Science must guide ag policy

 Resize text        

Policymaking should be grounded in sound science. When politics becomes the primary consideration, the end result is almost always harmful. We have seen this phenomenon play out in many areas with detrimental results for our economy and security.

The recent manufactured controversy over lean, finely textured beef, for example, began with a baseless media scare which has been devastating to the beef production industry. Even while this beef has an impeccable safety record, it has been reported more than 650 workers in three states have been temporarily laid off and, according to the National Meat Association, as many as 3,000 American jobs have been affected by the misinformation and manufactured hysteria.

Legislation introduced earlier this year to give the federal government control over on-farm production practices is another example of politics trumping sound science. I would argue, you the producer, along with veterinarians and animal care experts, know more about the needs of your operation than bureaucrats in Washington. Representing cattle country, I fully appreciate your commitment to product safety and humane practices. It’s simple, really: producing high quality products depends on comfortable, healthy animals.

Beef production supports more than 1.4 million jobs in the U.S. and is the number one industry in my home state of Nebraska. Cattle are produced in all 50 states and their economic impact contributes to virtually every locale in the country, driving the economies of rural communities like those in Nebraska’s Third District.

In order to further my commitment to science-based agriculture policy, I currently serve as chairman of the bipartisan Modern Agriculture Caucus. Recently, the caucus hosted a briefing along with NCBA and your President, J.D. Alexander, to educate congressional staff about how farmers and ranchers care for their livestock and poultry. Ensuring policymakers have the right information is critical if we are to preserve America’s vibrant agricultural sector.

Pursuing strong, science-based standards also has been a top priority for me on the House Ways and Means Committee where I have been working on a bipartisan basis to open new export markets for producers, while removing barriers with our existing trade partners.

All too often, foreign governments have unfairly blocked U.S beef products based on arbitrary guidelines. It is vital science determines the import standards for U.S. producers. As the Ways and Means Committee continues to work on new and stronger trade relationships like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, I will continue to ensure our farmers and ranchers are not put at a competitive disadvantage by non-tariff and unscientific trade barriers.

America’s beef producers continue to demonstrate they are dedicated to providing the highest quality, safest, and most affordable food in the world. Ultimately we must together ensure agriculture policy is driven by facts and not political ideology. The continued success of agriculture, and in turn the long term safety and security of our nation’s food supply, depends on our unwavering commitment to science.

Source: U.S. Representative Adrian Smith (R-Neb.)


Sponsored Links


Comments (11) Leave a comment 

Name
e-Mail (required)
Location

Comment:

characters left

Bob Milligan    
St. Paul, MN  |  April, 20, 2012 at 09:05 AM

Absolutely, science must guide ag policy; however, that science should not be limited only to science of production. Sound science reporting consumer preferences and attitudes should also be an important part of ag policy.

Dave    
Indiana  |  April, 20, 2012 at 09:21 AM

I certainly agree with the basic concept that "science" should help us in determining Ag policy. Who could dispute that! My only concern is in what passes for "science". Independent research at many Ag Universities is in question. With the cutbacks in USDA funding many have turned to private industry for support. When corporate interests get involved I get skeptical. Too many times we see initial findings completely reversed by later research. "He who pays the piper...calls the tune".

Will    
TX  |  April, 20, 2012 at 09:22 AM

'Who's Science" specifically are we talking about here?
Fox News "Science"? GOP "Science"? "Democrat" Science? In 2012 it's all agenda-driven spin. (Republican "Science" calls for Intelligent Design, denial of global warming, GMO feed and seed expansion, EPA curtailment; etc. This "opinion piece" was written by a Republican legislator - I'm just saying - could their possibly be political motives at work here?)

Dr. RL    
Washington  |  April, 20, 2012 at 09:26 AM

By "science" you mean the science that a) Monsanto et al bought by stocking the FDA review boards with their employees for the review process or do you mean b) the science you consistently ignore that clearly shows that GM genes leave the meats and enter humans and are not only dangerous but responsible for many of the health problems we face today?
Maybe you mean the science that shows many herbicides are endocrine disruptors or estrogen mimicking and cause most of the gender-bending your political party so hates in people? Or are you talking about the science, the EPA science that your groups couldn't suppress, that shows many of those same herbicides and insecticides are carcinogenic? The science that shows the "sterilizing" agents your meat-packing companies use in your "finely-textured" meat products are toxic, that science? Could be the science that shows your "finely textured meats" also contain higher levels of pesticides and anabolic steroids than muscle meat?
Which science are you referring to? I'll bet its whichever science makes you the most money. What do you want to bet?

JLN    
Alabama  |  April, 20, 2012 at 09:56 AM

The public policy education process says that policy is made through economics (science), ethics, myths, beliefs and politics. I teach my class that press articles must be read with a jaundiced eye and that the original sources quoted should be checked. Based on personal experience with interviewers only those that support an articles position will be reported.
According to friends in DC science will be used to support or refute a policy position and not much else. Can science be biased? Yes and "reported" science will get worse if public funding for research continues to be cut. -- My opinion only.

james    
USA  |  April, 20, 2012 at 11:51 AM

I am beginning the think that the Communist Manifesto and tenets of Communism need to be taught everywhere, not as the road to follow but to learn the double-talk they use. Please be aware communists claim communism IS science and as such has the answers for ALL questions which, in my opinion, is one of the reasons it draws people, in particular those who have a weakness for definite answers for all questions.
Of course, communism is false science. Everyday is opposite day in the communist world. Patriotic states are red, progressive states are blue. Conservatives and moderates are old, irrelevant and traditional; backward-thinking communists are progressive. Taking from one group to give to another is compassionate. Expropriation of property is fairness. The list goes on and on.

Vetted science is critical to our common advancement. The federal court system has in place a number of case decisions that set standards for the admission of scientific evidence. Those gate-keeping decisions may explain why environmentalists who push junk science use the Sue and Settle technique. They know from the get-go they have no case.

Jim    
Wisconsin  |  April, 20, 2012 at 01:44 PM

Regarding the LFTB or "pink slime" episode: the issue here is not really whether LFTB is "safe" or not. Nor even if it is really "GROUND beef" or not.

The main issue here is that for some reason or another the packers were permitted to add up to 15% LFTB and NOT LIST IT ON THE LABEL!

Folks say that putting it on the label "would not be good for marketing"

That is exactly the reason this blew up. It appears to the US consumer that the beef industry is trying to slip something into their food without putting it on the label.

In the marketing of today to most US consumers, the thing that sells is the TRUTH and QUALITY. Some marketing folks seem to have trouble understanding that and cry "foul" and "media plot" when this fact comes back to bite them.

It is in everyone's best interests to put it on the label truthfully. "Contains up to 15% LFTB" should be on the label.

If that harms sales then you have two options: educate the consumer on the positive benefits of LFTB to him or her (not the packer) or find another use for it.

What you do NOT do is contrive reasons to slip it into products but not on the label.

Today's and tomorrows most profitable consumer customers are smart and want to make the choice of what they feed their families for themselves, not by the beef industry.

Susan    
AZ  |  April, 20, 2012 at 09:52 PM

Successful & Sustainable Businesses make decisions based on 3 principle tenants: Scientifically Verified, Economically Viable and Ethically Grounded. It takes a balance of all three sustaining business principles. Successfully businesses can't depend on only one or two of these tenants. Knowledge and transparency are important. Knowledge and transparency too late, after the business model has collapsed, is difficult to build back.....particularly today as information moves faster and faster and the consumer has the control. Agriculture is my life. Food production is my passion. Let's all work together to get it right.....Successful & SUSTAINABLE.

Bob Milligan    
St. Paul, MN  |  April, 21, 2012 at 07:27 AM

Excellent!

Cory    
Columbus, NE  |  April, 21, 2012 at 08:18 AM

Is NCBA taking steps to address the writers that printed that FTLB was sprayed with Ammonia? That statement was blately false and in some cases the writers knew it, but printed it anyway. Does that qualify for slander?

Maxine    
SD  |  April, 23, 2012 at 05:48 PM

The comments demonstrate quite well the problems with 'science'.....how science is defined by the person or group promoting a particular 'science'.

NCBA demands peer reviewed, verifiable, and replicable science! Where is that involved in too many of the attacks on various ag production methods, LFTB, global warming, and most of the anti-meat and animal RIGHTS promotions?

Why do some distrust ALL research funded by 'corporate' interests, or by the Beef Checkoff, for that matter???? Why is 'government' funded research considered above suspicion? Politics being what it is, that can be tainted as much as any other source of funding, imo.

Why should LFTB, which IS beef and NOTHING else, be labeled as if it were some foreign substance when added to fattier ground beef? Why ignore the costs of that extra, redundant label? Driving up prices of the most commonly consumed form of beef, hamburger, sure isn't going to help the hard pressed family trying to give their family good nutrition, nor is it going to help the packer who has lost money on every animal processed for many months, now. And it certainly is NOT helping the cattle producer!!!