Guest blog post by Aaron Putze, Director of Communications & External Relations for the Iowa Soybean Association

August is the month when people say “the soybean crop is made,” make it fitting for August to be proclaimed Soybean Month in Iowa.

The declaration, signed July 29 by Gov. Terry Branstad, recognizes the importance of soybean production and the work of the Iowa Soybean Association.

Founded in 1964, the Iowa Soybean Association is recognized for excellence in enhancing the long term sustainability of Iowa’s soybean farmers. Our mission is to expand opportunities and deliver results for soybean farmers to improve their competiveness. And our launch of the Iowa Food & Family Project in 2011 is generating greater confident and trust among food-minded Iowans in today’s farm and food system.

Iowa soybean farmers are also among the nation’s most productive. Last year, they grew more than 505 million bushels of soybeans, the third largest crop on record. This productivity goes hand-in-hand with environmental performance.

Last year, the soybean checkoff invested $1.2 million to support water quality activities which leveraged $1.4 million in additional federal, state and local funding. This investment supports 26 active ISA-led water quality projects and 17 water monitoring projects involving 115 farmers and 436 sites, 220 tile lines and 169 streams.

A few more interesting facts about soybeans and 2014 Iowa Soybean Production:

• 9.9 million acres of soybeans were planted
• 505.7 million bushels harvested
• Average yield was 51.5 bushels per acre
• Average market price was $10.10
• Value of Iowa soybean crop was $5.1 billion

Soybeans are used in:

• Whole soybean products
• Candy and confection
• Cookies
• Soy coffee
• Soynuts and edamame
• Traditional soyfoods including Miso, Natto, Soymilk, Tofu and Soy Sauce
• Anti-corrosive agents
• Diesel fuel
• Dust control agent
• Inks, printing
• Linoleum backing
• Protective coatings
• Liquid shortening
• Margarine
• Mayonnaise
• Salad dressing
• Sandwich spreads
• Cosmetics
• Baby food
• Cereals
• Aquaculture
• Bee foods
• Poultry feeds
• Swine feeds
• Asphalt emulsions
• Leather substitutes
• Dairy feed

For more information about soybeans, soy-based products and the ISA, go to www.iasoybeans.com.

A post I read yesterday on Facebook about the President talking in Kenya struck a chord with me. Farm broadcaster Trent Loos made the comment that in Kenya 35% of the kids under the age of five are stunted because their diets lack proper nutrients and 16% are under weight.

In contrast, Americans spend between $20 billion and $40 billion annually on fad diets and diet products. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) says nearly 1/3 of the U.S. food dollar is spent on eating out services.

Food is cheaper now in the U.S., taking a smaller percentage of our income, than any other time in history. Perhaps such a cheap food supply is leading to “food fights.” Instead of appreciating the great amount of food available at reasonable prices, many Americans are turning food production into a complicated topic.

Think about this… Most countries are poorer than America. I could just as easily been one born one of those starving kids in Africa. Yet I was born me and I’m glad to be me! I’m not rich but I certainly live better than most. I’ve been able to find work that I enjoy.

Rather than working to buy things we need or want, we have gotten to the point in this country where each one of us deserves the same things. Forty-seven percent of our population is on some type of welfare. Some people want to include cell phones and Internet access – like what I work to pay for – as part of those entitlements. Minimum wage is in the news again. Then there’s health insurance. (I won’t even go there today!) 

Back to where I started… poverty level across the world is considered to be an income of less than $1.25 a day. Let’s think about what we have and who we are. This is an amazing country with so many opportunities if we would only just appreciate what we have and work to earn it!

The U.S. House of Representatives last Thursday (July 23) passed the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act with bi-partisan support. While this is great news for the seed industry, I’m concerned by the amount of misleading social media chatter and general “noise” this passage has created. I’m also concerned with headlines like “House Passes Anti-GMO Labeling Law.”

A headline of “House Supports Science-Based Labeling Standards” is more accurate, but I realize that not nearly as likely to draw in a reader. Since I have editorial control over TheFieldPosition, I’m going to take a few minutes and explain why Latham Hi‑Tech Seeds owners joined a group of representatives from the American Seed Trade Association last month to visit Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. The ASTA is one of nearly 500 organizations that sent a letter to Congress in support of H.R. 1599.

Bottom line: The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act creates a uniform, science-based labeling standard for foods made with genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The bill also creates a standardized, voluntary “Non-GMO” labeling program under the U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

During in-person visits, we asked our elected officials to support H.R. 1599 because:

• Mandatory GMO labeling goes into effect in July 2016 in Vermont so it is imperative that Congress address this issue soon. Consistent labeling is needed nationally to benefit consumers and companies alike. A patchwork of state-based labeling requirements sets up consumers for price variation as U.S. businesses would have to pass along costs from inconsistent labeling mandates when doing business across state lines.
• Unnecessary labeling would drive up food prices by as much as $500 a year for a family of four, according to a study by Cornell University Professor William Lesseri. It’s much more efficient to label “GMO-free” than “GMO” products because 80 percent of the U.S. foods people eat contain ingredients that have been genetically modified.
• Labeling “GMO” foods makes consumers unnecessarily fearful; GMOs have been an important part of our nation’s food supply for the past 20 years. The world’s leading health and regulatory bodies, from the World Health Organization to the American Medical Association, have all concluded GMOs are safe. No human has died from eating GMO foods, but death have been associated with organic foods.

“The bill isn’t about “simply preempting states’ rights” to label foods containing GMO’s,” as agvocate Ryan Goodman wrote July 24 on his I Am Agriculture Proud Facebook page. “HR 1599 creates consistency for a national food system and leads to a USDA-led certification for voluntary labeling, which should make label claims more consistent (see Section 291A – “The Secretary shall establish a voluntary genetically engineered food certification program…”)

If someone really wants to avoid GMO ingredients, they can use the Organic certification system that’s already in place. “Don’t force a mandatory system on the entire population when there are already tools available for use,” says Goodman. Touché!

We already have systems in place for people who prefer to have their food produced in a specific manner. So why add costly, burdensome and confusing mandatory regulations to the silent majority?

Attention now turns to the Senate where we expect a similar bill to be introduced this fall. You can bet we’ll be contacting our U.S. Senators, asking them to support uniform federal labeling standards. Stay tuned for TheFieldPosition to see what develops!

In the meantime, please do what you can to help consumers understand why farmers plant GMO seeds. The Peterson Brothers have done a good job explaining what GMOs are and are not; click on this link to Advocate for the [GMO] Truth.

By special request, today’s blog will not be about pigs but chicken! It’s been more than a year since the USDA announced its “controversial chicken arrangement with China.” This issue is the headline again this week thanks in part to a recent Facebook post by Erin Brockovich.

On the surface this seems like a simple issue: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the current administration will allow chickens raised in this country to be shipped to China for processing, shipped back to America, and then labeled as “grown in the USA.”

So what’s the fuss? Many Americans are concerned about food safety – and rightly so. There has been a push in this country for transparency from farm gate to dinner plate. More and more consumers wants to know how food is grown here. However, the decision to allow U.S.-raised chicken to be processed in China creates more questions about transparency in this process, as well as raises many questions about food safety.

According to an article in the Huffington Post, eventually the USDA will allow chicken raised and slaughtered in China to be imported directly into the United States, despite the fact that:

• A December 2013 USDA audit found that China’s poultry slaughter system is not yet equivalent to that of the United States in terms of food safety practices.
• The New York Times reported that toxic soil and water pollution in some areas of China is causing growing concern over the safety of food produced in that country.
• Bloomberg News reported that at a press conference, one of China’s own food safety officials essentially admitted that his country can’t meet the food safety standards of more developed nations.

If “outsourcing” can happen to U.S. chicken, it could happen to other American-raised meats. I’m concerned about what precedent this sets. As a pork producer, I’m especially concerned about the future of U.S.-raised pork.

The issue of U.S.-raised chicken being shipped to China for processing and then returned to the U.S. for consumption is especially complicated! It appears this decision is motivated by money, so let’s “follow the money and see if we can uncover the motive. I’ve read where the average wage for chicken processors in the USA is $11 per hour; the average wage in China is $1 to $2 per hour.

One can’t read the disparities in minimum wage without thinking about the ongoing debate in this country to increase the minimum wage. (I don’t have enough space to delve deeper into this this angle today, but I certainly want to in a future blog post.) If our workforce loses out to China over an $11 wage, what chance does our middle class have? Remember, the Obama administration has placed an emphasis on helping the middle class!

Another issue this situation raises is confusion over the “locally raised” label. If this chicken is raised locally, shipped to China for processing and returned to your local store, will it be labeled as a “locally” grown chicken? How can we guaranteed that an “organically raised” chicken from the U.S. that’s sent to China for processing will be the same chicken that’s returned to the U.S. for consumption? How “green” is this move? After all, it’s requiring more energy to ship to and from China!

Furthermore, how did the U.S. Department of Agriculture even reach the decision to send U.S. raised chicken to China for processing?

I’m asking a lot of questions today, but as you can see, this is not a simple issue. Regulation can get very complicated: labeling, minimum wages, climate change, even avian flu can be brought in to this issue. Trade between countries can get complicated because one little issue can affect many other issues. I could even start in on school lunches here. If our department of ag is for chickens being processed in China, will this be a part of food our kids eat in school? The food eaten in the schools are not purchased by an American mom from Trader Joes or Whole Foods.

Here’s why Americans should worry about Chinese-processed chicken on their kids’ school lunch tray:

• Rat and other small mammal meat has been sold to Chinese consumers as lamb.
• Chinese poultry supplier provided Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurants in China with chicken fattened by large quantities of illegal drugs.
• The FDA warned U.S. pet owners not to feed their pets jerky treats from China. Since 2007, approximately 600 dogs and cats in the United States have mysteriously died and approximately 3,600 pets have become ill from eating Chinese pet treats containing chicken or duck.

Does anyone else find it ironic that we don’t want to feed our pets treats from China but we’re going to trust them to process chicken that humans would consume?

More than 300 American farmers rallied July 15 outside the U.S. Capitol building to promote the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS). They wanted to call upon the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to raise the RFS volumes for corn-based ethanol that were cut in the final rules for 2016. Final public comments on the proposed RFS changes are due July 27.

“The EPA is worried about climate change, and it’s making a huge push for clean air. Biofuels like ethanol fit so well into their plans, yet on May 29 the EPA announced it wants to reduce 2015 and 2016 blending requirements by at least 20 percent,” says Annette Sweeney, co-chair of America’s Renewable Future campaign. “If the EPA takes such action, it will be breaking the law! The Renewable Fuels Standard was established by law in 2005 and updated in 2007. By proposing new standards, it sounds like the EPA is trying to bypass the lawmaking process.”

As a former Iowa State Representative and chair of the House Agriculture Committee, Sweeney is well versed in political procedure. As a third generation farmer, she understands the importance of production agriculture to both the Iowa and the U.S. economy. She also understands how rules like this could affect each farmer’s livelihood as her family’s diversified farm in North Central Iowa includes corn, soybeans, cattle and fish farming enterprises. Plus, Sweeney understands how our political climate impacts U.S. jobs and investments.

Speaking of investments, Sweeney finds it curious that on June 18 the Department of Energy (DOE) announced it will invest $55 million in advanced research projects to accelerate biofuel crop development. The DOE says it will put another $30 million into “transportation energy resources from the renewable agriculture program to support six projects developing plant remote sensing analysis.”

“Why invest $55 million in biofuel crop development if EPA is jerking the rug out from under ethanol?” asks Sweeney. “Why spend another $30 million to build infrastructure for other biofuel crops when we already have infrastructure in place to produce biofuels? Are agency officials really interested in taking away that market from America and their freedom to choose their fuel? It makes me wonder why is the RFS is really being targeted. Who is pressuring the EPA to make these changes?”

Recent actions by the EPA and other federal agencies make it appear this administration is talking out of both sides of its mouth. The White House announced June 10 the U.S. Department of Ag will spend $7 million on 550 renewable energy projects and upgrades on small farms and businesses and rural businesses.

“What good will it do to invest this money if the EPA cuts the RFS?” asks Sweeney.

Ethanol could help at least three U.S. agencies meet their environmental priorities. It’s seems suspect that only 17.4 billion gallons of ethanol being proposed to be blended into the U.S. fuel supply in 2016 rather than 22.25 required under the Energy Independence and Security Act. Why isn’t corn being considered as a clean alternative fuel under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Power Plan? The National Association of Clean Air Agencies on May 21, 2015, compiled list of 25 strategies that states can employ to comply with EPA’s Clean Power Plan. So why isn’t ethanol a top strategy for states?

“Let’s add climate change into the mix,” says Sweeney. “Biofuels are clean burning, renewable and sustainable. So why aren’t we using more ethanol to fight the climate change if this administration is so concerned about it?”

“I’m not trying to make the RFS a political issue. I’m merely raising questions,” explains Sweeney. “Agriculture should not be partisan. After all, we all eat! Agriculture is key to a strong U.S. economy and that’s also something all Americans – regardless of party affiliation – should be able to agree upon!”

Click here to encourage the EPA to uphold the RFS. Comments are due July 27. Be sure to change the subject line on your email to the EPA and personalize your message.

“The RFS is the only policy trying to level the playing field for renewable fuels,” add Sweeney. “I stand behind the Renewable Fuel Standard and what is right for America I hope you’ll join me! Please send your comments in support of the RFS to the EPA by July 27.”