Technology has had an impact on every aspect of our lives, from the vehicles we drive to the appliances with which we do laundry and cook food for our families, to the medical and dental treatments we receive.

Maybe technology isn’t the best fit for everybody, but I sure prefer my energy efficient washing machine to the big old machine that used a lot more water, electricity and detergent and did a happy dance all over the laundry room when it was spinning the water out of my towels.

Last week, I heard from a reader who got in the game by doing a little research on his own. I wish I could tell you that I am the one who made the call, but I did not. This is the note I received from a farmer from Illinois:

“One program I watch is sponsored at least once per day by HSUS with the dreadful pictures of animals in wretched conditions and a message that suggests you can stop such treatment of animals for $19 per month. A toll free phone number is included. I called the number. The first exchange consisted of a request for my phone number which was denied by me. I requested information and stated that I was interested in participating by volunteering at the nearest shelter. The answer was that my $19 would help 3500 shelters. Being a hands-on type I insisted upon helping in person and where is a shelter. The answer was they helped 3500 shelters and she could not remember 3500 shelters. My request again was for just one shelter. The response was that she could not remember the name and location of 3500 shelters but for $19 per month I would be helping all of them and if not that a one-time donation of $25 could be made. That concluded the call and confirmed what you have been telling us and confirmed the suspicions I had on my own, not a whole lot different from the e-mail from Africa asking me for my bank account number so millions of dollars can be deposited from a dead man’s account there being no known heirs so the banker and I can share it as soon as I supply him with my bank account numbers. Judging from the e-mail I get there must not be a man left alive in Africa and they all died with no heirs to inherit the millions in their estates. Thought you’d like to know that someone pays attention to your column.”

What are you going to do this week to make a difference? To learn, to share, to educate? Get back to me on that, will you?

AUDIO: Anne Burkholder (3 min MP3)

Michael Boccorodo with Dairy Cares says the four major dairy processors have signed-on with the effort which will start with a series of educational workshops to educate producers on best management practices.

AUDIO: Michael Boccodoro talks about the initiative

AUDIO: Leslie Holloway, Missouri Farm Bureau (3 min., MP3)

AUDIO: Darci Vetter (3 min MP3)

AUDIO: Bret Davis, Kent Kramer and Mike Hogan (3 min. MP3)

This week, two “studies” came out. I place the word in quotation marks to emphasize my skepticism of both, and my hopes that other work emerges to dispute the first.

The first “study” is entitled “Health-Related Costs from Foodborne Illness in the United States,” and it’s from our friends at the Pew Charitable Trusts. The good news is Pew didn’t do the study — it was apparently contracted to Georgetown University as part of the so-called “Produce Safety Project” — but the bottom line is we’re paying $152 billion a year.

The reason I say it was a good thing to see Georgetown attached to this study, is that my experience with Pew and its various “commissions” is not good. The Pew Commission on Industrial Farming was so negative to modern agriculture, so provincial/naive in its thinking and conclusions, and so totally oblivious to the science and the prooffered input of mainstream agriculture that I’d double check anyone else’s watch if Pew told me what time it is.

Unfortunately, the media mob does not share the same skepticism of Pew that I do, and the “study” has been widely reported. Tis a pity; unless you’ve read the following “study.”

Harris Poll this week reported on a survey of 2,010 adults, 40% of whom are absolutely convinced they had some form of foodborne illness over the last two years. Now, Harris didn’t judge the opinions of its respondents, but brought up an excellent point: Food manufacturers and suppliers should pay attention, because this response is based on the public’s perception of what made them sick.

It’s scary to think someone may have a touch of the flu or a stomach virus and immediately attributed it to something he or she ate. The scarier thing is that more than a quarter of those who got sick from whatever they think they ate — and 70% of the sickies say they know what caused their probelm — removed that food item from their diet entirely. Harris didn’t ask if folks knew the basics of food purchasing, handling, storage and cooking.

Foods of concern most often cited by respondents, in order of frequency: Fresh meats; fresh poultry, fresh fish, and fresh vegetables. Now compare that to the last few major recalls, and only one of those pops into the top three.

Harris speculates such feelings lead to “heightened media scrutiny,” but I’m going out on a limb here and speculate this is kind of a vicious circle, as in a food recall leads to a flood of media coverage, which leads to folks becoming hypersensitive to a particular food, which leads to complaints that food made them sick, which leads to another media tsnuami. Forgive the pun, but it seems they feed off each other.

These two “studies” remind me of some basic rules I learned early on: Trust, but verify; all things in moderation, and when in doubt, throw it out.

Our great country was founded on the premise of freedom.  In America, one size does not fit all.  That applies to those who produce our food, fiber and fuel.  One-size-fits-all agriculture should not be our goal.     

 Audio

AUDIO: Kevin Good (3 min MP3)

AUDIO: Beth Brock-Upton (3 min MP3)