momentum as she waded through 194 mostly silly – and nongermane – amendments. Anyone who thought Stabenow, when she took the reins of the committee 30 months ago, couldn’t handle the job has been proven wrong in spades.

Stabenow wanted to get the bill finished this week and it looked as if she was on her way. It’s never a good idea to let members of Congress go home for 10 days to contemplate their wish lists. However, Stabenow’s mostly male colleagues continually interrupted Farm Bill floor action to “debate” unrelated issues.

Most time consuming was a back-and-forth over whether the Senate should appoint conferees to a conference committee with the House on the FY2013 budget resolutions, and whether instructions to those conferees should include a taboo on discussing raising the debt ceiling. Important stuff no doubt, but not during floor consideration of a major piece of legislation – one carrying a 10-year, $955-billion price tag and one that materially affects 16 million folks employed in the agriculture and food industries. Then there was the spat between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D, NV) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell over the confirmation vote for a federal judge, and who had promised what to whom. It was reminiscent of a school yard blame game, and several Senators who should have known better kept egging them on.

The Senate Judiciary Committee deserves praise for holding an open series of hearings and markup of the Gang of Eight’s comprehensive immigration reform bill. Yes, it took almost three weeks, but there were over 300 amendments to slog through. Judiciary Chair Patrick Leahy (D, VT) kept his word and allowed any and all relevant amendments to be debated, and showing leadership by example, withdrew “with a heavy heart” one of his own amendments – equal immigration treatment for same sex couples – when committee members from both sides of the aisle warned him he might just blow up the whole carefully crafted deal.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R, UT), ranking member of the judiciary panel, showed why he’s Utah’s best weapon on the national scene. He brokered deal after deal for his Republican colleagues, leveraging his ranking member status, but he sided with Leahy when it was the right thing to do. He voted to move the bill out of committee when the final gavel fell, but honestly warned his colleagues he may not vote for the bill on the floor in a couple of weeks if too much mischief ensues.

I’m not so crazy about the overall House reaction to the Senate getting an immigration reform bill through committee. House Speaker John Boehner (R, OH) could have said he was eager to see what the Senate accomplished on immigration reform so it could inform the House pursuit of the same goal. However, he decided instead to very publicly this week announce his chamber would not take up the Senate bill.

I’ll cut him slack because unlike Reid’s chamber, Boehner has a good share of ultraconservative members who have their heads in the sand when it comes to immigration reform. It’s these members who demand we “deport ‘em all” rather than recognize that while it’s reprehensible there are upwards of 10 million “undocumented” immigrants in this country, a good chunk of that number is keeping farming, ranching, food processing and retailing operational. It’s called refusing to deal with the reality of the situation, preferring instead to spout political rhetoric.

As to the White House headaches, well, I learned about them from the media just about the same time you did, and heck, no one told me there were such problems. I just didn’t know.

The Obama Administration scandal involving Internal Revenue Service (IRS) targeting of conservative organizations applying for federal tax exempt status came to farmland this week.

A May 16 posting on conservative news site dailycaller.com by Patrick Howley reports attorney Lois G. Lerner, who for the moment heads the IRS Exempt Organizations Division and who put a public face on IRS targeting of conservative groups by publicly apologizing, includes in her biography the statement she is an “active member of the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS),” and was active in 2005 pet rescue operations after Gulf Coast hurricanes, activity for which “she was widely acknowledged.”

While being a member of HSUS makes one guilty of nothing save for perhaps, in my personal opinion, questionable judgment in the choice of groups to which to donate your time and money, The Daily Caller items on Lerner and her membership in HSUS were enough to trip Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer’s (R, MO) trigger.

You see Luetkemeyer in March, 2010, sent a “constituent-driven” request to then IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman questioning the tax exempt status of HSUS based on what Luetkemeyer called “HSUS’s significant lobbying activity as a tax exempt group.” In May, 2010, Luetkemeyer “shared those concerns in both a personal conversation and a letter to Lerner…,” according to a May 17 press release announcing he’s renewing his inquiry.

“Luetkemeyer is also raising serious questions about IRS Exempt Organizations Division Director Lois Lerner’s political ties to HSUS in light of her recent apology for targeting conservative non-profit groups seeking tax exempt status,” says the Luetkemeyer press release.

Also on May 17, Luetkemeyer fired off letters to IRS Inspector General for Tax Administration J. Russell George, U.S. Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew and Attorney General Eric Holder.  Of Lew and Holder, Luetkemeyer requests a formal investigation into the handling of his 2010 IRS request about HSUS, and in his letter to George, he wants a separate IRS investigation into the matter.

Acknowledging the IRS can’t by law comment on ongoing investigations, Luetkemeyer wrote to Lew and Holder: “While it is disconcerting to think that Ms. Lerner…may have disregarded my request for an investigation due to her own political beliefs or those of her staff, in light of the recent revelations about the activities of Ms. Lerner’s office and in the absence of any other explanation from the IRS, many Americans will arrive at this very conclusion. With that in mind I formally request that you investigate the IRS’ handling of my requests and report back to me in a timely fashion.”

In an interview with The Daily Caller, Luetkemeyer spokesperson Paul Sloca said their office, over the last three years, tried to get at least status reports from Treasury and Lerner. “They’ve told us they can’t comment on an ongoing investigation, but they won’t confirm they’ve even launched an investigation.”

This latest extension of the IRS scandal won’t be the last. More dots will be connected to other groups and issues. It appears, however, Luetkemeyer isn’t going to let his request get lost in the bigger storm yet to come.

According to The Daily Caller report, “The Humane Society of the United States declined comment.”

Commentary.

Oh, the political intrigue, the high fives, the gnashing of teeth, the tantrums, the ups and downs of redressing the federal government. All of this angst emanates from the recent reality and likely fate of the Egg Products Inspection Act of 2013, viewed by most of agriculture and a good chunk of the animal rights movement, as bad legislation spawned by the unholy alliance of the United Egg Producers and the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS).

The egg bill is an effort by UEP to bring consistency to varying state laws governing the raising of egg laying hens by setting a federal standard. The standard is to enshrine “enhanced environments,” i.e., bigger cages, as the way to go in egg production. National agriculture groups, including the American Farm Bureau Federation, a group of maverick egg producers who don’t support UEP, some major integrators, and all national livestock and poultry producer groups oppose the bill as unnecessary and ill-advised as it would for the first time set in federal law – amendable at any time in the future – a government-regulated standard for food animal production.

The animal rights groups,led by the Humane Farming Assn. (HFA) of California, see the bill as a sell-out by HSUS, which once held a strict no-cage, no-how policy on egg production. And that’s the “nicest” way to paraphrase the animal rights opposition.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D, CA) introduced the egg bill this year, as she did in the last Congress, contending it’s “consistent” with Prop 2 in her state, a new law ostensibly dictating hen housing but is so vague the California Department of Food & Agriculture almost can’t write rules to implement it. However, this time around, Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D, MI), chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, is a cosponsor of Feinstein’s bill, and having her name on the bill is significant. While HSUS and UEP were doing their happy dance, the opposition moved into battle mode.

It was feared Ms. Stabenow might tack the offending language on to the Farm Bill draft she’ll mark up in her committee next week. The language now does not appear in the markup bill, much to the consternation of UEP and HSUS. Ms. Stabenow is a very smart, more-than-capable ag committee chair, and she counts votes with the best of them. Even a cursory survey of her committee membership shows there’s no support for the egg bill if all of national ag – plus a chunk of the animal rights movement – oppose it. Plus, no committee chair wants to suck valuable markup time with issues he/she knows will go down in flames, and Stabenow is moving her Farm Bill like a freight train. The language does not appear in the House markup draft, and the chances of a committee amendment in the House are less than those in the Senate, as in slim and none.

That leaves the floor of both chambers as the next battleground. Ms. Feinstein is no one to trifle with and it’s a safe bet she’ll bring the egg bill to the floor – unless she has much more important amendments for which to fight. The opposition will have its champions lined up, and unfortunately for the egg folks and HSUS, the opposition numbers are going to dwarf the advocates. The fights will be bloody, but I’m guessing the opposition prevails. The House outcome will likely be the same.

So until all of that drama plays out, we’re left to read and listen to the indignant comments from UEP and HSUS as to why no one likes their egg bill. I don’t particularly care how Wayne Pacelle, HSUS, feels about losing to agriculture once again. But here’s what UEP had to say when the language didn’t appear in the Senate’s draft bill:

“We can’t begin to express our utter disappointment in our fellow livestock and farm groups – who (sic) we’ve always supported in the past – who blocked this legislation that is critical to the egg industry’s survival as we know it … simply because these groups were paranoid that somehow an amendment to the Egg Products Inspection Act would affect them, despite explicit language in the bill which exempts them.”

I understand UEP’s frustration, but “paranoia” isn’t paranoia if you know someone’s actually out to get you. Each industry should have the right to set its own rules and standards without interference from other commodity groups. However, in this case the precedent UEP seeks to set is problematic as it does directly affect all livestock and poultry production in the U.S. While the language is specific to the Egg Products Inspection Act, it would become the shining, breakthrough example to which the animal rights groups will eagerly point as they try to force similar legislative action on the producers of hogs, chickens, cattle, sheep and any other species raised for food. I can hear HSUS talking heads now: “If the egg industry and Congress recognized the need and the wisdom in regulating the welfare of laying hens, then…”

Secondly, I don’t trust the animal rights movement on a good day. Any pledge not to seek similar legislation on other commodity groups is laughable. I have personally experiened animal rights groups in more than one congressional fight tell the media one thing, the industry another and Congress yet a third, only to ultimately abandon all “promises” and agreements – no matter to or with whom – if it looked like an easier win was in sight.

I wish UEP had decided to at least try a national voluntary transition to the enhanced cage system if that’s what it wants. I know it would take a while, and I know it wouldn’t solve all the problems UEP as a cooperative and the overall egg industry is facing. Handled correctly and rolled out in the right fashion, those out-of-sync state laws could have been “fixed” relatively easily.

And the UEP guys would have heard nary a peep out of the rest of animal agriculture.

Commentary.

Food labels for me are like the instructions on new electronic toys. I’m so impatient to get to the fun part of the device, I consume first and, maybe, I read later.  A big part of the reason I don’t stand in supermarket aisles reading labels is the sheer overabundance of information on the label that means nothing to me.  If I had a food allergy, it would be different, but in my case, I don’t have the time or inclination.  Maybe it’s because I understand federal food safety oversight and the priorities on food safety, nutrition and taste held by the food industry.

I think I’m pretty average in my behavior. In fact, I’m always wary of consumer activist surveys trumpeting “consumers demand” pull-out food labels listing everything from calories, carbs and other ingredients to where the processing plant is located, from whence every ingredient was imported and the birthday of the company president. I contend those who respond to these surveys answer out of political correctness, not based on their real world behavior.

So why do activists these days demand U.S. food labels carry messages about whether the food product is the product of or contains ingredients developed with biotechnology? Industry – farmers, ranchers, feed companies, food companies, etc. – killed off a 2012 California ballot initiative to force biotech labeling; most states have walked away from similar initiatives and legislation, and FDA has quietly affirmed it does not and will not mandate labels based on production practices nor on ingredients not “materially different” than conventional ingredients.

This reality hasn’t stopped Sen. Barbara Boxer (D, CA) or Rep. Pete DeFazio (D, OR) from cajoling a handful of their colleagues to join them in introducing legislation to require FDA to mandate labeling of foods and foods containing ingredients that are the products of genetic engineering (GE), including livestock, poultry and pet foods. Why? A very long, kind of snarky press release boils down to 1) Ms. Boxer and Mr. DeFazio are not “anti-GE,” even if a good percentage of the bill’s supporters could be classed as “anti-GE;” 2) “the consumer has a right to know” and 3) 60-plus other countries require labeling.

Ms. Boxer’s and Mr. DeFazio’s legislation translates to an expensive and pointless message on just about every food product regulated by FDA. First, no food ingredient is approved no matter how it’s developed or grown unless it’s scientifically demonstrated as safe. Second, the Boxer/DeFazio bill only amends FDA’s authorizing law, not USDA’s, so roughly a third of food products sold in the U.S. and abroad wouldn’t carry the label. Third, why is it important to know about the biotechnology underlying food production, but not all other science/technology/production systems used in food production?

Most annoying is that because more than 90% of the corn and soybeans grown the U.S. is from drought-resistant, disease-resistant, pest-resistant GE seed, just about every FDA-regulated food product containing corn, soybeans, a lot of the wheat grown and a passel of other grains, oilseeds, fruits and veggies – or any ingredient derived therefrom – would carry this GE label.

Back to my point about consumers, political correctness and behavior. In 2011, the University of Minnesota found 203 consumers for a study on what label information they scanned when buying food products. The study subjects were shown 64 food items and asked if they’d buy the product. Using electronic magic, the study tracked eye movements, i.e. what the person looked at when viewing the product. My suspicions are correct, at least according to a Time Magazine report by Meredith Melnick on the study.

“Researchers found a big difference between what the eye tracker said people looked at and what the participants self-reported they typically looked at while shopping. Thirty-three percent of participants said they ‘almost always’ looked at a product’s calorie content on the Nutrition Facts label; 31% said they almost always looked at total fat content…24% said they studied products’ sugar content and 26% said they paid close attention to serving size…(w)hat the eye-tracking data showed: only 9% looked at calorie count for almost all the items in the experiment; 1% looked at each of the other components, including fat, trans fat, sugar and serving size, for almost all of the products.”

So what’s achieved by labeling foods, ingredients, etc., as products of GE technology? Expensive labeling changes, the cost of which would inevitably be borne by the consumer; more information on already-crowded food labels; a two-tier labeling system where some foods are labeled, others not; yet another leap down the road to European-style “precautionary” regulation/labeling based on the “what ifs” of risk, and a labeling message providing little if any benefit to consumers, and which studies demonstrates will likely be treated by consumers as the labeling equivalent of white noise.

 But it’s not “anti-GE.”

What a difference one election makes, and before you begin the snarky asides, I’m talking about the high likelihood of comprehensive immigration reform passing the U.S. Congress this year.  For nearly two decades we’ve had a lot of talk and no action, but today that’s all changed.

Maybe it’s the pesky reality that hits the losing candidate in the face when  the 2012 election numbers are crunched; voters of color didn’t flock to Republican or conservative candidates.  It wasn’t only Gov. Mitt Romney who felt the lack of electoral love.  Now, immigration hawks of every stripe – GOP or Democrat – are generally embracing “reform.” This is a good thing broadly.  What’s even better is the reality of this country’s reliance on immigrant labor – whether documented or illegal – is finally a central part of the reform debate, and agriculture will be the better for it.

This country’s immigration laws haven’t been seriously reviewed and modernized since about 1987, when this country could count about 3 million “individuals in unlawful status” in our population. Today we tally about 11-12 million illegal immigrants residing in the U.S., folks who dodged the border patrol to get here, along with folks who entered this country with temporary visas and just never went home when the visa expired.

It’s estimated up to 2 million of these undocumented immigrants work in agriculture, most within seasonal crop production.  But from a broad food and agriculture perspective, these folks not only plant, tend and harvest crops, they work on dairies, on poultry farms and in feedlots; they work in meat and poultry processing plants, and they work in food processing plants. Some contend these immigrants take jobs away from Americans; other say American’s won’t take the jobs; they’re too soft to pick lettuce or avocados or apples under the hot sun for prevailing wages.  These debates are irrelevant now; the fact is immigrants provide a kind of labor backbone for a big chunk of agriculture. This is the reality with which the country must deal.

The legislative package unveiled this week by the Gang of Eight Senators who labored for months to craft a comprehensive immigration reform bill doesn’t satisfy everyone in the immigration reform debate.  There will always be those who won’t accept any bill that includes a path to citizenship for those who entered this country illegally – “deport ‘em all,” they cry – just as there are those who demand Congress wave its magic wand and make all aliens of any legal status citizens overnight because “wasn’t America built on the hard work of immigrants?”  Where these campaign slogans used to carry some weight, today they fall generally on deaf ears.

The Gang of Eight is a seriously bipartisan bunch, with political philosophies ranging from Sen. Charles Schumer (D, NY) to Sen. Marco Rubio (R, FL).  This is what I call adult behavior in the Senate.  At the same time, big kudos to those national agriculture groups whose members rely on immigrant labor. These groups, facing some pretty grim alternatives, coalesced early in the discussion, put parochial goals aside and seized the opportunity to protect their current labor force and get assurances on future labor needs.  The price of these victories was negotiating with the United Farm Workers, making concessions on wage rates, but winning union concessions on how many new visas will be granted to “guest workers.”  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce did likewise, sitting down with the AFL-CIO and hammering out their respective issues.  I’d love to think both ag and general business went through these negotiations out of a sense of altruism.  However, the ugly economic consequences of inaction and no little pressure by the aforementioned Gang were key ingredients in this formula.  The Gang is eager to overcome any issue roadblocks up front, and lock in a broad coalition of support rather than engage in the political trench warfare that could very likely derail the entire immigration reform effort.

It’s encouraging the degree of support going into next week’s hearings on the Senate bill is so broad.  This landmark piece of legislation must not be rammed through Congress as was done with the Affordable Care Act or the failed cap-and-trade bill.  There must be due diligence; the ignorant must be educated; inevitable refinements must be made; errors corrected, and costs tabulated. Broad support – and the investment from those disparate vested interests – argue for vigorous debate and what’s going to be dramatic floor consideration.

Like I said, we must deal with the reality of immigration reform.

No one can argue USDA doesn’t have enough issues on its plate. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack is learning Farm Bill 101; he’s trying to make sequester work, and seemingly every other week another member of the Secretary’s subcabinet team resigns – Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan a month ago, then Undersecretary for Rural Affairs Dallas Tonsager, and this week Harris Sherman, undersecretary for natural resources and environment. Add to this the speechifying, meetings, testimony and other administrative functions of the secretary, and you have a busy, busy guy.

So it begs the question: Why would USDA – either through original thinking or instruction from the White House – decide to abandon its appropriately neutral position on horse slaughter in the U.S., and add an 11th-hour addendum to the President’s budget asking Congress to withhold any money for paying inspectors at horse processing plants?

I’m sure if a formal question is put to the Secretary – and there will be questions April 16, when he appears before House Appropriations Committee to justify USDA’s FY2014 budget request – he’ll cite tight resources, a priority on major species inspection and slaughter, etc. However, that doesn’t mitigate the fact the defunding decision is less a fiscal than political statement.

The issue of whether horse slaughter should be legal in the U.S. has been around for over a decade. It’s an issue borne out of animal rights philosophy – pushed hard by the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) and a lot of Hollywood folks – and is justified by the moral argument Americans don’t/shouldn’t eat horse meat, and a perception of the horse as a species superior to others we raise and kill for food.

It’s also one of the most hotly contested emotional issues in the animal rights universe, and one that if mishandled has significant economic consequences. This should of and by itself inform USDA’s decision-making process.

Let’s be clear: Horse slaughter is legal in the U.S., save in a few states. The reopening of horse processing plants was blocked until 2011 by appropriations bill language withholding federal funding to pay inspectors. Ignored in the storm of “noble beast” and ethical superiority arguments are several salient issues that can’t be ignored, including the private property rights of horse owners; the potential economic stimulus and employment potential in rural America from a reestablished horse processing industry; the recapture of a $100-million horse meat export market; a lack of professional horse sanctuaries so hence, the declining welfare of abandoned and neglected horses – now totaling by various estimates anywhere from 150,000-300,000 – and, finally, the 20% annual increase in feral horses and their destruction of land and Native American culture out West.

The reality is USDA-regulated stunning and processing is the most humane method of culling this population. The Government Accountability Office (GAO), the investigative arm of Congress, says eliminating horse slaughter has significantly and negatively impacted horse welfare in this country. Heck, even HSUS allows “euthanasia” is an acceptable means of controlling the unwanted horse population; you just can’t sell or eat the meat.

While farmers and ranchers are justifiably outraged by any federal government move messing with their rights and the federal meat inspection system, other severely affected factions are entering this debate. One of the most compelling letters I’ve seen on this issue is one sent last month by the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Wappanish, Washington, to Vilsack and President Obama, explaining why it worked to remove appropriations language preventing USDA-inspected horse processing. Here’s an excerpt:

“…the Yakama Reservation is literally overrun by with what some call wild horses. We believe it more accurate to refer to these horses as feral. Our biologists estimate we have over 12,000 feral horses on our Reservation. Through overgrazing, destruction of stream banks and the intimidation of species of native animals that we are trying to reintroduce…these feral horses are doing very serious environmental damage to our homeland…many of our people are impoverished, and if they can generate a little income by selling some of this ever-growing herd and helping us to cull our feral horse population, they are doing themselves and our land base a huge service…we should not manage these horses based on purely emotional arguments, story books or movies…there is a market for horse meat in many parts of the world, and if we can create jobs, humanely reduce overpopulated herds, and feed others, it is absurd to prohibit it.”

Republican campaign strategist Mary Matalin has joined with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) to send a video message to state Republican legislators across the country, targeting those elected officials who are sponsoring/considering bills to criminalize the unauthorized videotaping on private farms and ranches. PETA believes it was Matalin, and by extension, her husband Democrat campaign guru James Carville, whose plea convinced Arkansas legislators recently to take no action on their bill. If you go to www.peta.org, you can see the Matalin video message, along with PETA’s latest version of reality.

PETA, Mercy for Animals (MFA), the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) and other activist groups dub these bills “ag gag” legislation. They contend these bills are designed only to protect “institutional cruelty,” “factory farms,” and to “blame the messenger,” i.e. the “undercover investigator” who is a PETA, MFA or HSUS plant. They claim local authorities ignore whistleblowers or take no action based against this “rampant” cruelty. This is why the animal rights movement must be not only the animals’ protector, but the protector of us all.

Self-professed “carnivore” Matalin buys this activist line. She invokes the name of Dr. Temple Grandin to further justify her participation in this PETA-inspired mission of mercy.

Legislation, whether local, state or federal, is only good legislation if it’s absolutely necessary, is well-researched, well-written and is designed to solve a public problem of sufficient magnitude that only the heavy hand of a legislature can ensure a balanced solution for society. At least that’s the theory. As a lobbyist of 30 years, I believe legislation should be the option of last resort. If I honestly believed the images/practices portrayed in some – I stress “some” – undercover videos were evidence of institutional animal cruelty, I’d be lecturing farmers, not political celebrities. If I believed these bills were shameless grabs for protection of bad deeds, I’d be leading the charge against them.

While it’s true Grandin is quoted telling an Iowa audience last December she thinks these bills are “the dumbest thing,” she has been very public with her pleas for agriculture to be more public and open – and on this last point Grandin and I agree – both Grandin’s statement and Matalin’s political act miss the underlying reason for the bills. These bills are first and foremost to ensure farms and ranches get the private property, personal privacy and safety protections they deserve; the presence of living creatures within their walls is a distinct privilege which carries distinct responsibilities, but the presence of animals does not give anyone legal license to invade and manipulate those creatures or the farmer and his/her family while ignoring the law out of a personal notion of the “greater good.”

The reality of these soft core break-ins is the animal rights activist gains access to the facility illegally. In most cases, the person with the video camera creates or is given a false identity to gain employment, sometimes supported by a national organization enjoying a tax exempt or not-for-profit tax status. The job seeker is not looking for honest employment, but will give up weeks and months of his or her life to take as much video and as many still images of a private enterprise as necessary to make the case for animal abuse/neglect. This same person compounds the crime since the only reason he or she broke the law in the first place is because the group supporting the plant intends to publish/broadcast as broadly as possible the edited images without the permission of the legal owner of the facility. Sometimes documents are purloined along with the images. This is called fraud.

Sadly, the media takes any video from any animal rights activist and generally broadcasts it without vetting it first. Why? It makes good TV. There is rarely any mention of the multiple “smoking gun” videos released to the media over the years later shown to be staged or concocted using B roll footage, or footage so old as to bear no resemblance to modern farming and ranching.

I refuse to dignify PETA/HSUS/MFA videography as “investigations.” These are witch hunts. Why else would PETA need six months by its own admission to gather sufficient “evidence” against a single farm? Why, in the case of the HSUS Hallmark video, did the world’s largest animal rights group spend all that time “undercover” and then wait nearly three months before notifying authorities of “rampant cruelty?” If you see the law being broken, isn’t it your moral if not legal obligation to report that violation? My cynical self tells me these “delays” may have less to do with animal wellbeing and everything to do with making the biggest media splash possible to get the most attention in order to raise the most membership dollars.

When I hear celebrities make such pronouncements, I wonder how they’d react if they were on the receiving end of this kind of willful disregard for the law and their legal rights and protections simply because an individual or group didn’t like what they were doing or how they were doing it, and believed – truly believed – the “public has the right to know?”

The more I hang around this town, the less tolerance I have for the time, money and energy spent on “symbolism.” That’s an incredibly naïve statement given about 90% of what goes on in Washington, DC, is for show, but you’ll understand why last Friday’s circus in the Senate over the FY2014 budget resolution really put my teeth on edge. It took symbolism to an all-time high, out-doing the House’s similar silliness a couple of weeks before. I’m talking about the so-called “vote-a-thon,” when 101 amendments out of more than 400 filed – most of which had nothing to do with the budget – sucked up 20-plus hours of Senate floor time – in a chamber where most of the time they can’t agree on what day it is – and when the dust settled, none of them meant a darn thing.

Let me explain. House and Senate budget bills are “resolutions,” distinct from legislation that will eventually become enforceable law. Resolutions give a “sense” of the House or Senate on a particular topic, and in most cases they’re “nonbinding,” meaning they have no force of law. In the case of budget resolutions – whether House or Senate – they’re the nonbinding variety, meant to provide allocation of available dollars, as in recommended spending caps for various committee business, a “sense” of how the majority party prioritizes various projects, programs and issues. Resolutions are not instructions, but guidance to committees who authorize programs. The budget shouldn’t be confused with appropriations; those bills actually and officially designate dollars to be spent.

House Agriculture Committee Chair Frank Lucas (R, OK) said it best in the wake of the House-passed budget resolution, when he was asked what the action meant for a five-year Farm Bill, given Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan (R, WI) used on-farm “prosperity” to justify recommending a $30-billion whack to ag spending. Said Lucas, “…the House budget I view as guidance…the Budget Committee gave us a number, not a long list of instructions. That’s the key…they gave us a number and we’re going to do our best to meet it.”

The law enacted avoiding the fiscal cliff mandated the House and Senate each pass an FY2014 budget resolution by April 14. So, recognizing there was actually a fast legislative train leaving the Senate station – and keenly aware there would be zealous media interest in how dramatically the Democrat-controlled Senate version would contrast with the Republican-controlled House version – Senators dusted off every issue with any relevance to their state or their party and filed them for consideration on the budget bill.

Back to the 400-plus amendments; in fairness, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D, NV) tried to limit the number of amendments, but he and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R, KY) couldn’t come to an agreement on how many and which amendments would be blessed. So in Congress-speak, the budget resolution proceeded under an open rule, meaning come one, come all with any amendment that strikes your fancy.

Maybe a dozen of the Senate budget amendments were germane to future discussions on budget/finance/tax/spending-related issues. These received serious floor debate and recorded votes. The vast majority of amendments simply provided Senators a bully pulpit, allowing each member to get up on the floor and make heart-felt speeches, confident each pearl of wisdom would be officially recorded in the Congressional Record, to be resurrected when that certain piece of legislation hits the floor or the home state reelection campaign is in full swing.

Watching the Senate floor action late last Friday night – the poor things didn’t finish the vote-a-thon until 4 a.m. Saturday – was to observe only modestly controlled chaos. Senators walked on and off the floor, amendments were brought up, received two minutes of debate – “evenly divided” – and most were disposed of by voice vote, so you’d really never know who voted for or against each measure. Senators kept pleading with the president of the Senate to bring order to the chamber.

As the sun rose over the Capitol dome last Saturday, the Senate’s first budget resolution was approved 50-49. Many members who begged and pleaded to offer their amendments because the world would end if denied, in the end, voted against the resolution and by extension, their own “priorities.”

It was good political theater, and another “symbol” of congressional confusion.

Some politicians are universally recognized for their outstanding ability to communicate. Others, not so much. President Reagan earned the unofficial title as “The Great Communicator.” President Obama is rightfully recognized as one of the best speechmakers to occupy the White House since Reagan.

However, I’ve yet to encounter an Administration, in trying to communicate to the public about agriculture, food, nutrition and “healthy eating” and so forth that gets it right. In my experience most food messaging misses the mark, in part because it’s usually an incomplete message, in part because popular talking points inevitably perpetuate the premise that some foods are “better” than others, that some foods “healthier.” The simple truth is food is just, well, food.

The fundamental reality missing in these messages is one production agricultural used to use routinely, but which is not as often heard these days, i.e. there’s no such thing as “good” foods or “bad” foods. The key to healthy eating – and enjoying what you eat – is moderation and balance. To reduce obesity or to lose that extra 20 pounds, combine dietary moderation and balance with increased physical activity. End of message.

Food origins are immaterial to healthy eating generally speaking. I don’t take dietary advice from chefs or cookbook authors; their universe is taste, texture and appearance. However, if buying from a “local” farmer – in some cases “local” means within a five-state area – makes you feel better about your food purchases, great. If you’re willing to spend three, four or even five times as much for your food because it’s organic, I might envy your disposal income, but it’s your right because it gives you some kind of peace of mind, not because science says it’s healthier or better for the planet.

Our food messaging needs to be comprehensive. It’s all “good” in the sense food doesn’t of and by itself present a danger to any of us unless there isn’t enough to go around. This is why those who preach the superiority of organics, “natural,” non-genetically modified, vegetarian, vegan, fruitarian, holistic, grass-fed, free range, local, small farm-only or anti-corporate are simply creating nutritional white noise.

This messaging balance needs to include and extend to the farmers and ranchers who grow the stuff we like/need to consume. There are no intrinsically “bad” farmers. Some are better at what they do than others, but the popular foodie notion that “good” food only comes from small, family farms and “bad” food comes from large “factory” farms doesn’t hold water. All farmers and ranchers share one universal reality: It’s a tough life.

So, to all those out there who are trying to “message” food, here’s the trick: It’s all good and it comes from good people. Now, drop and give me 20.