By Rich Bindell

You know Jillian Michaels as the now-famous inspirational trainer (and former overweight consumer) from The Biggest Loser. Did you know that the main reason she has been able to maintain her healthy body is from eating organic foods and staying FAR AWAY from processed food products? It sounds like Jillian is well aware of the problems that burden our corporate-controlled food system, run by giants like Monsanto, Cargill, Tyson and Nestlé. If only the show could focus on that part of a better health strategy, it could really teach people about the critical importance of the Farm Bill in improving our food and our health as a nation.

Wait a minute… that gives us an idea!

America has already opened its collective consciousness to the lessons of The Biggest Loser. The show’s contestants are close to our hearts for good reason: they’ve allowed us to examine ourselves and how we view our own health. But, now it’s time to welcome a new group into the fold and follow them as they head down a path toward self-improvement and healing. Only this time, the contestants aren’t playing for themselves, but for everyone who depends upon a healthy food system.

Welcome to the Biggest FARM BILL Loser.

Instead of contestants like former NFL player Antone Davis and 5th grade teacher Sunny Sinclair, we will get to know three “people” who will be critical to our ability to fix this country’s broken food system. Unlike The Biggest Loser reality show, these contestants depend on YOU for their ultimate success. Say hello to the new “cast”…

The American Consumer
Started with optimal health and weight but is now seriously overweight due to her switch from wholesome food produced by the independent farmer to the consumption of processed food.

The Independent Farmer
Struggling to stay in business due to falling crop prices and flooded commodity markets.

The Corporate Fat Cat
The beneficiary of the overproduction of corn and soy. Provider of cheap processed food and profiteer responsible for downfall of the farmer.

Just how critical is the Farm Bill in this contest?

We need a better Farm Bill so we can protect our farmers with fair prices for their food.

We need a better Farm Bill so everyone has access to healthy food at an affordable price.

We need a better Farm Bill to break up the powerful monopolies in the food system so that small and medium producers have a fair chance in the marketplace.

It’s not going to be easy to make these positive changes. The processed food giants have a powerful lobby with deep pockets that heavily influence Congress. If you think that’s an exaggeration, just take a look at what Congress did to recommended reforms for the meat industry.

Better yet, check out The Biggest Farm Bill Loser video and see for yourself how it works. We all have a stake in this contest, so let’s play to win.

If you’d like to learn more about the Farm Bill and what you can do get involved, visit us at www.foodandwaterwatch.org.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez61RL44X5Q

By Rich Bindell

[Originally published by Food & Water Watch]

I’ve always disliked the term “natural flavors” on the occasion that I see it in the ingredients list on a food label. What does that mean exactly? I always thought it included things like lemon juice or sea salt. But natural flavors can include human hair, crushed-up beetles and, my favorite, beaver anal glands. These all sound like things that might “accidentally” make it into your food. But in the processed food industry, these items give food its distinctive taste and texture. They are purposefully added to foods and often called “natural,” according to Bruce Bradley, former corporate food executive turned blogger. (Hat tip to Grist for telling us about him.)

Bradley tackles topics such as the truth behind the sugar substitute Truvia and the real meaning of the terms “natural flavors and colors” on The Blog of Bruce Bradley, which covers topics besides food, such as family, writing and animals. But the most hard-hitting entries seem to be food related, thanks to the time he spent as an executive in the food industry where he worked for companies including General Mills, Nabisco and Pillsbury.

Bradley seems comfortable with his new role, one of informant. Many of his food blogs include information about the frequent practices of the processed food industry that are quite revealing. Be sure to check out this blog entry from Halloween. It just might make your skin crawl.

As a consumer advocate, it’s interesting for us to see an insider blog that gives up industry secrets and tricks. Though we’re familiar with many of them, it confirms that food companies manipulate language and industry requirements in order to make claims that otherwise might be considered false. This is why it’s so important for consumers to be aware of various loopholes in labeling laws.

By Wenonah Hauter, Lois Gibbs and David Braun

(Originally posted on Huffingtonpost.com)

With 14 million Americans unemployed, buzz about a possible double dip recession reverberating in many ears and approval ratings at an all-time low, President Obama cannot afford to lose the support of any more of his constituents. Just last week, hundreds of concerned Americans descended on Philadelphia to speak out against the damages that hydraulic fracturing (fracking) has already inflicted on communities throughout the region. Recent protests in Pennsylvania, New York, Washington, D.C. and elsewhere show that President Obama now has a fight over our nation’s energy future to contend with, and the next battleground will be in the Delaware River Basin, where the Delaware River Basin Commission will vote next month on whether to approve new rules to open up wide areas of the Northeast to fracking.

Here President Obama still has an opportunity to salvage his approval ratings by blazing a new path in the burgeoning movement to protect our shared resources from the public health and environmental problems associated with fracking. President Obama can lend his considerable influence to the Delaware River Basin Commission’s upcoming decision by voting against fracking. The stakes are high: 18,000 proposed natural gas wells are on the table, and the drinking water of 15 millions Americans is at stake. Given the many unanswered questions about the long-term public health and environmental impacts of fracking, it would be reckless to allow this industrial, dangerous practice to take place in the Delaware River Basin.

The process of injecting millions of gallons of water, chemicals and sand into shale rock formations at high pressures to release gas, fracking has earned plenty of opponents. Over the past 20 months, at least 10 studies by scientists, Congress, investigative journalists and public interest groups have documented serious environmental and public health problems associated with the practice, helping to further galvanize the movement for a nationwide ban.

The fervor against fracking, a widely and deeply felt issue affecting the very lifeblood of Americans–our precious water resources–is unlikely to subside any time soon, and so far, President Obama has failed to show a serious regard for it.

The Shale Gas Subcommittee of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board was President Obama’s first official foray into the thorny politics of fracking, but rather than assembling a team of experts committed to recommending policies that would safeguard our collective public health and our nation’s treasured natural resources, he assembled a panel where six of its seven members maintain direct financial ties to the oil and gas industry. Unsurprisingly, their recommendations on fracking were widely lambasted for not going nearly far enough to protect consumers and the environment from the risks associated with the controversial energy practice.

The oil and gas industry has sold the promise that shale gas obtained through fracking will secure our nation’s energy future. But U.S. natural gas consumption is actually expected to decline through 2015, while demand overseas increases–as much as 44 percent by 2035. Additionally, analysis by Food & Water Watch shows that the gas, along with the profits, will increasingly go abroad as many international players such as Reliance Industries, the China National Offshore Oil Corporation and BP. So while the industry talking points about economic prosperity and energy security might be appealing on the surface, President Obama needs to take a deeper look at these claims, while assessing fracking’s full impact on rural communities, our environment and public health.

President Obama can now either stand with the American public, and lead us down a path to a brighter, cleaner, more sustainable energy future, or he can side with an industry that has exploited every regulatory loophole possible to skirt clean air and water policies for the sake of a hefty profit. On September 13, thousands of concerned Americans will flood White House phone lines to remind him of this choice, joining with the almost 77,000 that have already taken action to ban the practice.

With the Shale Gas Subcommittee, President Obama chose the wrong bedfellows to help him determine fracking’s place in our nation’s energy future. But there is still time for him to do what’s best for his constituents, starting with those in the Delaware River Basin. Then, he must work to ban fracking throughout the entire U.S. While job creation is essential to boosting our nation’s economy, it should be attained through developing a clean, sustainable energy portfolio and investing in our essential water resources. Closing the gap in federal funding to community water systems could create as many as 750,000 new jobs, a promise the natural gas industry can’t be trusted to deliver on.

Follow Wenonah Hauter on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@foodandwater

By Mark Schlosberg

PHOTO BY PETE SOUZA

There are countless reasons fracking for natural gas and oil is a bad idea, and it’s about time President Obama heard the message loud and clear.

There is ample evidence that fracking (especially in shale) can contaminate waterways with toxic and radioactive chemicals; that fracking causes air pollution, which endangers public health; that it releases methane into drinking water allowing people to light their tap water on fire, rendering it undrinkable; that the methane released into the atmosphere from fracking can exacerbate climate change; and that big oil and gas companies are having an “Enron moment” and are playing financial roulette with the economics of shale gas drilling.

Yet still, President Obama and his administration are charging full speed ahead to support fracking. That’s why thousands of people across the country are calling President Obama on September 13 to tell him: BAN FRACKING NOW!

Why President Obama and why now? Here are five good reasons:

1) Obama’s energy policy relies on fracking Free-For-All. President Obama’s energy policy calls for the rapid expansion of domestic production of natural gas by increasing extraction of gas contained in shale.
The only way to get this gas from shale is by fracking, so in essence, his energy policy calls for more fracking across the country. We can’t rely on the underfunded state agencies and the increasingly underfunded Environmental Protection Agency to protect communities from fracking, particularly when the President supports it.

2) Clean drinking water for millions is at stake, pure and simple. The drinking water supply for 15.6 million Americans is in imminent danger. The Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) is set to vote next month on whether to approve regulations that would allow 18,000 wells to be fracked in the basin in the states of Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, and Delaware. More than 35,000 people across the country submitted comments telling the DRBC not to allow this. The Obama administration has a critical and influential vote on the commission and needs to hear the clear message that fracking is unacceptable. Given the many unanswered questions about the long-term public health and environmental impacts of fracking, it would be reckless to vote in favor of drilling in the basin.

3) Obama Administration fracking advisors are industry insiders. President Obama directed the Secretary of Energy to create a Natural Gas Subcommittee to come up with recommendations for how to improve the “safety and environmental performance” of fracking. Unfortunately, six out of the seven members of the panel have financial ties to the oil and gas industry.  While the report acknowledges the risks associated with fracking, unsurprisingly, their recommendations on fracking do not go nearly far enough to protect consumers and the environment from the risks associated with the controversial energy practice. For instance, the panel does not recommend that fracking be subject to basic environmental regulations like the Safe Drinking Water Act. It also recommends providing taxpayer dollars to support research to help the oil and gas industry improve the safety of shale gas drilling. President Obama needs to hear that taxpayer dollars should not subsidize research to benefit the profitable oil and gas companies.

4) A clean energy economy can’t be based on dirty fuels. We need a new clean energy policy that relies on renewable sustainable sources of energy. Obama’s current energy policy is not just dependent on fracking—it’s also dependent on dirty oil. More than 1,200 people were arrested in the last couple weeks in front of the White House protesting the Keystone XL Pipeline, which would bring this dirty oil from the tar sands in Canada to the United States.  Instead of pouring resources into these energy projects dependent on dirty fossil fuels, we should invest resources in wind, solar, energy efficiency and mass transit, and build an energy policy that will create good quality long-term jobs and provide for a safe future.

5) Don’t let big oil and gas money buy our energy policy. The oil and gas industry is spending millions of dollars on slick TV ads and lobbyists to promote natural gas and fracking. At the same time these companies reap huge profits and pay little or no taxes, they are spending massive amounts of money to con the American public and shape our energy policy. We need to send a loud, clear and collective message to President Obama that the oil and gas industry doesn’t speak for us and that we expect him to protect our water, air and health from fracking.

For these reasons and many more, I’ll be joining thousands of other Americans across the country in calling President Obama, telling him enough is enough – it’s time to ban fracking now. Will you?

By Hugh MacMillan

High-volume hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” is making it possible to extract natural gas from rock formations deep underground. Many sing its praises. Many do not. Then there are those that just try to confuse policymakers and the general public alike by spewing false information. With so many contradictory reports out there on natural gas, it’s sometimes nearly impossible to tell fact from fiction.

Fear not, we’re here to help.

Among those creating the confusion is Jon Entine of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), whose recent blog “More Questionable Reporting About the Dangers of Shale Gas” degrades public understanding of fracking.

AEI is, of course, an influential right-wing think tank to which the media (for better or worse) pays attention. It has a long history of taking money from corporations to promote the free-market, deregulatory agenda of big business, and a history of falsely undermining climate science.

Exxon Mobil, now the largest producer of natural gas in the United States, is in AEI’s “Corporate Leadership Circle,” having donated over $200,000 last year. So, Entine’s arguments are really questionable at best.

To begin, Entine discredits an important piece of independent research out of Cornell University by claiming it wasn’t peer-reviewed, a process essential to ensuring academic credibility. He dismisses the article as a letter that was simply released.

The truth is, the article was published in Climatic Change, a highly respected scientific journal, which, according to the journal’s Aims and Scope statement—contrary to Entine’s claim—subjects all its submissions to peer review. It’s a little surprising that, as a senior fellow at the Center for Health & Risk Communication at George Mason University, Entine wasn’t able to see this.

Entine also claims that the media didn’t sufficiently report on criticisms of the study, including those from the Natural Resources Defense Council, which according to Entine, debunk its credibility.

Yet, at the link Entine provides, the NRDC’s Dan Lashoff praises the study for highlighting the need for more data on the effects of fracking.

The important point here is that scientists have a very limited understanding of how much methane, a potent greenhouse gas, is being emitted from shale gas drilling across the United States. Lacking this understanding, we can’t know the full greenhouse gas footprint of shale gas.

This means that the natural gas industry’s promotion of shale gas as a bridge from fossil fuels to renewables is not based on science, and that more research is needed before exposing the public to the effects of fracking.

Entine concludes his post with a bizarre take on a recent New York Times article by Ian Urbina, an article which counters the oil and gas industry’s mantra that fracking poses no risks to groundwater.

The Urbina article details a 1987 EPA report that concluded fracking fluids had, in fact, contaminated a water well adjacent to fracking operations in Ridley, West Virginia. Deftly, Entine leads readers to believe that Urbina, not the 1987 EPA report, makes the claim of water well contamination.

Entine says that Urbina accuses industry representatives of trying to keep the 1987 EPA report from circulating, but in fact Urbina states that the report had simply gone unnoticed.

Entine claims that the case was sealed after being settled, and that this is why the 1987 EPA report to Congress was not circulated.  Whether the settlement agreement was sealed is irrelevant, but the 1987 EPA report to Congress, which detailed the well contamination, was not sealed; it is a public report to Congress!

The confusion Entine is sowing with his misinformation benefits the oil and gas industry. This tactic isn’t new; we’ve witnessed ongoing attacks on climate scientists, not just climate change.

It is in the public’s best interest to dissect the claims of industry—and their backers—and get to the roots of what is known and what is unknown about shale gas development. The next time you read an AEI article about shale gas development, beware its claims. It may turn out to be as leaky as a fracked well.

Take action to protect our water from the dangers of fracking!

By Rich Bindell

While some are speculating that Tuesday’s earthquake was caused by fracking, maybe we should be more concerned that fracking could potentially cause another type of disruption. Since energy companies are banking on serious output from gas reserves in the Marcellus Shale region, they are going to extraordinary lengths to lease land wherever they can find it, even if the acreage includes business, homes or, as we found out recently: cemeteries.

Since most gas companies refuse to divulge the chemicals they use in the fracking process, we can only speculate as to what types of apocalyptic effects they could have on a cemetery. This begs the question: do we need to worry about fracking causing a zombie apocalypse? It’s happened before in the region.

Just south of Pittsburgh Pennsylvania, in Washington and Allegheny Counties, gas companies have acquired around 11 leases for parcels of land whose acreage includes cemeteries. Thanks to the Oil and Gas Act, gas companies are allowed to drill as close as 200 feet from someone’s home or resting place, whether they are alive, dead or… undead.

Environblog’s Alex Rindler noted that Calvary Cemetery is one of several parcels of land under lease to an oil and gas company called Huntley & Huntley, Inc. And Calvary is where three Pittsburgh mayors were buried. So, while some may speculate about the potential threat of earthquakes caused by fracking, I’m much more nervous about the political power of three zombie mayors and other flesh-eating, decaying, brain-thirsty zombies.

In all seriousness, shouldn’t this complete disregard for the sanctity of a cemetery by gas companies be a serious red flag for Pennsylvanians?

Whether or not fracking chemicals could cause earthquakes or the reanimation of the deceased, leaving the public to speculate on the bizarre impacts of fracking chemicals is a sure sign that gas companies are being reckless. Every week the gas industry’s disregard for the wellbeing of the public and the environment becomes clearer.

Some of us believe that fracking is so ridiculous that it sometimes requires a little humor for purposes of levity. That said, we do take our campaign against fracking quite seriously. Join us in our effort to ban fracking across the nation.

By Rich Bindell, Food & Water Watch

He came dancing across the water (actually, it was more like across the Homegrown Village area of the 2011 Farm Aid Concert). Regardless, singer-songwriter, rock music legend and friend-to-the-farmer Neil Young did something that proves he has a heart of gold: he signed our petition to Congress for a Fair Farm Bill.

The Godfather of Grunge knows it’s gonna take a lotta love to fix the food system and make improvements to the Farm Bill to make it happen. But don’t let it bring you down because, while participating in the 2011 Farm Aid Concert in Kansas City, the musician took a minute of his time to give his “Neil Young” to our campaign, as well as a little message for Congress: “Real money should go to real farmers.”

Lots of people have already signed our petition for a Fair Farm Bill, demonstrating that fixing our broken food system is a priority for them. But, having Neil Young’s signature is a nice boost. Maybe you’re not easily impressed. Me? I am a child… I’m freaking out about the fact that Neil Young is just as passionate as we are about the Farm Bill. But this story isn’t mine to tell. I’m just here to remind you to stay tuned for a special blog from Midwest Organizer Matt Ohloff, who’s going to tell you everything from Hank to Hendrix about his moment with Neil Young, along with the rest of his stories from the Fair Farm Bill Road Trip.

Comes a time when we need a Fair Farm Bill and Neil Young is definitely on board. It feels good to have someone this big in our corner. Who knows, maybe Neil Young is a huge fan of Food & Water Watch. Maybe he shares quotes from our fact sheets.

By Rich Bindell

Back in March, we tried to imagine through a short video what it would be like if the President got a wake-up call about his proposed food safety budget cuts and how they might affect one his favorite meals: a hamburger. On second thought, make that a turkey burger. Cargill Value Added Meats Retail, a subsidiary of Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation, just recalled 36 MILLION POUNDS of ground turkey products because of possible Salmonella contamination. This is exactly why it’s not a good idea to cut critical food and safety protections from the federal budget.

Cargill, the third largest turkey processor in the United States, is recalling the turkey products because of a strain of bacteria called Salmonella Heidelberg, which has sickened 76 consumers and caused one death. The fact that Salmonella Heidelberg is antibiotic-resistant certainly reinforces the need for ending the overuse of antibiotics in livestock production.

Tracing the contamination back to its source — no easy task when you’re talking about 36 million pounds of processed food distributed to 26 states — has been the task of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in conjunction with USDA and state health agencies. In case you’re wondering how long it takes to figure out where food contamination originated, in this case it took five months since the first reported case of food illness was reported until they linked the public health threat to Cargill’s ground turkey.

Food recalls like this one have become typical in an age of consolidation in agriculture and food — when 58 percent of the poultry market is controlled by the top four firms. Big firms like Cargill brag about their market share in their quarterly reports, but this type of marketplace domination is putting consumers at risk and farmers out of business. There are hidden costs to doing business this big, and one of them is public health. And, we can only rely so much on our federal agencies to provide food safety if their budgets are being cut. They are strained now; what will their challenges be like next year if they have less funding and more responsibility?

This is the reason our Food & Water Watch organizers are currently out on the road, covering 20 states in 34 days, and talking to people about the Farm Bill. If we want to fix this broken food system — one that is controlled by food processing middle men, not farmers — we need to make better farm and food policy, and to fund critical programs that protect consumers.

As you sit down to dinner tonight, think about where you want your food to come from: a grower in your region of the country or a processing plant on the other side of it that’s handling millions of pounds of your dinner.

We’d love to know what you think about how this food recall relates to our efforts to improve our food system through the Farm Bill in 2012. Please go to our Facebook page and share your thoughts!

Massive consolidation in our food system means

that a few big processors handle the majority of

our widely distributed food. This makes it harder

to trace back the origins of food contamination

like Salmonella Heidelberg. With next year’s

proposed food safety budget, the scenario isn’t

likely to improve.

By Food & Water Watch

In just two days, on July 28, it will be the one-year anniversary of the passing of the UN resolution on the human right to water and sanitation. While the UN General Assembly determined on that day that everyone should have access to clean water, it is clear that privatization schemes continue to run rampant throughout the world, undermining the goal of the resolution and targeting impoverished communities as they continue to treat water as a commodity. You can see an unfortunate example of this battle over public resources happening right now in Hopa, Turkey.

Back in June, we learned that 54-year-old Turkish water advocate Metin Lokumcu had died in a clash with police in Hopa. Lokumcu was protesting the construction of a hydroelectric dam that would threaten local communities with displacement and disrupt their access to nearby water sources.

Food & Water Watch was saddened to learn that Lokumcu, an activist and professor, had suffered a heart attack when police sprayed protestors with tear gas as he was participating in a peaceful demonstration about water rights. According to the official autopsy report, Lokumcu had a pre-existing heart and lung disease but, according to personal accounts from protestors in Turkey, many believe that Lokumcu was a victim of police brutality.

We recently learned that there have been a total of 35 arrests from this peaceful protest since it first took place back in May, including the arrest of Taylan Kaya, one of the 13 members of the steering committee the People’s Shelters organization. In addition to Lokumcu’s death and the 13 arrests, there have been a number of injuries and police raids to the offices and homes of the People’s Shelters activists.

Food & Water Watch stands in solidarity with the jailed protestors and the citizens of Turkey as they battle for their right to water. Executive Director Wenonah Hauter originally offered the following perspective and words of encouragement to water advocates in Turkey when news of Lokumcu’s death first began to spread…

“The good people of Turkey should be allowed to exercise their innate right of free speech to speak out against the government’s increasing pursuit of hydropower strategies that cause environmental destruction, displace communities and often lead to violent clashes between communities and police. How many more people like Mr. Lokumcu must die before the state recognizes that economic development strategies must be rooted in the participatory democracy of local communities?”

By Rich Bindell

This week we focus on our campaign for fair food by calling on President Obama to enact a rule on livestock marketing that would let USDA finally use authority given to them back when Woodrow Wilson was President. The “GIPSA rule” (named for the USDA branch that governs livestock marketing) would even out the playing field in the meat industry and allow small-to-medium-sized independent farmers to fairly compete with large-scale factory farms. Of course, industry is pushing back, using delay tactics to put off implementing the rule. Which is why Sunday’s Washington Post article was so timely.

The article, “With executive pay, rich pull away from rest of America,” could be the answer to the question: when industrial food giants squeeze out farmers and small processing plants and consolidate the industry, where do their savings go? It sounds like a good deal of it may go to upper echelon executives.

The article is mostly about the abuses that result from decades of deregulation and unchecked corporate consolidation as it relates to the salaries of American business executives in the last five or six decades, but it focuses on one company in particular: Dean Foods. It describes two chief executives who led the company at different times: Kenneth J. Douglas, who held the reigns during the 1970s and Gregg L. Engels, who is the current CEO. The article claims that Engels makes the equivalent of about 10 times as much in compensation as Douglas did. If you’re familiar with the consolidation of power that exists in the food industry, this should come as no surprise.

In the past two decades, the dairy industry has changed dramatically, morphing from a regional network of dairy farms and processors to industrial mega-dairies. They sell their products to a small number of corporate-style milk cooperatives and processing companies. There are now fewer, more powerful companies in every segment of the supply chain within the dairy industry. In 1980, when Douglas was CEO, 435 dairy cooperatives marketed 77 percent of fluid milk. By 2002 — well into Engels time — there were only 196 cooperatives, but they marketed a whopping 86 percent of fluid milk.

When I was growing up in Allentown, Pa., my family bought milk in the supermarket from a local dairy called Lehigh Valley Farms. The processing facility was located in the heart of downtown. Several years later, I noticed that I could suddenly get Lehigh Valley Farms milk in places that were far away from eastern Pennsylvania. But, on a visit home, I had noticed that the plant had been closed down. The next time I saw a carton of Lehigh Valley Farms milk in a store, I investigated further and learned that Lehigh Valley Farms is now part of Dean Foods. Dean bought the label. I wonder if their milk comes from any cows in Lehigh County anymore.

Massive power grabs like this from the big players in dairy has a major effect on the price of milk at the store. Consumer prices have gone up, but farmer earnings have actually decreased. They have fewer options for selling their milk and the prices they are paid for their product are subject to marketing rules determined by traders, not according to a price determined in an open market or that reflects what the milk cost to produce.

The author of the article asked a few employees at Dean Foods for their opinions about how much their CEO earns, but it would have been interesting to ask a few of the farmers who supply the milk. Many dairy farmers struggle to keep their businesses going because the price they receive for the milk they produce is unfairly low. Anyone who buys milk can attest to the fact that milk prices have gone up quite a bit, so we know the money saved by low-balling farmers isn’t being passed along to consumers. How many homes did they say Engels has? Is it just one private jet?

This is what we mean when we call it, “fair food.” Those who labor to provide us with our food should be given equal opportunity to make a fair living. The changes we want to make to the Farm Bill would help even out the playing field and give food producers a real chance to fairly compete with big agribusiness.