Collection of Clips, Quotes & Links to Reports on How the Animal Agriculture Industry Influences Politics, Government, News Media, the Education School System, Health Professionals & Organizations in order to Promote their Products (ie. red meat, chicken, dairy, eggs, seafood)
= = = =
A 2011 article in New York Daily News is titled “What Big Meat wants you to think: Research is frequently funded by the industry.” Some excerpts: “In 2011, in the U.S. alone, annual sales of meat were worth $186 billion. That’s more than the GDP of Hungary — and a lot to protect.
If you see a scientific study showing that red meat consumption does not raise the risk of cancer or cardiovascular disease, or that high-protein diets are the way to go, good chances are that that particular study has been funded by the meat industry…
Examples of studies funded by the industry and with results that promote meat-eating abound…
From the meat industry perspective, such funding appears to work pretty well…
Research done on the pharmaceutical industry, for example, found that sponsored studies were over four times more likely to be favorable to the sponsor than studies that didn’t receive such funding. Marion Nestle, professor of nutrition at New York University, calculated that out of 166 industry-funded nutrition research studies published between March 2015 and March 2016, over 92% reported results favorable to the interest of the sponsor…
What is a consumer to do, then? Be skeptical. Click on that link in a popular article to go to the original study described. Scroll through it to check for conflicts of interest. Think about which side the money is on. Then decide for yourself what to believe.
It’s not just meat that should be consumed with grains of salt.”
Marta Zaraska is author of “Meathooked: The History and Science of Our 2.5-Million-Year Obsession with Meat.” Article at http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/marta-zaraska-big-meat-article-1.2669374
~ ~ ~
Dr Michael Greger MD clip “Dietary Guidelines: Advisory Committee Conflicts of Interest – The USDA Dietary Guidelines Committee has been made of up individuals funded by McDonald’s, Coca Cola, the Sugar Association, the American Meat Institute, candy bar companies, and the egg and dairy boards.”
~ ~ ~
Article titled: “MEATONOMIC$ – How the Rigged Economics of Meat and Dairy Make You Consume Too Much – and How to Eat Better, Live Longer, and Spend Smarter”
Excerpt: “Few consumers are aware of the economic forces behind the production of meat, fish, eggs, and dairy. Yet omnivore and herbivore alike, the forces of meatonomics affect us in many ways.
This is the first book to add up the huge “externalized” costs that the animal food system imposes on taxpayers, animals and the environment, and it finds these costs total about $414 billion yearly…
consumers have lost the ability to decide for ourselves what – and how much – to eat. Those decisions are made instead by animal food producers who control our buying choices with artificially-low prices, misleading messaging, and heavy control over legislation and regulation…”
~ ~ ~
Dr Michael Greger MD clip “Dietary Guidelines: Science vs. Corporate Interests – The USDA Dietary Guidelines Committee stands accused of ignoring the science to justify its recommendation to eat meat.”
This site also has a page with many science reports on the higher rates of disease associated with eating red meat as well as chicken, eggs, dairy and fish/seafood.
~ ~ ~
Dr Michael Greger MD clip “Dietary Guidelines: USDA Conflicts of Interest – The mission of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is to promote agribusiness. At the same time, the USDA is the agency primarily tasked with developing the nutrition guidelines.”
~ ~ ~
A 2015 article titled “The US meat industry’s wildly successful, 40-year crusade to keep its hold on the American diet”
Excerpt: “Your doctor might tell you to eat fewer burgers and steak sandwiches, but thanks to the exceptional lobbying skills of the American meat industry, the US government probably never will.
Rejecting the advice of their own expert panel, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the US Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) announced this month that the latest edition of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans will not include considerations of environmental sustainability. Had they decided otherwise, they likely would have recommended that people lower their intake of meat, the production of which is widely recognized as a major contributor to climate change…
The meat industry has influenced the dietary guidelines for decades.
The size of the US meat industry is immense. Beef alone is a $95 billion-a-year business, according to the USDA. And the North American Meat Institute (NAMI) estimates that, in total, the meat industry contributes about $894 billion to the US economy.
That size translates into political influence: In 2014, the industry spent approximately $10.8 million in contributions to political campaigns, and another $6.9 million directly on lobbying the federal government…
While the USDA is tasked with regulating the meat industry, it also has a role in promoting it. This tension plays out every time the US government wants to give out dietary advice—and the results generally wind up favoring the industry.
The pattern traces back to at least 1977, when Congress—a no less conflicted institution when it comes to coziness with the meat industry—had a more prominent role in setting nutrition guidelines. That year, a Senate committee report recommended that Americans decrease consumption of meat, eggs and other foods high in fat. This did not sit well with producers in those industries, who made their displeasure known at a hearing on the guidelines…”
~ ~ ~
“Reuters reported that in an analysis of 60 studies looking at the link between sugar-sweetened beverages and obesity or diabetes, 100 percent of those that failed to find a link were industry-funded. Of the 34 studies that found a connection, only one was industry-funded.”
The 2016 report: “Industry funded studies don’t find sweet drinks linked to obesity, diabetes” at https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-research-beverages-diabetes/industry-funded-studies-dont-find-sweet-drinks-linked-to-obesity-diabetes-idUSKBN12V2J1
~ ~ ~
Dr Michael Greger MD clip “Food Industry Funding Effect – He who pays the piper calls the tune: studies funded by the dairy and soda industries appear to be even more biased than studies funded by drug companies.”
Video Clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_aJWUxjL2s
~ ~ ~
From a 2014 news article titled “The Dirty Secret Behind Dairy Junk Foods” some excerpts: “Industry and government work together to promote everything from fast-food pizza to sugary milk in schools… Dairy lobbyists are ever present in Washington, and their efforts usually pay off… many examples I uncovered in a report I published last month, “Whitewashed: How Industry and Government Promote Dairy Junk Foods”…
Schools are especially vulnerable to dairy industry influence… these funds are directly used to promote junk foods, which contribute to the diseases the federal government is allegedly trying to prevent…”
~ ~ ~
Dr Greger clip “The Food Industry Wants the Public Confused About Nutrition” at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9vpohU4-zo
Summary: “… shows to what extent the purveyors of unhealthy products will go to keep the truth from the American public.”
Excerpts: “For decades, tobacco companies successfully suppressed or undermined scientific evidence of smoking’s dangers and down played the public health concerns…
Decades of deception and manipulation, deliberate targeting of children, marketing and selling their lethal products with zeal, and without regard for the unfolding human tragedy…
So, “in contexts such as these, government intervention [may be] vital to protect consumers from predatory industries.”
And, is the food industry any different? “The public is bombarded with information and it is hard to tell which is true, which is false, and which is merely exaggerated. Foods are sold without clarity about the nutritional content or harmful effects.”
Remember how the food industry spent a billion dollars making sure the easy-to-understand “traffic light labelling” system on food never saw the light of day… That’s ten times more than the drug industry spends on lobbying in the U.S.
It’s in the food industry’s interest to have the public confused about nutrition.
How confused are we about nutrition? “Head Start teachers are responsible for providing nutrition education to over [a] million low-income children [every year].” A hundred and eighty-one Head Start teachers were put to the test. And, only about four out of 181 “answered at least four [out] of the five nutrition knowledge questions correctly.” …
A quarter of the teachers didn’t consume any fruit or vegetables the previous day, though half did have french fries and a soda, and a quarter consumed fried meat the day before. Not surprisingly, 55% of the teachers were not just overweight, but obese.
So, when even the teachers are confused, something must be done. No purveyor of unhealthy products wants the public to know the truth…”
~ ~ ~
2019 report by Susan Levin, master of science in nutrition and registered dietitian: “The Dangers of Industry-Influenced Dietary Guidelines”
Excerpt: “Decades of research has shown the dangers of dietary cholesterol. So what made the 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans almost drop cholesterol warnings? Industries with an interest in keeping Americans unhealthy …
According to documents obtained by the Physicians Committee under the Freedom of Information Act, the American Egg Board had nominated one individual placed on the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. A second member was actively receiving egg-industry research grants according to industry documents, and two others worked at a university that had requested and received more than $100,000 from the American Egg Board for research aimed at challenging the cholesterol limits …
But now industry is infiltrating the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Atkins Nutritionals and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association have both revealed the names of their nominees who made it onto the 2020 Advisory Committee …
The dangers of red and processed meat are clear cut. In fact, a National Institutes of Health study of more than half a million people found that eating red and processed meat increases the risk of total mortality, cancer mortality, and cardiovascular disease mortality.
Low-carb, animal-based diets such as Atkins are also associated with early death … ”
~ ~ ~
“The Disconnect Between Science and Policy” by Dr Greger 2019.
Summary: “Just as it would have been hazardous to your health to take the medical profession’s advice on your smoking habits in the 1950s, it may be hazardous to your health today to take the medical profession’s advice on your eating habits.”
~ ~ ~
Short clip from Vox zine titled “How Big Government helps Big Dairy sell Milk”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRCj8LVTRyA … Summary: “Despite the fact that one can get their daily recommendation of calcium, potassium, and protein from fruits and vegetables, the dairy industry has spent billions of dollars to convince consumers otherwise” with quotes from Dr Walter Willet.
Click this link for a page with many science reports on the disease risks from drinking dairy milk and eating cheese
~ ~ ~
Article title: “WHITEWASHED: How Industry and Government Promote Dairy Junk Foods” – an excerpt: “The United States is in the midst of a public health epidemic due to poor diet… The promotion of dairy products in schools is especially troubling, where children are a captive audience and greatly influenced by the foods served there. That’s why the dairy industry wants to maintain its strong presence in schools, despite local and federal efforts to improve the nutritional quality of school food…”
The full report is at http://www.eatdrinkpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/SimonWhitewashedDairyReport.pdf
~ ~ ~
Dr Michael Greger MD: “Academy of Nutrition & Dietetics Conflicts of Interest –
What effect do corporate sponsorships from food companies have on the American Academy of Family Physicians and the Registered Dietitian organization (formally known as the American Dietetic Association)?…”
Video Clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpJkBkeKBvk
~ ~ ~
Comparing Dollars Spent on Promoting Meat to Dollars Spent on Advocacy for Farm Animals – see this article titled “Meat Industry Advertising” at http://www.countinganimals.com/meat-industry-advertising/
Excerpts: “Clearly, the advertising expenses alone of a few of the top entities in the meat industry overwhelms the entire expenses of the animal advocacy organizations… The following graphic helps us visualize the scale of the difference between the dollars spent on promoting meat and the dollars spent on the advocacy of farm animals. In this figure, each red circle represents a meat-promoting entity, with the area of the circle being proportional to just the annual advertising or promotional expenses of that entity. Each green circle represents an animal advocacy organization engaged in promoting vegetarian eating or meat industry reform, with the area of the circle being proportional to the total annual expenses of that organization…”
If you go the link via a computer and “hover your mouse near the center of any circle, you can see a pop-up bubble that identifies the entity corresponding to the circle, the dollar amount, and the source of my information about the entity…”
The graphic here is adapted from the one on that page.
~ ~ ~
Dr Greger MD clip “Eggs and Cholesterol: Patently False and Misleading Claims” at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8g8ASQZ0dZw Summary: “Egg industry claims about egg safety found to be patently false, misleading, and deceptive by the U.S. Court of Appeals.”
For decades, “on the basis of concerns from the American Heart Association and consumer groups, the Federal Trade Commission carried out successful legal action—upheld by the Supreme Court—to compel the egg industry to cease and desist from false and misleading advertising that eggs had no harmful effects on health.”…
Over the last 36 years, the American Egg Board has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to convince people eggs are not going to kill them—and, it’s working. “In combination with aggressive nutrition[al] science and public relations efforts, research shows that the advertising has been effective in decreasing consumers’ concerns over eggs and cholesterol/heart health.” … Currently, they’re targeting moms…”
Text transcript at https://nutritionfacts.org/video/eggs-and-cholesterol-patently-false-and-misleading-claims/
This site also has a page with many science reports on the higher rates of disease associated with eating eggs and chicken meat.
~ ~ ~
Is the Dietitians Association of Australia in the Pocket of Big Food? “Corporate Partners” = Meat & Livestock, Nestle, Dairy…
Excerpt from a report titled “And Now a Word From Our Sponsors: Australian Edition” (Feb 2015, p.3): “The Dietitians Association of Australia (DAA)… is compromised by serious conflicts of interest, which cast doubt on the organizations’ dietary recommendations & policy positions…
Australia suffers significantly from diet related chronic diseases…
Given these serious public health problems, all preventable through healthy eating, it behooves the nation’s leading nutrition professionals to be honest with the Australian people. The 2013 report, “And Now a Word from Our Sponsors”… found that the Academy of Nutrition & Dietetics in the United States has a serious credibility problem due to its myriad conflicts with the junk food industry… Sadly a very similar situation exists within Australia’s dietetic profession…”
From page 3 of the 2015 report regards Australia: “According to its 2013 annual report, DAA received $661,000 from corporate sponsors in 2013, down slightly from $700,000 in 2012. DAA depends on it corporate partners for roughly 15% of its annual budget, and sponsorship income is the third largest source of revenue after membership dues and conference fees.”
A related article on the Crikey website states: “It’s high time for this organisation [the DAA] to look inward. The health of all Australians depends upon the independence of the nutrition profession and its leadership’s ability to be the nutrition leaders they claim to be, free from sponsorship money…” From article at https://blogs.crikey.com.au/croakey/2015/02/22/is-the-dietitians-association-of-australia-in-the-pocket-of-big-food/
You can obtain the free 2015 PDF report about the Australian situation at http://www.eatdrinkpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/DAAReportEatDrinkPolitics.pdf
To obtain the free 2013 PDF report about the American situation click:
Click the below image to open a larger clearer version in a new window
~ ~ ~
CSIRO “Total Wellbeing Diet” debunked. MLA Money for Research = Meat Promotion.
MLA: Meat & Livestock Australia.
CSIRO: Commonwealth Scientific & Industrial Research Organisation, an Australian Government corporate entity.
This may help to explain the CSIRO’s promotion of meat consumption despite the massive evidence shown in Many Reports in Science Journals on the Association of Meat Consumption with Higher Rates of Cancer, Heart Disease, Stroke, Diabetes, Obesity & Mortality.
~ ~ ~
2018 report on The Guardian news site – “Revealed: majority of politicians on key EU farming panel have industry links.”
Excerpts: “Most MEPs on the influential agriculture committee have business ties, new research shows, raising concerns about conflicts of interest…
The key EU panel oversees some of the most important agricultural decisions in European politics. Its MEPs negotiated the last common agricultural policy (CAP) settlement with 28 nation states and the European commission. The CAP sets subsidy rates for farmers across the continent – accounting for almost 40% of the EU’s overall budget in 2017, or €59bn (£51.5bn)…
But new research shows that 25 of the committee’s 45 members are either farmers, former farmers, CAP payment recipients in another capacity, current or former partners in agricultural businesses, or have spouses who own farms. Another four have looser ties to the sector, such as having close family who are farmers…”
~ ~ ~
Dr Michael Greger MD clip “Food Industry Funded Research Bias – Using the tobacco industry playbook, food companies have been caught trying to undermine public health policies by manipulating the scientific process.”
~ ~ ~
Article titled “Government Support for Unhealthful Foods” from The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, Dr Neal Barnard – excerpt: “The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) supports agricultural producers through a variety of programs that tend to favor, either directly or indirectly, the production of unhealthful foods. These are the same foods that are implicated in the diseases that have steadily increased over the decades and now impose a significant burden on Americans…
USDA provides other forms of direct support for producers of agricultural products, including meat and dairy products…
The USDA refers to fresh fruits and vegetables as “specialty crops.” Specialty crops do not receive subsidies…
The federal government, through USDA, provides additional support to livestock and crop producers by purchasing agricultural products for use in the National School Lunch Program… purchases remain skewed toward meat and dairy products…”
~ ~ ~
From a report titled “Food Lobbies, the Food Pyramid, and U.S. Nutrition Policy” the summary abstract:
“The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 1991 withdrawal of its Eating Right Pyramid food guide in response to pressure from meat and dairy producers was only the latest in a long series of industry attempts to influence federal dietary recommendations.
Such attempts began when diet-related health problems in the United States shifted in prevalence from nutrient deficiencies to chronic diseases, and dietary advice shifted from “eat more” to “eat less.”
The Pyramid controversy focuses attention on the conflict between federal protection of the rights of food lobbyists to act in their own self-interest, and federal responsibility to promote the nutritional health of the public.
Since 1977, for example, under pressure from meat producers, federal dietary advice has evolved from “decrease consumption of meat” to “have two or three (daily) servings.”
Thus, this recent incident also highlights the inherent conflict of interest in the Department of Agriculture’s dual mandates to promote U.S. agricultural products and to advise the public about healthy food choices.”
Reference: Marion Nestle, International Journal of Health Services, First Published July 1, 1993 at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.2190/32F2-2PFB-MEG7-8HPU
~ ~ ~
Dr Michael Greger MD clip “Dietary Guidelines: With a Grain of Big Salt – The National Dairy Council teams up with the Salt Institute to downplay the risk of sodium in the American diet.”
~ ~ ~
2017 article “Ireland’s “Livestock-Industrial-Complex” influences nutritional advice and environmental reporting” by journalist Frank Armstrong.
Excerpts: “European subsidisation from 1972, through the CAP, essentially keeps cattle farming afloat in Ireland. Accounting for over half of Ireland’s c.85,000 farms, the vast majority of dry cattle (“beef”) farmers actually lose money on their enterprises, relying on Direct Payments (subsidies) for income. Government intervention in the market has long caused distortions. In 1966 then Minister for Agriculture Charles Haughey claimed: ‘agitation directed only to getting higher prices may develop a kind of dole mentality which would eventually make agriculture subservient to the state.’ This “dole mentality” is now ensconced in a subsidy-dependent sector…
The Livestock-Industrial Complex operates via a number of pillars in both the public and private sector, which have brought successive governments to heel and maintained a spooky allegiance to the “farming way of life” in mainstream media, especially through the state broadcaster…
We also find the interests of the Livestock-Industrial Complex entering nutritional discourse, especially through the National Dairy Council… The funding of research and development, including through charities, plays an important role in maintaining government nutritional advice that is not necessarily best practice, but ensures dairy in particular is consumed at high levels…
The Osteoporosis Society of Ireland was founded in 1996 by Professor Moira O’Brien as ‘a patient support organisation for those suffering with Osteoporosis and their families.’ Two of its leading sponsors listed on its website are [dairy companies] Avonmore and Yoplait, and it has collaborated in the past with the National Dairy Council. As regards dietary calcium their website states: “The richest sources of calcium in the diet are yogurt milk and cheese…”
This is at odds with the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) which say: ‘studies suggest that high calcium intake doesn’t actually appear to lower a person’s risk for osteoporosis.’…”
Full article at https://frankarmstrong.ie/2017/11/24/irelands-livestock-industrial-complex-influences-nutritional-advice-and-environmental-reporting/
~ ~ ~
See this page for a large collection of science reports about the diseases associated with dairy consumption – including osteoporosis bone fractures, Parkinsons disease, type 1 diabetes and cancers of the breast, ovaries, prostate, testicles.
~ ~ ~
Taxpayer Money used to Bail Out Failing Animal Agriculture Businesses.
Dr Greger MD clip “Taxpayer Subsidies for Unhealthy Foods – What if billions in tax dollars were invested in healthier options, rather than given to corporations to subsidize the very foods that are making us sick?
~ ~ ~
From “The Politics of Meat” an article for PBS Television’s Frontline program – “A look at the meat industry’s influence on Capitol Hill”
Excerpt: “The meat industry in the United States is a powerful political force, both in the legislative and the regulatory arena, even though the way they wield that power is different from many industries on Capitol Hill. Instead of spreading lots of money around to many different lawmakers in an attempt to gain access and influence — the traditional method used by many large corporations — the meat industry targets their approach to a small number of key lawmakers and regulators that have a direct impact on their business interests. Yet despite the relatively low level of financial contributions, the industry has succeeded in weakening or preventing many new meat-safety initiatives in recent years.
Most of the companies involved in the meat business, including the big meatpackers, are represented by one or more of the powerful meat trade and lobbying organizations: the American Meat Institute, the National Meat Association, and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. They’re a powerful group and they know they have a strong voice in decision-making in Washington…”
Reference: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/meat/politics/ with a related series of reports on “Modern Meat” at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/meat/
~ ~ ~
Article titled “Agricultural Policies Versus Health Policies” from The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, Dr Neal Barnard – excerpt: “federal support for the dairy and livestock industries has led to overproduction, leading to the placement of excess cheese, cheap meat, and other products in school meal programs…
Although the Dietary Guidelines for Americans call for reducing intake of saturated fat and cholesterol, federal subsidies favor the production of meat and dairy products that are the principal sources of these hazardous components…”
~ ~ ~
This site contains pages with hundreds of science reports on: the higher rates of disease & death associated with eating red meat, dairy, chicken/poultry, eggs, fish/seafood; & of the improved health & longer lifespans associated with eating healthy plant-based diets featuring fruits & vegetables, nuts & soy; as well as on common nutritional deficiencies; of why so many doctors fail at nutrition; of how big business influences food politics; the evolution of human diets; & on the negative impact of animal agriculture on climate change, deforestation, fishless oceans, biodiversity loss, antibiotic-resistant superbugs; & more.
~ ~ ~
“The 588-page report commissioned by Dairy Farmers of Canada examined the role subsidies play in the U.S. dairy market. According to the report, 73% of the returns received by U.S. dairy farmers in 2015 were a result of dairy farm subsidies…”
~ ~ ~
2016 report in National Review: “The Elephant-Sized Subsidy in the Race.”
Excerpt: “An estimated $23.9 billion. That’s what total government handouts to agribusinesses will be next year, according to the Congressional Budget Office…
a massive share of farm subsidies go, rather, to animal-based agribusinesses — to the meat, dairy, and egg industries — in the form of aid to growers of corn and soy, the two biggest components of animal feed for industrial farms.
It’s quite a lucrative business model, especially for an industry that often loves to tout its belief in free-market principles. When crop prices begin to dip, rather than accepting lower income, as most businesses would do, the agribusinesses are bailed out by the federal government at the taxpayers’ expense. Or, to put it another way, as a headline in Agriculture.com noted: “As Crop Prices Sink, Farm Subsidies Soar.”
These industries occupy an astoundingly coveted position among American businesses: They get bailouts when they overproduce, have their most costly business expense (feed) subsidized, get federally supervised dollars to market their products, and even get free research and development that they benefit from but for which they don’t pay a cent.
But does animal agribusiness really need to be feeding from the federal trough like this? After all, as author David Simon observes in his book Meatonomics, the dairy industry spends more on advertising in one week than the blueberry, mango, watermelon, and mushroom industries spend all together in a year.
At a time when we’re being encouraged to enjoy more fruits and vegetables, why does animal-based agriculture get such a disproportionate amount of support from the USDA and Congress?…”
~ ~ ~
2018 report: “Dairy industry doesn’t deserve American taxpayer bailout.”
Excerpts: “As the conservative Heritage Foundation notes, agricultural subsidies cost taxpayers about $20 billion a year: “This includes a massive transfer of wealth from taxpayers to mostly large agribusinesses that are (or should be) fully capable of managing their business operations without this special treatment. The end result is less choice for consumers, distorted prices, reduced innovation, and onerous government influence…
In recent years, demand for conventional dairy products has fallen. Plant-based milk alternatives (e.g., soy, almond, coconut, rice) now constitute roughly 10 percent of the dairy market. These plant-based producers are prospering despite the government rigging the system against them. There’s no $20 million bailout in store for them if they miscalculate product demand, nor should there be…”
Related report: “Congress Gives Massive Subsidies to Farmers – It Shouldn’t.”
Excerpts: “In addressing agricultural subsidies, the pervasive myth of struggling farmers should be dispelled. The typical farm household enjoys much greater income and wealth than nonfarm households. From 2005 to 2014, the median income for farm households was 19 percent greater than all U.S. households. In 2013, the median net worth of farm households was 10 times that of all U.S. households.
Most agricultural subsidies that make up the so-called “safety net” benefit large agricultural producers. According to the Environmental Working Group, the top 20 percent of federal crop insurance policyholders in 2011 were the beneficiaries of 73 percent of the total premium subsidies (taxpayers subsidize about 62 percent of the premiums that farmers pay)…
The federal “safety net” for farmers removes almost all agricultural business risk… Just a minor dip in expected revenue will produce an insurance check. Essentially, taxpayers are just protecting farmers from the ordinary risks of doing business…
The focus should be on eliminating government intervention that makes it more difficult for farmers to manage risk and engage in farming activities to meet consumer demand.”
~ ~ ~
Article title: “U.S. Senate Bails Out Dairy Industry With $1 Billion of Taxpayer Money” (February 2018).
Excerpts: “Earlier this week, the United States Senate signed a budget agreement to hand over $1 billion of taxpayer money to the dying dairy industry.
Supporters of the agreement say the money will be used for programs to help the industry recover from falling dairy prices. A major cause of this slump is the consumer shift away from dairy and toward healthier, more responsible alternatives…
In fact, dairy consumption has fallen a whopping 40 percent since 1970.
Sadly, the budget agreement isn’t the first time U.S. taxpayers have been forced to bail out the dairy industry…
Why does the U.S. government keep bailing out the dairy industry? The answer is simple: It has a vested interest. You’ve probably never heard of Dairy Management Incorporated, but this devious government-sponsored marketing group’s sole mission is to push consumption of dairy products in the U.S. and elsewhere.
It’s deplorable that our own government promotes an industry so dangerous for consumers and our planet and so heartless to cows who suffer unimaginably at dairy farms…”
~ ~ ~
2016 article “US To Buy $20 Million Of Cheese – The Same Idiot Mistake The EU Used To Make.”
Excerpt: “The United States, through the USDA, is going to buy 11 million pounds, or $20 million’s worth, of cheese. The stated reason is so that taxpayers must pay for the fact that no one wants to buy the cheese that America’s dairy industry is making. No, I’m not exaggerating, that really is what they’re saying. Farmers and processors are producing too much milk and too much cheese. Therefore the government is going to buy it rather than anyone having to go through the process of making less milk and or less cheese. This is an idiot idea of course. If there’s too much cheese being made then the answer is for less cheese to be made…”
Commentary: “Dairy Bailout: Your Tax Dollars Just Bought 20 Million Dollars’ Worth of Cheese” at http://www.mercyforanimals.org/dairy-bailout-your-tax-dollars-just-bought
~ ~ ~
2016 report: “Dairy farmers need to stop crying over cheap milk… commodity prices rise and fall, and the government can’t bail out every commodity maker.”
~ ~ ~
2016 report: “How Our Federal Subsidies Bail Out the Factory Farming Industry.”
Excerpts: “The federal government is aiding factory farmers by subsidizing animal products with our tax dollars.
In fact, the vast majority of federal farm subsidies are awarded to meat producers in the form of aid to growers of soybeans and corn, crops grown primarily as animal feed…
only a small fraction of federal food subsides are provided to farmers growing fruits and veggies for human consumption.
Facilitating mass production of cheap factory-farmed meat… also devastates the environment.
Raising animals for food produces more greenhouse gas emissions than all of the cars, planes, and other forms of transportation combined…
Without taxpayer-funded subsidies, the prices of factory-farmed animal products would more closely reflect their true production costs…
Eliminating these wasteful subsidies would undoubtedly lead more people towards healthier, plant-based foods…”
~ ~ ~
From an article titled: “10 Things We Wish Everyone Knew About the Meat and Dairy Industries” some excerpts: “1. In a creepy Big-Brotherish tactic straight out of a sci-fi movie, the federal government uses catchy slogans to try to get people to buy more meat and dairy products…
Each year, U.S. Department of Agriculture–managed programs spend $550 million to bombard Americans with slogans such as these urging us to buy more animal foods. Although people in every age group already eat more animal protein than recommended — and far more than our forebears did — these promotional programs are shockingly effective at making people buy even more. Each marketing buck spent boosts sales by an average of $8, for an annual total of an extra $4.6 billion in government-backed sales of meat, dairy products, and eggs…”
~ ~ ~
“Invasion of the Movement Snatchers” is a 2006 article regards how “U.S. industries pay hundreds of millions of dollars to public relations firms charged with the removal of any and all obstacles to their acquisition of profit. High on the list of those obstacles are grassroots social justice movements.” An introductory excerpt: ““Their favorite method,” wrote Stauber and Rampton, “is a ‘divide and conquer’ strategy heavily dependent on co-optation: First identify the ‘radicals’ who are unwilling to compromise and who are demanding fundamental changes to redress the problem at hand. Then, identify the ‘realists’ — typically, organizations with significant budgets and staffs working in the same relative area of public concern as the radicals. Then, approach these realists, often through a friendly third party, start a dialogue and eventually cut a deal, a ‘win-win’ solution that marginalizes and excludes the radicals and their demands.
“Next, go with the realists to the ‘idealists’ who have learned about the problem through the work of the radicals. Convince the idealists that a ‘win-win’ solution endorsed by the realists is best for the community as a whole. Once this has been accomplished, the ‘radicals’ can be shut out as extremists, the PR fix is in, and the deal can be touted in the media to make the corporation and its ‘moderate’ nonprofit partners look heroic for solving the problem. Result: industry may have to make some small or temporary concessions, but the fundamental concerns raised by the ‘radicals’ are swept aside…”
Full article is at http://www.humanemyth.org/invasion.htm
~ ~ ~
More To Come!
= = =
For a Page of Similar Reports About Why So Many Medical Doctors Lack Knowledge about Nutrition, Prevention & Treatment of Disease through Healthy Diet see:
= = =
= = =
This page can also be reached via
= = =
This set of articles were compiled for
Pages on this Site:
Quotes from news reports & science journals on how the Western omnivore diet with meat and dairy products accelerates climate-change through: i) increasing our carbon footprint of greenhouse gases; ii) deforesting & destroying wilderness that absorbs carbon and protects biodiversity; iii) creating massive pollution; and iv) wasting resources like grains, water, fuels and agricultural lands.
~ ~ ~
Excerpts & links to medical studies, articles & reports on the links between meat consumption and increased incidences of cancer, heart disease, diabetes and early mortality (a shorter lifespan); also to reports on how cancers are increasing in young people.
~ ~ ~
Quotes & links to articles in science, medical & health journals that report great benefits vegetarians and vegans generally have including longer lives with less of the chronic degenerative diseases like cancer, cardiovascular heart disease, diabetes, osteoporosis and obesity as well as lower blood pressure, hypertension and blood cholesterol levels.
~ ~ ~
Excerpts & links to articles in news media science journals about the current ‘Sixth Mass Extinction’ known also as the ‘Holocene Extinction’ or ‘Anthropocene Extinction’ as it is largely caused by human activities.
~ ~ ~
This page contains quotes & links for studies & articles in science journals, news media & by medical doctors; on the association of drinking milk to higher rates of osteoporosis, cancer, heart disease and other illnesses.
~ ~ ~
This page features quotes & links to articles in news media and science journals about the rise of microbes that are resistant to antibiotics; posing a grave threat to all of us; from 50% to 80% of antibiotics are (mis-)used in animal agriculture industries.
~ ~ ~
This page features quotes & links to reports that expose how the animal agriculture industries (meat, dairy, poultry) influence government, politics, the education schooling system and news media in order to promote their interests.
~ ~ ~
Excerpts from articles about the marine ecosystem collapse that is happening now in oceans, seas & rivers due to over-fishing and the toxic pollution in waterways from land-based animal agriculture meat-farming; worsening climate change; threatening the entire food chain.
~ ~ ~
Articles from science journals & news reports that dispute the health claims made regards eating fish; some even find higher rates of heart disease and cancer among seafood consumers.
~ ~ ~
A collection of quotes & links for articles by doctors, dietitians & nutrition experts who refute & rebut the negative claims made regards “the soy food debate”
~ ~ ~
For Archives of Related Memes see:
~ ~ ~
This site’s original 2012 page with excerpts from articles in science journals and news media about how what we choose to eat can: i) accelerate or slow down climate change and the related environmental catastrophes we face; and ii) increase or reduce our risks for chronic illness and disease. The evidence and body of opinion against the animal agriculture livestock industry is particularly compelling and damning.
= = = =