The latest round of “undercover” videos released by the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) ostensibly targeted two farms – owned by Seaboard Foods and Prestage Farms – to illustrate the alleged cruelty of gestation stalls and misbehavior by farm workers. HSUS hyperbole about gestation stalls is well known, totally without scientific foundation, and use of the stalls is essentially an issue of personal belief, science, experience and perception.

However, the video – once again filmed some months ago, but held by the media-hungry HSUS until the maximum media moment – has less to do with the two farms and everything to do with intimidating their retail customers. HSUS went the extra step this time, filing complaints with the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) and the (FTC), alleging the treatment of pigs as “illustrated” by the video is at odds with company website statements and is “misleading its shareholders and the public.”

HSUS lets anyone cruising its website know Seaboard is a WalMart supplier; Prestage Farms has major retail customers as well. The strategy here is to frighten these mega retailers with an implied message: “We will continue to embarrass you by attacking your suppliers. Use the power of the purse to force them to raise pigs the way WE want pigs raised, or risk our continued wrath.”

This is an opportunity for WalMart and others to show some backbone. Resist the temptation to go with the quick public relations fix and stand with farmers and ranchers – no matter the size of their operations – and send HSUS and groups of its ilk the message that cheap video stunts and allegations to the government will not deter you from getting the facts and the using the science and experts — including real live farmers and ranchers — to inform your decisions. There are thousands of farmers who will stand with you or in front of you in dealing with HSUS trust me. Respect will grow.

This does not compromise your commitment to your customers when it comes to proper care and treatment of the animals which provide the meat for your stores. It avoids political shenanigans in DC and statehouses around the country by politicians who don’t know any better, but think they can make you happy by whacking at your farmer supplier. But most importantly, it demonstrates to your customers you have the same priorities as they – and the farmer – namely, ensuring that the best is being done in the best way by the best people.

I’m not suggesting turning a blind eye to bad practices. On the contrary, I’m advising retailers to learn as much about the producer and the process as you know about the product and the price. Set your standards based upon knowledge and practical application; weigh the options out there for your suppliers, and become an ally, not an enemy with a reputation for knee-jerk ill-advised PR responses to activist pressure.

Being responsible, showing some backbone in the face of activist political pressure gains you friends and allies. At the same time, you maintain your standards, your quality supply of product, you keep your customers happy and you help ensure there are farmers and ranchers around who will step up and work with you and for you.

The fact sheet talks about the need to streamline the federal government, reduce the number of agencies, save taxpayer dollars and actually help small businesses – or “businesses of all size” – with trade and export aspirations. Excellent reasons all to seek efficiency and no one can quibble with the underlying motivations.

However, to take the “core business and trade functions” of the Department of Commerce and merge them with the Small Business Administration (SBA), the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), the Export-Import Bank (EIB), the Overseas Private Investment Corp. (OPIC) and the U.S. Trade & Development Agency (USTDA), all so “one website, one phone number and one mission” will emerge reveals a lack of homework and outreach on the part of the President’s staff and a serious misunderstanding of the role these agencies play in the business of exporting.

The biggest mistake in this agency mash-up is including and demoting USTR. Ambassador Ron Kirk, the sitting Special Trade Representative, runs a shop that is the front line for this country on trade negotiations, whether new treaties, disputes or on-going tariff tiffs. USTR is part of the White House, and as such sends the supreme signal that Ambassador Kirk reports to and negotiates on behalf of the President, not a cabinet secretary. This is the system in most developed nations, and to relegate USTR to just another cog in our trade machine undercuts our commitment to trade and our credibility at the negotiating table.

The White House must be thinking about other entities to roll into “One Department” because its fact sheet says the new entity will be where “entrepreneurs go from the day they come up with an idea and a patent, to the day they start building a product and need a warehouse to the day they are ready to export and need help in breaking into new markets overseas.” Last I looked none of the agencies slated to be agglomerated do product safety/efficacy reviews and/or approvals, expedite private industry storage programs or issue export licenses. Which leads to a couple of observations: First, FDA does export certifications on the products it regulates – will that function shift to the “One Department”? Where do USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) and/or the Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) fit?

The President’s fact sheet talks about eliminating redundancies and inefficiencies, but if we learned anything from the creation of the Department of Homeland Security post-9/11 it’s that consolidating/reorganizing doesn’t necessarily make things more efficient, it just makes things different and complicated in ways we didn’t foresee.

The devil’s in the details and no one has seen the actual legislative proposal the President will send to Congress to give him the authority to set up this new entity. However, the letters of opposition are flying, and folks are already paranoid about a single food agency – that would take a merger of USDA, FDA and 12 other federal agencies – or the marriage of the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

The White House is also going to launch a new website: BusinessUSA – “a virtual one-stop shop with information for small businesses and businesses of all size (sic) that want to begin or increase exporting.” Here’s an idea: If the White House has gone to all the trouble of incorporating all federal information and assistance a business of “any size” needs when it comes to trade/exports, we can skip the whole “reorganization” thing.

It’s tough to escape the notion that for all the right reasons, it appears this White House may be about to do a very wrong thing.

This destruction was, in the drivel of these proto-terrorists, to protest “the horrors and injustices of factory farming.” Excuse me – what greater horror is there than a group of miscreants who would elevate criminal violence to some form of self-defined noble action? No thinking, feeling human being, no one with a shred of honor and decency, ever lowers him/herself to physical violence and destruction against someone with whom they disagree just to make a philosophical point. This is the action of cowards and vigilantes, not self-styled heroes.

Insulting to the intelligence of anyone with an IQ higher than a plant is the following statement from the criminals’ email to NAAL: “We weren’t sure how well this was going to work, so we waited until there was (sic) news reports before writing this.” If you go back through the media reports of similar attacks over the years, you’ll find story after story in which the criminal talks of how sophisticated these operations are, how well-planned and well-thought out they are. It frightens me then to think they’re slipping, or there’s a new generation of criminals who skipped their bomb-making class and/or just don’t do their homework.

These juveniles were lucky – again – that in the destruction of the Harris trucks there was no collateral damage that killed or injured an innocent employee, security guard or some poor soul who may have been at the wrong place at the wrong time. But then I’ve heard a spokesman for the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) tell a U.S. Senate committee that human murder is justified in the pursuit of animal rights. I’ve heard animal rights leaders say human beings are a blight on the planet.

This is sheer, unmitigated insanity. It is unfathomable to me how any group of people convinces themselves their cause is so just, so noble, so “pure” and “righteous” as to be above the laws of society and civilized behavior and the rules that guide honest disagreement and debate. What they do is destroy their own cause, and destroy not only their own credibility, but that of those within the non-violent parts of the animal rights movement.

It’s time for the leaders of the animal rights/welfare/protection movement — the whole gang – to join together and publicly and loudly denounce this brand of terrorism perpetrated in the name of animal rights. It’s time for those companies who profit from association and cooperation with the animal rights movement to join that denunciation.

It’s no longer enough to respond to a reporter’s question with, “Of course, I/we don’t support or condone violence, but we can understand the motivation.”  That’s unvarnished crap, and those days are over.  It seems to me anyone is either repulsed by such criminal acts and the people who commit them, or by their silence, admit that in some dark part of their soul, they support the violence and revel in the destruction.

This is the one area of the debate over animal use on which all sides can agree – violence in any shape, way or form is always and forever wrong.

Pacelle starts his money plea with the statement: “The HSUS works to provide hands-on-care to tens of thousands of animals a year,” a statement we’ve all learned to be false given others have demonstrated HSUS spends less than 1% of its bankroll on animal care programs. And given Pacelle will stretch on that fact, what I am to think about my “enemies” status?

It’s interesting this edition of the Pacelle blog talks about how HSUS is “tackling large-scale, institutionalized cruelty such as seal killing, extreme confinement on factory farms, captive hunting and puppy mills,” yet all of his “enemies” are involved in some form or fashion with production agriculture or food retailing. I need Pacelle to understand I’ve never seen “extreme confinement” on any farm, never been on a “factory farm,” never killed a baby seal, never bought a baby dog from whatever today’s definition of a “puppy mill” might be, nor have I ever been on a regular hunt, let alone a “captive hunt.” Though, having said that, I may be jeopardizing my “enemy” status.

I honestly don’t consider Pacelle an enemy. Pacelle and his organization are a bother, kind of like a mosquito at a picnic you just can’t seem to shoo away. It doesn’t stop you from enjoying the activity; it’s just the occasional distraction.

HSUS is a distraction from the job to which we’re supposed to be dedicating ourselves, namely feeding people, including a good bunch of HSUS supporters. If anything, HSUS is more a threat to the quality of life of the very folks who send it checks, as most of the demands he and his group make of farmers, ranchers, processors and retailers, if adopted, would increase the cost of food, decrease the variety and availability of food, and some argue, essentially return the U.S. to 1930s food production. That translates to lower quality and safety at a higher price.

Pacelle says those of us who made the enemies list are part of a “long list of companies and individuals who profit from animal abuse…” Now, if Pacelle defines what we – or our First Nation friends in Canada or legitimate dog breeders – do as “abuse,” then what’s he doing? It’s a simple and apparently lucrative formula: Define “abuse,” bombard the public with propaganda about “abuse,” set up straw men, i.e. “enemies” and “adversaries,” then ask those people you’ve targeted for money over and over again.

A bunch of the money HSUS extracts from targeted unenlightened donors pays Pacelle’s not-insubstantial salary, travel expenses, staff, and other perks that come along with being the Big Cheese at HSUS. It maintains offices around the country and the planet. It contributes to a growing network of foot-soldier organizations that allow HSUS to keep its hands publicly clean. So, who’s really “profiting” from animal “abuse?” Certainly Pacelle does alright, and I guess I should thank my “enemy,” because if it weren’t for him and his group, I wouldn’t be working as hard as I do.

No one seemed to care about the physical and psychological protection of farmers and ranchers and their families as they did about protecting the right to fight for “happy” farm animals. No one seemed to care about the vital service farmers and ranchers provide, i.e. feeding people affordably and safely, as much as they cared about celebrities, naked activists, insensitive/insulting media-hogging campaigns, stalls, “free range” or the virtues of organic/natural/vegetarian/vegan foods.

When agriculture fought back through enactment of federal and state laws criminalizing the kind of assaults I’ve just described, we were immediately branded – and continue to be vilified – by these same thugs, as well as by legal dilettantes and cable TV talking heads, as opposing the First Amendment, muzzling free speech and figuratively shredding the Constitution to protect our dastardly ways.

The first foray into legal protection was the Animal Enterprise Protection Act (AEPA), an amendment to the federal criminal code that for the first time made it a crime to break into and destroy biomedical research labs, farms and other sites of legitimate animal use. This was in 1990, there was a more than an adequate record of attacks, but the predicate was animals must be present at the facility. In 2006, an amendment to this section of the federal criminal code was enacted – the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) – necessary to extend the same federal protection to a broader array of legitimate animal users, including those who represent animal use. The animals-on-premises predicate disappeared.

Both pieces of legislation were vetted through the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) prior to any congressional action. Why? Because no one in agriculture or biomedical research – the two groups most active in passing the legislation – wished to be accused of ignoring First Amendment, whistleblower or other federal protections set in or established under federal law. These protections, after all, apply to us as well.

Now we have state legislative attempts in Iowa, Minnesota and Florida – and the Florida legislature has reintroduced the bill, bless ‘em – to enact laws protecting farmers and ranchers from anti-farming activists gaining employment on a farm under false pretenses, videotaping private property without permission, and then disseminating that video tape – edited in any way they wish, portraying that farm or ranch in any way they wish – all because they believe their right to hawk their cause is more important than the farmer’s right to protect his/her property. This is electronic vigilantism – self-righteous folks taking the law into their own hands – action we deplore in other contexts, so why not here?

Granted, bad legislative drafting and a reach too far in restricting illegal behaviors make these attempts self serving. The courts strike down bad laws — not the case in the AEPA/AETA so far — but the fundamental premise is still valid. Why is it OK for an animal rightist to commit fraud, theft and slander/libel, all in the name of his/her definition of animal nirvana – or the lack of it? And why are farmers and ranchers denied the protections so articulately protected by the legal whizzes among us with access to the media?

In the mid-1990s, it was my idea to create a model state bill aimed at any activist with the price of a full-page ad in USA Today or the New York Times who intended to lie to consumers about food production to further the cause or raise money. I figured if a company is legally prohibited from falsely claiming in its advertising what a product can or can’t do, why shouldn’t consumers be afforded the same protection from lies and distortions in activist propaganda? In all, 13 states passed a version of this model bill, legislation that basically told the activists: “Say whatever you like, but be prepared to prove what you say if challenged in the courts.” These laws were dubbed “veggie libel” laws by the media, and some of you remember the failed Oprah Winfrey suit in Texas over burgers, but the point remains: Does the Constitution protect your right to malign my livelihood – and me by extension – and break the law because I don’t comport with your personal beliefs?

I’m no lawyer, but to me, the answer must be “no.”

Horse slaughter, USDA hires HSUS alum, UEP-HSUS deal — good idea or bad? Smithfield and sow stalls, Nebraska Farmers Union and HSUS  – these are just some of the stuff that’s crossed by desk just this week related to animal warfare.

Hour after hour, day after day, week after week, print and electronic chronicles of on-going war of philosophies and words over the husbandry of food animals pummel me as if I’m caught in a hail storm. These we-said, they-said reports are incidentally entertaining, but they reveal a waste of time, money and energy by our side of this lifestyle battle, this tug-of-war for the hearts and minds of consumers.

Lest you think I’m advising you to ignore this very real threat, put your mind at ease. Only an idiot involved in livestock or poultry production, processing, retailing or the industries which serve and rely upon these endeavors would ignore the animal rights movement. What I’m advising – based on the years of trench warfare I’ve endured – is that we must prioritize and allocate resources.

We’ve engaged in a kind of scatter-shot approach in the quest for bucking up consumer confidence in where their food comes from and the folks who produce it. One day our myriad coalitions, joint-ventures or dedicated organizations are saying truly important things to broad consumer audiences, but then we all spend the next week taking shots at the Humane Society of the U.S. or PETA or Food & Water Watch or the Pew Trust for something they said that offended or angered us.

We must acknowledge we waste of energy, dollars and time when we fall prey to worrying about responding to or attacking the opposition every time it takes a shot. Our job is to be so effective in our consumer outreach or whatever you want to call it, that the other side is forced to respond to us. I know this is a radical concept, but hey, that’s what I get paid for.

Our primary goal from which we can’t be distracted is to talk with consumers. The vast majority of our groups must have one goal and one goal only – influence the influencers, maintain the information flow, show we’re a progressive industry and rebuild what trust we’ve lost among consumers so as many possible believe we’re the professional and ethnical folks we are.

First lesson: The crazies will always be with us. There will always be groups like HSUS who sell memberships and newsletter subscriptions based on fear and loathing for what we do and how we do it. This is a fact of life and one that’s ignored at our own peril, but which should not consume our energy and time.

Second lesson: We have folks who are paid to go toe-to-toe with the crazies, and they’re very good at what they do. In the army of agriculture, these are the Special Forces, the commandos, the folks who can give as good as they get. These are the folks who should be focused on response. We also have communicators who are unrivaled; they must stay focused on outreach.

Third lesson: Our consumer messages must be echoed by each and every group who cares about the future of animal agriculture. There need not be one voice, but rather a chorus of voices emanating from every aspect of food production. This is what 99% of us are really good at. It’s called marketing. No one sells product as well as we do, so let’s use that same expertise and those same resources to sell the producer and the process. That’s how you reinstill confidence.

Lesson four: Might makes right. The good guy does finish first. I honestly believe – or I would not have fought these battles for over 20 years – that we’re winning this battle. We will put it to rest faster and more efficiently – and the powers that be know, less expensively – if we’re progressive, positive and use our proven expertise and our resources appropriately – the most focused way possible.

It’s not that ag doesn’t want to see a reduced federal deficit and a balanced budget; we’ve been giving ‘til it hurts for the last few years. But the community is by and large grateful our hit in the mandated across-the-board federal spending reductions slated for 2013 is likely something south of $15 billion, a number a lot of folks seem ready to live with.

I’m also going to assert there’s more than just dollar sign relief behind those grinning aggies, there’s a collective “thank you” to the Farm Bill gods that the process will effectively begin anew. Everyone gets a chance to go back and reexamine all of those quickly cobbled together reinventions of farm programs – all pegged to some kind of hybridized federally subsidized income insurance – taking time to flesh them out, and perhaps reconsider parts or entire reinventions now that the spending baseline has come up a bit and there are a host of other programs against which parochial approaches can be compared.

We can pretty much bet the “triplet approach” fashioned out of whole cloth by ag committee chairs Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D, MI) and Rep. Frank Lucas (R, OK) is going into the round file. No one likes their “one from column A, one from column B, one from column C’ menu approach, an honorable, but unsuccessful attempt to balance regional and commodity demands.

So, it’s back to regional and Washington, DC hearings, complete with the naïve production program/income security/land use/environmental demands of the tree hugging set, animal rights and consumer groups, and then we start drafting our brains out so that we can hit a February deadline for a bill to which folks can formally react. This is called writing a Farm Bill under “regular order,” which also makes those 28 House members who accused Stabenow and Lucas of writing a “secret Farm Bill” as part of the super committee process so very happy.

And its “regular order” which also takes the bloom off the rose, so to speak, for those grinning aggies. Unlike in years past, where we had a hint of urban animosity toward farm bill spending, this upcoming spin down the Farm Bill superhighway is going to be very bumpy all because of the potholes that are future budget/spending cuts.

The only part of the super committee process that warmed the hearts of Farm Bill veterans was the protection the bill would have enjoyed once it hit the floor. Had the bill been written and brought to the floor, only harsh words could be leveled against it, no amendments could have been offered. Now, “regular order” means the finished Farm Bill, whenever it hits the floor, will be a monster target for spending hawks, anti-corporate farming types, save-the-family-farm folks, and so on.

And we should not look to the House GOP leadership to protect the Farm Bill from the assaults that are sure to come no matter how fiscally conservative the bill may or may not be. House Speaker John Boehner (R, OH), when he was a member of the House Agriculture Committee, was an ardent and vocal critic of farm program payments of any sort. It’s fair to say he hated all of the programs, with special animus to the cotton program, the sugar program, and dairy programs. He’s pledged all major legislation brought to the floor during his tenure as speaker will enjoy an “open rule.” That means any and all amendments – no matter how bizarre – will be allowed. To give you an idea how this works, during the FY2011 appropriations battle, the “open rule” applied; over 400 amendments were filed, more than 175 debated and voted upon, and it took nearly a week to finish.

So, are we all still smiling?

The FY2012 agriculture spending bill was a heavy lift for the two appropriations subcommittees as it sought to cut from last year’s spending billions of dollars. Everyone and their brother waded into the debate either at subcommittee, full committee, floor or conference level to try and pry a few extra dollars out of the appropriators for this or that favorite program. In the end, it was continually described by those leaders on the floor whose job it was to shepherd it to final approval as “not the best bill in the world, but one that achieves good things.”

A couple of good things this bill achieved is what it didn’t do, or more accurately, what it tried to do, but failed. In the House, two parochial amendments were successfully attached to the bill, both ignoring common sense and the future of agriculture in the U.S.

The first example was an amendment attached to the bill in full committee by Rep. Jim Moran (D, VA) – Alexandria, Virginia, to be exact, not exactly a hotbed of agriculture interests unless you count the ag lobbyists who live in his district. It was Moran’s turn as the darling of the animal rights movement to add language to the bill forbidding USDA to spend any federal dollars to provide inspection to horse processing plants.

Moran made the tired arguments about the horse as a pet, a noble beast, etc., and despite a push by United Horsemen and the Farm Animal Welfare Coalition, which I coordinate, the full committee – without much discussion – okayed the rider in a rush to get the bill completed.

The second amendment was successfully offered on the House floor by Rep. Don Young (R, AK), and the amendment would have forbidden FDA from spending money to complete its safety review of genetically enhanced Atlantic salmon eggs, the first application of a GE food animal, and a client issue on which I work. He called it “Frankenfish,” but the bottom line is Young sees the GE Atlantic salmon as market competition to his state’s wild caught Pacific salmon.

The Senate accepted neither of these amendments, though they were discussed. Why didn’t the Senate fall in line with the House? Because the vaunted effort in the House by collective animal agriculture was successful in the Senate. Strong, logical arguments by a united animal ag against these ill-advised actions carried the day.

On the horse slaughter issue, congressional sentiment has shifted dramatically. No longer do the members automatically think of “My Friend Flicka,” but they considered the economic value of the horse to the owner, the intrusion into slaughter issues for reasons other than food safety, the fact that since U.S. horse slaughter plants closed, the number of abandoned and neglected horses now exceeds 100,000 animals, and they finally figured out that while animal rightists blithely pronounce “euthanasia is an option” for an unwanted horse, USDA inspector oversight of professional stunning is far preferable to starvation and neglect.

On GE salmon, animal agriculture opposed the amendment – taking no position on whether the fish eggs should be approved or not – because the amendment was an unprecedented attempt to politicize FDA’s science-based approval process. Dr. Calestous Juma, professor at the Kennedy School at Harvard University and a great supporter of biotechnology as one of the answers to African hunger and food self-sufficiency, said it best during a House Agriculture Committee hearing on biotech’s contribution to agriculture at which he testified shortly after the House appropriations floor debate:

“I understand this House passed an amendment to the Agriculture Appropriations Bill that would effectively prevent the Food & Drug Administration from completing its safety assessment of the first food fish that makes use of (bio)technology. It is not this particular fish that is at stake. It is the principle behind the amendment and its wider ramifications. It sends the message to the rest of the world that the science-based regulatory oversight as embodied in the FDA review process is subject to political intervention. Furthermore, it signals to the world that the United States may cede its leadership position in the agricultural use of biotechnology. I believe it is imperative the United States stay the course it has set in not letting politics interfere with its science-based regulatory system that is truly the envy of the world.”

Both of these amendments were stripped out of the final conference report by the House and Senate members who reconciled the two versions of the legislation.

It’s these all-too-rare demonstrations of common sense and rationale, non-partisan thinking that give me hope for the institution. They should be the rule, not the exception.

Consider the hoopla surrounding the variations on the revenue insurance scheme popping up across the commodity spectrum. The days of direct payments are over, look to “risk management” as the new income safety net. But when you strip away all of the window dressing on the respective proposals, you’re left with a federal insurance policy that pays you when your income drops due to low prices or bad production. Most of these documents are gathering dust right now as that magic one-size-fits-all deficit reduction legislative option is pursued.

That brings us to the House and Senate Ag Committees, or more specifically the chairs and ranking members.  These four – Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D, MI), chair of Senate ag; Sen. Pat Roberts (R, KS), the ranking member, who also served as chair of the House ag posse in a previous life; Rep. Frank Lucas (R, OK), chair of the House ag panel, and Rep. Collin Peterson (D, MN), ranking member, but former chair – are locked behind closed doors trying to figure out for the life of themselves how the heck to whack $23 billion out of ag spending over the next decade without committing political suicide. That’s the pledge to the deficit super committee.

These four are talking about a “shallow loss” program – though if you confront any one of them publicly about it they’ll generally deny it – that would only put the farmer on the hook for about 5-10% any income or crop loss.  The fed would pony up the next 15-25%, and federally subsidized insurance would pay the rest.  The American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) so far is the only national group shooting at the plan, warning it will encourage farmers to take huge risks – risks they wouldn’t normally take – knowing income is covered.

The argument is how to do you set the bar in calculating “average income” that’s fair to all producers no matter the crop, and that equity extends to all regions of the country?  Is it an ACRE-like formula where a county-wide average is used or is it based upon each farmer’s actual income and real acreage in production?  Both formulas carry significant regional and crop bias, even to the point where counties are larger and more diverse in the West and South, so the calculations of a county-wide income threshold would be discriminatory when compared to say, counties in New England.  Do you require insurance on top of the program?  What do you with crops like rice and peanuts where farmers don’t’ usually buy federal insurance?

These questions will all be answered in the next week or so – it’s hoped – when the ag committee leaders finally convey to the Joint Special Committee on Deficit Reduction their plan for reinventing those parts of the Farm Bill concerned with protecting farm income, namely farm programs, conservation and crop insurance.  This is the formula for cutting that aforementioned $23 billion.  This will become known as Farm Bill I.

Farm Bill II is fashioned in 2012.  The framework from deficit reduction becomes the baseline.  Everything else gets rewritten, and all of those commodity group proposals get dusted off and rolled out and it’s Farm Bill drafting season, as ugly a process as you’ll ever see.

There is, however, a growing chorus who contend the proposals from some commodity groups, as well as the support by some of the ag veterans on both committees, are less about acknowledging the need for and participating in cutting the federal budget and a whole lot about robbing Peter to pay Paul, meaning there’s little real savings in such “insurance” but this is budgetary sleight of hand. In other words, you’re shifting the money from one set of programs to another, with no real savings.

This is the same strategy the ethanol business is pursuing. They’re willing to “surrender” the blenders’ tax credit and the protective import tariff on ethanol – saving the government $5-6 billion a year – but they want an equal amount of federal spending on guaranteed loans to build pipelines, money for flex-fuel pumps, and an order to Detroit that most cars and trucks built in the next few years can burn any “advanced biofuel” that comes along.

We will likely survive the deficit onslaught this year. Heck, if the super committee fails, ag’s contribution to deficit reduction falls dramatically as part of $1.2 trillion in across-the-board budget cuts.  But what now needs to be tackled are entitlements – including the attitude among some in ag that the government owes them program dollars, and a program that guarantees my income this year is no worse than my best year out of the last five – if you take my meaning.

I stand by my original opinion: A PhD, a professorship at a university, an “Oprah” appearance or a book deal does not necessarily make one’s thinking any clearer or more correct; scholarship does not automatically translate into a keener insight than those who by dint of experience or informal study arrive at a separate and very different conclusion.

I’m from an ag background, and I’ve spent most of my professional life hip deep in “the politics of food.” As a newspaper reporter and editor, I covered food, agriculture and agribusiness; as a lobbyist for stand-up, ethical food producers and companies, technology providers and organizations, I make no apologies for my clients or the industry that feeds this country and a good chunk of the world. But to assume I’ll advocate any position for the sake of a paycheck is silly. Should I assume the executives of and registered lobbyists for all organizations representing enviro, consumer, conservation, organic and natural food interests are equally amoral because they draw a paycheck for their efforts? No, I shouldn’t, and I don’t.

Back to reality as I see it, and the question: How much land is there to grow food on this planet? A simple Google search yields the following: According to the UN’s Industrial Development Organization (IDO) and that same body’s Food & Agriculture Organization (FAO), about 37% of the world’s land mass is “agricultural land.” Of that percentage, 11% is used for crops – for all purposes (this assumes good climate, top soil, water, low flood threat and low salinity of both soil and water); the rest is “pastureland,” including cultivated/wild forage crops and open land used for grazing. The rest of the planet is 1) oceans and other bodies of water, 2) mountains, 3) deserts, 4) forests, including rain forests, etc. So unless you’re a fan of cutting down forests and preserves or have figured out a way to “naturally” desalinate sea water and magically get it to the deserts for irrigation, the land/water situation is what it is.

This is, in part, why livestock and poultry are necessary; they convert otherwise unusable grasses and forages to protein. With deference to true vegetarians and vegans, those of us who are unabashed omnivores cherish the birds and animals that provide nutrient-dense food products for which most of the world – industrial and developing – clamors. This resource must be husbanded responsibly, professionally and sustainably, including land use, waste management, feed and water, animal health and welfare.

The word “sustainable” is tossed around a lot in the comments received. “Sustainability” is the hot new buzz word in boardrooms and at activist meetings across the country. However, If this term had a universally accepted definition, we’d have an interesting discussion of its correctness. The meaning of “sustainability” varies with the underlying philosophy, if not the phase of the moon. If I put 100 organic farmers in a room with 100 “conventional” farmers, and asked each of them to define sustainability, I’d likely get 200 different definitions. Think about the confusion if I add journalists, professors and talk show hosts.

To the gentleman who sent the Rodale statistics – and given Rodale’s reputation – thanks, I will look forward to checking this out, but from what I’ve read so far, while there’s potential for well-managed organic production – given the proper economy of scale, approved pesticide, fertilizer (in the U.S. there are such approved “pesticides,” etc. ) and energy use – to consistently match conventional production, the system ain’t there yet.

If I’m to buy into the premise stated by several commenters that we need to provide farmers across the planet with a local, sustainable production model, then technology must be part and parcel of that model. I give you the African nations which suffer near chronic drought and/or have high-saline soils and water; layer over that scenario genetically enhanced crops which are drought and saline tolerant. The same holds for livestock which can be enhanced to resist disease and handle hostile environments. There must be a marriage of these endeavors and a recognition that “sustainable” can embrace well-managed, safely and professionally technology.

One commenter referred me to the Scientific American. While cruising through its website, I came upon a July 18, 2011, blog by Christie Wilcox, a science writer and blogger who “moonlights” as a PhD student in cell and molecular biology at the University of Hawaii. I’ve cobbled together a couple of Ms. Wilcox’s conclusions in her piece “Mythbusting 101: Organic Farming > Conventional Agriculture:”

“Sometimes, we can use our knowledge and intelligence to create things that are useful, cheap (enough) and ecologically responsible…In my mind, the ideal future will merge conventional and organic methods, using GMOs and/or other new technologies…increasing the bioavailability of soils, crop yields, nutritional quality and biodiversity in agricultural lands. New technology isn’t the enemy of organic farming; it should be its strongest ally.”

‘Nuff said.