Mainstream media call for mainstream ag education

Before it can appear here, much of our food and fiber found on grocery store shelves first starts on American farms and ranches. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

An incredible editorial in the Modesto Bee makes me believe that some in the mainstream media actually do get it, and in more ways than one.

The Bee believes that a lawsuit filed against the California Milk Advisory Board and the California Department of Agriculture by the group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is indeed “silly” and “misdirected.”

I couldn’t agree more.

In short, PETA contends that the Happy Cow ads that became popular more than 10 years ago are grossly false and misleading because they depict talking cows standing on lush, green pastures, and that because most dairy cows do not live in such conditions, they must not be very happy. Then again, they’re not too concerned over the false notion that cows can talk, just that dairy cows must not be very happy because of PETA’s false premises, which the Bee articulates well in its editorial.

I wonder if the brain-trust at PETA is likewise concerned that beer companies are equally as reprehensible as dairy farmers because they portray their products as elixirs that cause people to be smarter and more attractive. You’d think that someone would have noticed that the product dairy farmers produce doesn’t cause people to drive drunk and kill other human beings… just a thought.

The Bee is well placed within California’s agriculturally-rich Central Valley to indeed “get it.” It’s as the paper’s editorial board should, given their placement in one of California’s five top agriculturally prolific counties in the United States. But this isn’t so much about the Bee or its editorial position on the latest PETA lawsuit.

Call for better education of agricultural practices

While the Bee’s point was to apparently illustrate just how ridiculous PETA’s lawsuit is, the editorial touches on a much more important issue (I believe) facing agriculture today: the abject ignorance of consumers about the products farmers and ranchers produce — namely “what goes into caring responsibly for livestock,” the Bee writes.

Of all the various trade organizations that farmers and ranchers willingly, and in some cases, not-so-willingly, send their money to, you’d think that at least one of them would take it upon themselves to focus intently on educating the public about the food and fiber that their farmer and rancher members produce, rather than treating it as an afterthought.

In California’s case, the California Farm Bureau Federation’s media department is heads and shoulders above its other state counterparts in terms of the vast amount of information produced for public consumption, particularly across the entire agricultural spectrum. The California Milk Advisory Board, since that’s one of the defendants in this report, merely represents dairy farmers, although it’s funding comes not from voluntary contributions, but through involuntary confiscatory measures employed by the dairy industry itself.

As is the case with Farm Bureau, one would argue that much of the information produced is aimed at its farmer and rancher members, and not the general public, who simply assume that the grocery stores they patronize are amply stocked with a wide variety of safe and tasty items produced on America’s farms and ranches.

Look at the light switch as a metaphor of public indifference and ignorance. We all take for granted that the electricity powering the lights in our homes will be there at our command when we flip the switch. We truly don’t know and in most cases don’t care how the power gets to our home, just that it’s there when we want it. It’s much the same for the grocery store: we all take for granted that the dairy case will be adequately stocked with cold, fresh milk until we discover that the delivery truck hasn’t arrived and the dairy case is empty. I’ve actually experienced that in my local grocery store.

I fully understand organizations such as the California Farm Bureau Federation, and others, have board-approved mission statements, goals and objectives. I fully understand that it’s the dollars that come in from voluntary membership in these organizations that funds the multimedia campaigns of these organizations, along with the various other programs that membership in these organizations provides.

What I am suggesting is that these media campaigns are misdirected to a certain degree, and need to be aimed not so much at convincing members to remain as active, dues-paying members (that’s obviously vital to the existence of any voluntary organization), but that these campaigns need to be amped up to better educate their consumers, who are constantly bombarded with absolute lies and false premises about the production of the products they buy at the grocery store (just look at the latest “pink slime” issue involving American beef as yet another example). It’s these false premises and lies that cause farmers and ranchers to lose money and, in some cases, rightfully wonder if their membership dollars are truly having the impact they desire.

As a consumer with a good bit of knowledge on agriculture and how it operates (I did not grow up on a farm, nor am I the offspring of a farmer), I’d like to see a more direct effort (offense versus defense) employed by American agriculture to educate my peers about just how well farmers treat the Earth and how much effort they put into keeping their livestock healthy and comfortable before the commodities they produce become food on our tables.

Related articles

• AgProud: Tennessee Dairy Farmer Ryan Bright (agricultureproud.com)
• It’s time to move the ball, not merely defend the goal (conservativepoliticalblog.wordpress.com)
• Farmers and Ranchers – Independent, But United (farmbureau.wordpress.com)
• Please, Ask Me! (myhumblefarmkitchen.wordpress.com)
• Raw Milk Quarantine Lifted From Claravale Farm (losangeles.cbslocal.com)
• The Faces & Futures of America’s Young Farmers & Ranchers (jplovescotton.com)

It’s time to move the ball, not merely defend the goal

Dairy cows at the University of Arizona in Tucson are part of a study on various methods of cooling. Animal agriculture spends millions of dollars each year to promote the health and welfare of their animals. © Todd Fitchette

My fascination with agriculture comes from the perspective of an “outsider.“

I am also fascinated by media messages and enjoy communicating messages in which I strongly believe. It’s why I sometimes enjoy the SuperBowl commercials more than the game, and why I desire to have people in America understand at a level deep within their souls the utter importance of American agriculture and why I believe our nation cannot survive as it was founded without it.

To say that we’re constantly bombarded with media messages is an understatement. Unfortunately for some (fortunately for others) those messages come at a price. Advocates for a particular point of view who understand and use the media to their advantage are like the football team with the star quarterback and a roster of go-to guys who can catch and carry the ball to the end zone with ease.

To the detriment of American agriculture, the rabid animal rights extremists and other such groups (for reasons that escape me) want to completely do away with the level of safe and efficient agricultural production that comfortably feeds Americans and provides food for much of the rest of the world. Their motives have nothing to do with the altruistic intentions of improving the lives of animals that they claim.

In an artfully written blog post, a Missouri hog farmer articulately defends and explains how her family cares for the hogs that become the ham, sausage and bacon that fills the refrigerated cases at our grocery stores and ultimately winds up on our breakfast table (or in that convenient wrapper from the fast food joint we frequent on our way to work).

Not to be critical of the farmer I’ve chosen to highlight (she actually does an excellent job in her blog of spelling out the common practices farmers use and why they’re good for the animal), but agriculture still needs to be more aggressive in its efforts to educate and promote what it does.

I’m not talking about the type of aggression that we’ve seen from the likes of PETA, Occupy Wall Street, folks with the Humane Society (HSUS) and the other groups that have more in common with terrorist organizations than they do groups that try to promote their causes through more civil means.

I am talking about being more like the Missouri hog farmer here in terms of promoting, through various media, what she so skillfully articulated as the reasons her family chooses to manage its hogs the way it does. There’s a reason why they manage their animals the way they do, and a video included in her blog points this out very well. Moreover, there’s a reason why livestock producers and managers do things the way they do, and it’s not because they dislike their animals — on the contrary: a dairy cow, for example, receives way more veterinary care during her lifetime than even the most pampered house pet. That’s a fact!

So here’s a thought… although I think the blogosphere has provided a great outlet for people like Chrischinn and others to explain what it is and why it is they do things the way they do, I would like to see the template Chrischinn created here put into an advertising and media campaign to aggressively promote American agriculture to the 99% who so rely on what the 1% do that without the minority doing what it is they do, the majority will literally starve!

Related articles

• Join the Conversation About the Food You Produce (farmbureau.wordpress.com)
• How Social Media is Revolutionizing the Agriculture Sector (trak.in)
• Reclaiming agriculture: America’s sovereignty depends on it (conservativepoliticalblog.wordpress.com)

Did You Know McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's and Sonic All Support HSUS?

Reblogged from chrischinn:

(Disclaimer:  The intent of this blog is to help people outside of agriculture to understand why some farmers choose to raise their animals indoors.  What works on my farm may not work for another farmer, each farm is different, as are the genetics of hogs.  My intent with this post is to help people understand why some farmers use modern technology on their farm. 

Read more… 1,422 more words, 1 more video

1

This is the kind of clear message that agriculture needs to promote... And not just in response to the actions described. American agriculture needs to be more aggressive in its own self-promotion if it hopes to survive as an industry. America's sovereignty and our freedom depend on it!

I cannot consume it unless American farmers produce it

What happens when houses replace our farmland? © Todd Fitchette

I am not a farmer.

I don’t pick it, pack it, plant it or pluck it.

I don’t grow it, graze it or raise it.

I don’t get up at 2 a.m. to feed it, milk it or turn on the water.

I don’t need a row to hoe or trees to top. I buy my water by the bottle, not by the acre foot.

My home office does not include a filing cabinet with documents, forms and letters to and from the USDA, EPA, regional water board, regional air board and the county ag commissioner. I don’t need to file pesticide reports, water usage reports or annual acreage reports. I don’t know any milk inspectors, OSHA inspectors or anyone from the state labor relations board.

I am an American consumer… I rely on the American farmer to do all these things and more so I can simply buy it, cook it and eat it.

Ceding America’s sovereignty through food policy

American sovereignty is probably in no greater danger than now as Congress moves to cede decisions on agricultural production and policy to the World Trade Organization and labyrinth of unelected government officials within the United States, including the Department of Homeland Security.

Section 404 of the Food Safety Modernization Act: Declares that nothing in this Act shall be construed in a manner inconsistent with the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization or any other treaty or international agreement to which the United States is a party.

Why add language like this unless it’s the goal of Congress to cede control of our food supply to a nefarious body of despots? But I’m not the only one asking these questions. Check out this video and its assorted links. Even more information can be found at the Food Freedom blog.

 

America's sovereignty has always been anchored in our ability to be agriculturally self-sufficient. A bill in Congress would strip that ability from us.

The Food Safety Modernization Act will arguably establish suffocating layers of regulation upon American agriculture, to the point that American agriculture will cease to exist. As I’ve written in the past, American agriculture is truly our last bastion of sovereignty. When we lose the ability to sovereignly control our own food supply we will no longer be able to control our political destiny. Those who set our agricultural policy and ultimately provide us with our food will have complete control over us. Given that ours is a world of despotic power it’s not entirely unreasonable that our food supply could ultimately be controlled by the same kind of cartels that already control our oil and energy supplies.

Speaking of the word “reasonable,” S510 uses this word three times as it cedes czar powers to the various department secretaries within the US government. For example:

Section 101 -

Amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) to expand the authority of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to inspect records related to food, including to: (1) allow the inspection of records of food that the Secretary reasonably believes is likely to be affected in a similar manner as an adulterated food; and (2) require that each person (excluding farms and restaurants) who manufactures, processes, packs, distributes, receives, holds, or imports an article of food permit inspection of his or her records if the Secretary believes that there is a reasonable probability that the use of or exposure to such food will cause serious adverse health consequences or death.

Section 102 -

Authorizes the Secretary to suspend the registration of a food facility if the food manufactured, processed, packed, or held by a facility has a reasonable probability of causing serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals.

Section 305 -

Requires the Secretary to determine whether a country can provide reasonable assurances that the food supply of the country meets or exceeds the safety of food manufactured, processed, packed, or held in the United States.

What is “reasonable” to our government officials? It seems that nothing in government is “reasonable” anymore given their track record to overstep constitutional authority.

Lest we forget that government is in the business to grow its size and control over our lives, this measure outlines the implementation of numerous yet-to-be-determined taxes upon our lives. Let’s take a look:

Section 107 -

Directs the Secretary to assess and collect fees related to: (1) food facility reinspection; (2) food recalls; (3) the voluntary qualified importer program; and (4) importer reinspection. Applies export certification provisions to food.

Section 401 –

Authorizes appropriations for FY2010-FY2014 for the activities of the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, the Center for Veterinary Medicine, and related field activities in the Office of Regulatory Affairs of the FDA. Directs the HHS Secretary to increase the field staff of such Centers and Office.

When has government not ever mandated something that it first didn’t make “voluntary?” This is another dangerous idea on a slippery slope towards despotism.

Section 112 -

Requires the Secretary to develop and make available to local educational agencies, schools, early childhood education programs, and interested entities and individuals guidelines for developing plans for individuals to manage the risk of food allergy and anaphylaxis in schools and early childhood education programs, to be implemented on a voluntary basis. Sets forth issues for such guidelines to address, including: (1) parental obligation to provide documentation of their child’s food allergy; (2) the creation of an individual plan for food allergy management; (3) communication strategies between schools or childhood education programs and providers of emergency medical services; and (4) strategies to reduce the risk of exposure to anaphylactic causative agents in classrooms and common school or early childhood education program areas, such as cafeterias. Allows the Secretary to award matching grants to assist local educational agencies in implementing such food allergy and anaphylaxis management guidelines.

The authority that Congress grants the various department secretaries is tantamount to the unconstitutional authority granted the treasury secretary to set and enforce financial policy of America. Congress is ceding control to unelected officials who, by default, become czars of their respective agencies, able to rule by edict absent constitutional controls. What’s wrong with our current system that this HAS to take place?

Just in case there wasn’t enough government control written into the act, read this:

Section 210 -

Requires the Secretary to set standards and administer training and education programs for the employees of state, local, territorial, and tribal food safety officials relating to the regulatory responsibilities and policies established by this Act. Authorizes and encourages the Secretary to conduct examinations, testing, and investigations for the purposes of determining compliance with the food safety provisions of this Act through the officers and employees of such state, local, territorial, or tribal agency.

What does this mean? Don’t we have grocery stores even in rural areas? This can’t be good! Take a look at this:

Section 406 -

Requires the Secretary, acting through the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, to study the transportation of food for consumption in the United States, including an examination of the unique needs of rural and frontier areas with regard to the delivery of safe food.

Why do we need any government agency studying how food is transported to rural areas unless the goal is to cut off those rural regions from the rest of the country? It can’t be to improve efficiencies because we know government is incapable of that. We already have a network of highways and railroad routes capable of transporting goods around America. Aren’t these sufficient to get groceries to the rural regions of the United States?

While this plan is arguably aimed at food safety, America already has the highest standards for food safety in the world. We merely need to enforce those standards and ensure that the food we import meets those same high standards. This is not an issue of food safety for the sake of food safety; it’s really an issue of granting control to an international organization whose board of directors is reminiscent of the Star Wars bar scene, and whose members do not have the best interest of the United States as its core beliefs and desire.

Amazing how little things really changed since 1948

Growing PR problem related to agricultural use of biosolids

The E. coli in this burger may not come from it being under cooked, but from the lettuce or onion that was possibly irrigated with effluent water from a municipal wastewater treatment plant that did not adequately filter out all bacteria prior to being used to irrigate farmland.

An ag industry newspaper called The Packer is reporting the discovery of E. coli in Romaine Lettuce coming out of the Salinas Valley in California. While this bit of news is not attached to reports of human illness preceding such a recall, this news serves as another black eye for California’s vegetable industry.

According to the article, the Andrew Smith Co. of Salinas recalled 1,000 cartons of lettuce on May 7 “after tests showed the presence of E. coli in a bag of romaine lettuce, the day after another company recalled romaine products — but the two recalls are apparently unrelated.”

While the article does not address it, it’s been reported that farms in the Salinas Valley have for several years now used treated sewage water from municipal wastewater treatment plants as a means of irrigating their crops. The move, according to one website, came in response about a decade ago to the intrusion of salt water in wells that irrigated the high-value vegetable crops grown in the Monterey and Salinas area of Central California.

Just a couple years ago more cases of E. coli were reportedly linked to spinach and other crops coming out of the same growing region of California.

This political and PR nightmare is not what Central Coast growers — or any farmers for that matter — need. But it’s one that farmers have invited upon themselves by agreeing with cities to take toxic water from wastewater treatment plants and use it to irrigate the crops we eat.

It was for this very reason that about a decade ago farmers in neighboring counties of Central California got together and banned the land application of sewage sludge and the use of treated effluent water on farmlands in agriculturally rich counties such as Stanislaus, Merced and San Joaquin. At the same time, farmers in Kern County California were being exposed in newspaper articles there about their practice of having sludge trucked in from nearby Orange and Los Angeles counties for use as “soil amendments.” That news surprised some vegetable farmers in Kern County, who immediately denied using sludge — the industry term is “biosolids” — on their farmland and tried to get an ordinance similar to other counties in order to ban the import and use of sewage sludge on farmlands there. Their fears not only stemmed from the possible contamination of their crops, but from the associated public relations nightmare they feared would befall them once word got out that municipalities were using carrot crops and other farmland to dispose of their municipally treated sewage.

Fast-forward a decade and we see the seeds of these fears bearing fruit in the form of tainted lettuce, spinach and other crops coming out of the nation’s salad bowl. In the expedience of getting rid of treated sewage solids and liquids, farmers have become an easy target for the cities as they push biosolids as a safe and cheaper alternative to other kinds of soil amendments.

The counties that argued against the land application of sewage sludge did so on the grounds that there are truly no guarantees that the treatment processes used eliminates all of the toxins and heavy metals that are part of the municipal waste stream. In short, it’s not just the human waste that gets flushed down all those toilets, but everything else from the petroleum products to the dangerous chemicals illegally dumped by businesses and clandestine drug labs that makes it into the waste stream at the municipal waste treatment facilities that is also a big part of what gets dumped on farmland through these agreements between the cities and farmers.

When are farmers going to learn that they can’t play roulette with cities and expect to not lose when the public learns of these practices and stops buying their produce? The cities surely have no stake in farms losing their ability to sell their crops; it’s the farmers who have everything to lose when consumers decide to stop buying their produce. What happens when packing industry efforts to move more fruits and vegetables through the USDA school lunch program are successful and we wind up with thousands of sick or dead school children because of a few bags of tainted lettuce or other commodities — all because cities coerced farmers to use treated sewage products on their farmland?

Paying protection money or suicide by politician: Either way American citizens and consumers lose

I don’t pick it or grow it, weed it or water it, spray it or till it. I don’t stay up nights to make sure the wind machines and water are running to keep it from freezing. I don’t worry about the rain during the spring bloom or the late-summer harvest. I don’t stress over whether to buy millions of dollars of insurance to cover crop damage from thunderstorms and hail. I don’t worry about the fluctuations of feed prices and milk prices, or even about the availability of bees to pollinate my orchards.

As an American consumer I, like all other American consumers, take for granted that my grocery store shelves will be stocked with ample supplies of safe and healthy food produced here in the United States. My only concern when I peruse the bins of fruits and vegetables in the store is the source of my broccoli, apples or melons (did American farmers grow them or were they imported from foreign countries?). I’m appreciative of labeling laws that make it so I can make an educated choice of whether to buy fruit that was grown in Chile or in the United States.

What I do worry about is my country’s ability to sovereignly govern itself. I worry that my country is losing its sovereignty through policies that believe we’re better off buying oil from foreign nations than mining our own domestic sources of oil; I also worry that these same mental midgets and their political supporters will someday soon regulate the American farmer out of existence and force us to go begging for food from third-world nations. The irony is that some of these same political supporters are the very farmers that right now feed this nation.

I know many farmers. I’ve worked closely with farmers as a journalist and even worked with them for a period of time to promote American agriculture. They appear to be hard working and honest people. They prefer the farm to stuffy meetings and they would much rather do what it takes to produce quality agricultural commodities than have to wade through piles of regulations that stifle productivity and cut profits.

So why do farmers continue to support politicians who regularly vote to cut their water supplies, take their land, and regulate their ability to do business because some well-paid whiner claims that growing the food that feeds the nation isn’t as important as some bug, fish, mammal or reptile?

Today the California Farm Bureau Federation announced its support for Carly Fiorina for US Senate to replace Barbara Boxer. While I’m not arguing that Boxer doesn’t need to be sent out to pasture herself, the choice of Fiorina is certainly puzzling, given her reluctance to really come out and tell the voters what she stands for. What we do know about her is she’s closely tied with Arizona Senator John McCain, who we all know would run from his own shadow if it appeared to his right. That alliance alone makes me as a voter suspicious of her and much more likely to vote for one of the other Republican candidates for US Senate.

I’ve long been puzzled by agriculture’s decisions to financially support Liberal politicians, then a year or two later when those same Liberals vote to shut off water supplies or for more stringent rules to the Endangered Species Act, or for some other anti-business, anti-farming piece of legislation, they complain as if that vote came as a complete shock and surprise.

Maybe it’s because farmers are coy and they know that Liberal politicians like to spend money that’s not theirs to buy favors that will help them during their reelection campaigns, and maybe, if farmers don’t squirm too much and agree to pay ample amounts of protection money for the reelection campaigns of these same politicians, then maybe a well-placed farmer might be awarded with a political appointment or some other financial stocking stuffer.

Meanwhile, America’s ability to be agriculturally self-sufficient suffers and it becomes more necessary for us to import food from nations that are a military coup away from deciding that the United States is not a favored trading partner anymore and should pay much more if we want to buy the food they produce.

We know what it’s like to be held hostage by the price of a barrel of oil that’s set by a cartel that doesn’t have America’s best interest in mind when it meets in secret. Imagine a world where similar tyrants gather in seclusion to decide who gets to buy the food supply they control and how much that food will cost. Sadly, we appear to be on the slippery slope to that end, and the announcement by California’s leading farm organization to support another Liberal politician (albeit one with an “R” behind her name) is just that much more grease on the slide.

Biting the hand that feeds us: Trail extension will kill farms and reduce public safety money

Discussions are under way in Tulare County, California to force farmers between the cities of Tulare and Visalia to sell prime agricultural land for a $3 million fiasco that will further erode our ability to be agriculturally self-sustaining in America. Worse yet for local officials, taking this land for public use forever removes the property tax income collected from that private property and forces county supervisors into further budget cuts on necessary public safety needs such as fire and law enforcement.

Extending the Santa Fe Trail, a walking and bicycling trail in the city of Tulare, approximately 10 miles through county property to the City of Visalia is estimated to cost $3 million. Because government projects typically come in over budget projections, who knows the direct cost such a project will have as unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats begin to insert their pet ideas to this project?

A local newspaper article on the subject reports that farmers along the affected route are not happy, not because they will likely be underpaid for the fair market value of the land, but because it will severely impact their ability to farm in the area. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to be schooled on what happens when cities and other urban uses encroach on farms. Or, talk to farmers who have had schools built within their spheres of influence and have had to severely curtail best management practices such as tilling and pesticide use.

Before long the issue comes back to the whole idea that we’re incrementally destroying our ability to be agriculturally self-sustaining in the United States. But more dangerous on a local level is that such a move will reduce the amount of property tax revenue the county can collect. In an age where county officials are cutting vital public safety services to police and fire protection, this is not the right direction to go.

County officials need to explore regions of the county where this $3 million could be better spent for the masses. For example, the entire community of Earlimart could use new streets. Sadly, converting some of these streets to dirt would be an improvement over what they have there right now. Or do county officials realize that there are three elementary schools and a number of businesses and many more residents who could benefit from better roads? I encourage Tulare County Supervisor Pete VanderPoel to take a drive through the community of Earlimart and pay particularly close attention to the streets leading to the three schools there. They’re in such bad repair right now that they’re directly responsible for increased vehicle damage and repair costs.

VanderPoel needs to do all in his power to stop this move to expand the Santa Fe Trail and make that money available to better serve a great number of residents in his district.

Keep the United States agriculturally independent

One of the fallouts of the devastating earthquake in Chile is that US imports of food grown in that South American country will likely slow because of infrastructure damage there.

Good! We don’t need it.

A local story reports that the table grapes, plums, peaches, nectarines, blueberries and avocados, that we buy in our local grocery stores might become in short supply because of the large earthquake to strike our South American trading partner. This is because these products, and apparently many others, are bought from foreign sources. Those Chilean commodities already in transit here by ship will immediately be priced much higher when they get here, according to newspaper reports.

This is yet one more example why the United States should not cede its agricultural production to any other nation on Earth, friendly or otherwise. While Chile might be one of those nations that currently enjoys a positive trading relationship with the United States, it and the other countries where we buy our food are one coup away from not being our friends. Moreover, the food safety standards in these countries are nowhere near as high as the standards set for US farmers on commodities grown, produced, packaged and shipped here. As a matter of practice, I check the labels on fruits and vegetables I buy from my local grocery store. If they’re not grown here, I don’t buy them. I recently put back a cantaloupe that I had intended to buy for my daughter when we were shopping at the local grocery store because the label on the cantaloupe said “grown in Guatemala.” It is completely unnecessary for the United States to have to buy such food products from foreign sources when we can easily produce it for ourselves right here in the United States. For example, the Imperial Valley of California has a year-round growing season; why should we have to buy vegetables grown in from third world nations when we can grow safer and better versions of them right here?

The United States is agriculturally self-sufficient and needs to remain that way. It is completely unnecessary for a nation rich in agricultural production to import the same food that we grow and produce here in abundance?