[Masthead] Overcast ~ 41°F  
High: 46°F ~ Low: 36°F
Sunday, Dec. 21, 2014

King Corn, the movie

Posted Monday, April 21, 2008, at 2:46 PM

As many of you know, in my biweekly column, Semi View, I wrote my opinion of the film King Corn, which was shown on PBS April 15. (I think it is being shown at other times as well, check your local listings.)

After receiving some comments on my column, my editor asked me to start a blog to respond and to ask for opinions from others who have seen or read about the film. You can read my original article at www.marshallnews.com/story/1323817.html

Below is my answer to FarmAll and Photo01, who posted at the above website on April 19 and 20, 2008. I would welcome any discussion of the movie.

Dear Farmall,

You certainly have a right to your opinion and I respect that.

There are a few things I would like to clarify. The corn we grow is not crap, our cows certainly don't think so and neither does our local ethanol plant. It would also taste good to a pig, chicken or a number of farm animals -- it is a raw commodity out of the field, not sweet corn.

And just to note - only one farmer in the film said it was crap and he is no longer farming, so I wouldn't consider him an expert.

In the film, the actual farmer or Mr. Pyatt, who owned the farm, never said it was crap. And I would add that one person saying so, does not make it so, just like my opinion of King Corn shouldn't be automatically others' opinion. I encourage people to watch it - and talk to real farmers - then make up their own minds.

I'm not sure where you are from, but in our area of Missouri, 6,000 acre -- one-family farms are very rare, and not the norm. (Saline County is one of the largest corn producing counties in our state.) I know of only one farm close to that size, but there are 3 families (a father and two sons) working that farm. Today, (in our area) because of the high cost of getting started in farming, most young farmers join existing operations, which is one reason most "family farms" are bigger now.

Yes, as the wife of a 7th generation American farmer and mother of two boys who would like to be the eighth generation I do fear an "avalanche." I hope you really don't mean that you want the U.S. agriculture industry to be "devastated" as you said third world countries were. How would that help our country? We would have no say over our food supply if it came from foreign countries. Not to mention the devastation to rural America.

From what I understand, our protection of the U.S. sugar industry is the real reason other countries aren't able to sell sugar in America.

As for HFCS, Curtis himself has told me that he doesn't believe there is a difference between it and sugar. I do agree, however, that people need to be informed on what they are eating. However, as a journalist I still find it appalling that a whole industry (or crop) can be condemned for 5 percent of its product. (If you add the corn fed to cattle, this movie still focuses on less than 25 percent of corn's usage.)

And if you are paying attention now, you will see that corn prices are currently 3 times the price they were in the film. And although I don't agree that the current rise in food prices is because of current crop prices (it has much more to do with high energy costs), people are already hurting. I wonder where our economy would be today without America's relatively inexpensive food supply over the last 30 years. And I know for a fact, subsidies -- love them or hate them -- have kept many of the 1 million family farmers afloat.

And note to photo01, I'm not sure when it will be on again, but check your local PBS listings. Also DVD's are for sale on King Corn's website.

As for grass fed beef, I really am not sure about it's health benefits. I will say that I (and according to one study, 80 percent of Americans) still prefer the flavor of corn-fed beef. As more than one chef has said, "If you take out the fat, you take out the flavor." And despite what I have read in some articles, the old-timers I talk to said their beef has always been fattened with corn. The difference was instead of big feedlots; more farmers fed a group of animals at their farm. As I said, they are "old-timers," many older than 90, who have spent their whole life eating corn-fed! According to them, moderation in everything is the key to a long healthy life.

Thank you very much for taking the time to read the article and comment.

Sincerely,

Marcia Gorrell


Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

Dear NanaDot,

Thank you so much for responding. I find your comments very informative. I certainly agree we need to do more to get healthy foods to children. I definitely would be behind an effort to do that. I think getting them to eat vegetables may be a whole other story. (Just judging from my own experiences.)

I do, however think it is a BIG stretch to blame subsidized corn for widespread obesity and diabetes. As I have said before, those issues are also a big problem in countries that do not use HFCS. It also seems very unfair to condemn a whole industry if promoting subsidized vegetables and grass-fed beef were the real objectives to the film.

I also find it interesting when foods are compared by price per calorie. Isn't the point to eat fewer calories? It seems it would take a truck full of lettuce to make 1,000 calories. (I realize I may be exaggerating a little.) Of course, a box of cupcakes is going to cost less than a truck of lettuce, no matter how much it is subsidized. I don't know about you, but I could eat a box of cupcakes pretty quickly. It would take me a few days to get through a pile of lettuce. (And no doubt the lettuce would look better on me than the cupcakes!)

Also, people often forget that cheap corn (and soybeans) have kept proteins like beef, chicken and pork less expensive as well. Not to mention milk, cheese and eggs. Many doctors and scientists believe those foods are also important for children (and adults) eating a healthy diet.

Again, NanaDot, thank you for your comments. I hope you post again soon.

Sincerely,

Marcia Gorrell

-- Posted by Marcia Gorrell on Tue, Apr 22, 2008, at 11:02 AM

There is one and only one sure way to lose weight, no matter what you eat: Eat less and exercise more. Whether you're stuffing yourself with mac & cheese or fruit, it's overeating that causes obesity, not HFCS.

-- Posted by Kathy Fairchild on Wed, Apr 23, 2008, at 2:00 PM

I don't believe my statement is inaccurate. A simplification of the issues, yes, but not inaccurate. The introduction of processed foods is only part of the story. Eating less and exercising more *will* result in weight loss - that's been proven time and time again to be true. What we eat is important and the less we eat of processed foods, the better. But if an improvement in diet isn't also accompanied by an increase in activity, the net result won't be satisfactory.

-- Posted by Kathy Fairchild on Thu, Apr 24, 2008, at 6:56 AM

Dear NanaDot and Kathy,

Thank you both for posting. I, too, think the fewer processed foods the better. However processed foods are easier and that is the reason many buy them - including myself.

That being said, I believe NanaDot made my point all along. We didn't have HFCS or subsidized corn in 1868. Therefore they certainly can't be blamed for the obesity and diabetes then, just as I think corn can't be blamed now.

As I said before, blaming subsidized corn for highly processed foods - and the diseases they may cause, is a BIG stretch, and obviously inaccurate.

Thank you again for posting.

Sincerely,

Marcia

-- Posted by Marcia Gorrell on Thu, Apr 24, 2008, at 8:16 AM

I will try to comment on point, I am aware of my predilection for wandering. Well, maybe not entirely on point, but with out much of a drift to the left. Marcia's comments about the economies they have put in place on the farm stimulated a return to something I have been mulling for some time. Maybe, just maybe, our sky rocketing fuel costs are a blessing in disguise. All the preaching, and all the warnings that we have been exposed to concerning co2 and the rest of the things we spew have not budged us from our indolent ways.

However escalating fuel costs that are still on the way up are driving us to environmentally friendly activities as nothing else has. We drive less hence we pollute less. Sooner rather than later the big SUVs and personal trucks will become derided anacronisms leaving the road forever. Pun intended. Fuel costs have inflated food costs. I envision an ever increasing return to individual, and community gardening. A new kind of victory garden. As transportation costs continue to escalate the cost of produce it will become more economical to purchase food stuffs grown and processed in one's own geographic area. Transportation over long distances when neccessary will increasingly be accomplished by barge and train to take advantage of the economies of scale. There will be fewer big rigs on the road with those remaining running shorter hauls. We will not have to spend as much repairing our crumbling roads because of less heavy traffic, and certainly will not have to devour more valuable land to build more roads. We will eat better and breath easier. I will not go on with a litany of all the other things that will be effected in a positive way, you get the idea. So, come on you oilies, and you middle east monarchs, jack up those oil prices, you are playing into our hands. Oh by the way, I would not be too eager to buy in to a second level of offerings of corn to ethanol plant shares. The money has been made on those and they will be on their way out. Germany for one has moved on to the second generation of conversion plants that utilize all forms of waste instead of short in supply grains. The rest of the world will soon follow.

A brighter day may be coming.

-- Posted by Oklahoma Reader on Sat, Apr 26, 2008, at 2:19 AM

Dear Oklahoma Reader,

I think you make some excellent points. I personally think any kind of energy we can come up with to get us off foreign oil is a good idea, like cellulosic ethanol, wind energy etc.

Thank you for commenting.

Sincerely,

Marcia

-- Posted by Marcia Gorrell on Sat, Apr 26, 2008, at 8:49 AM

Ms. Gorrell,

Your blog, called "Semi View" is aptly named. Your only see half of the food picture, that of a corn grower. You keep repeating that it is a BIG stretch to blame subsidized corn for obesity and diabetes. It's not just subsidized, it is also genetically modified to be almost all starch, void of any other nutrients. It is subsidized because of a HUGE lobby in Washington paid for by seed companies, fertilizer companies, pesticide companies, and a host of corn processors. It is sold to the American public as necessary to help the "poor family farmer" in order to have food security and cheap food. Since the subsidy is distributed according to acres owned, the :poor" farmer with few acres gets much less than the "rich" farmer with many acres. Many of the farmers are doctors, lawyers, corporate executives that own farm land. The result is cheap feed for cattle to turn into meat with a fat content ten times that of meat of 35 years ago. The other major product is HFCS.

The "King Corn" film points out that fatty meat and foods sweetened with HFCS are Americans favorite foods. Most people born since 1970 , have never eaten anything else. Fortunately, for myself, 1970 is about when I stopped eating meat and drinking soda. IMHO, one can not claim to be concerned about their health or their weight and then sit down and eat a burger with a soda. These foods may seem cheap, but when you add in the cost of triple bypass surgery, days lost at work, tens years of life lost to diabetes and a host of other maladies, I don't think that we can really call this cheap food!!! Maybe your favorite food, but not cheap.

Using the web site hfcsfacts.com to get information on HFCS is like going to a cigarette company to find out if smoking really does cause lung cancer. There are so many sites where one can get information on the affects of HFCS on health. There is a HUGE difference between HFCS and sugar. For one, HFCS is metabolized by the liver, like drugs , alcohol and other toxins. Sugar is digested by the digestive system as a nutrient. Please!!Do a little research. You can start with the following web sites, but there are many more.

http://www.westonaprice.org/modernfood/h...

http://www.femhealth.com/dangersofhfcs.h...

Related thoughts. Why don't we subsidize fruit and vegetable growers so that we could have cheap healthy food?

Are people who eat healthy food is this country held in high esteem? Hell no! They are derided as "health nuts". The kids will start eating healthy food when the parents start eating healthy food.

re obesity in countries that don't use HFCS. I recently returned from Australia. While there I read about how Australia has an obesity problem. However, what they call obesity relative to what the US calls obesity is very different. Seldom did I see a fat person on the street. After not seeing fat people for a few weeks, I was amazed by how fat most Americans have gotten. Is it really just because we don't exercise? I don't think so. Compared to Australians, we look like a different species.

A bit of advice for people who want to eat a healthy diet without doing a lot of research.

1.If it is processed "food" in a bag, package or any other container, don't eat it.

2. Eat organic food. Organic food can NOT contain HFCS or other toxins. Organic food is more expensive at the store but can save you a pile of money by staying out of the hospital.

-- Posted by farmall on Sat, Apr 26, 2008, at 10:30 PM

Dear Farmall,

I am so sorry to hear that people have called you a "health nut" and fail to see the importance of taking one's health seriously. I don't think being concerned about health makes someone a "nut."

You are right: children will start eating healthy foods when their parents do. (Note: Their parents were probably born before the 1970s)

A movie like King Corn could have helped promote healthy eating, instead it used scare tactics and propaganda (taking a bite of field corn) to get one man's (Michael Pollan) point across.

Perhaps the real blame should go to the processors and the process. Or perhaps to the real reason we are fat -- too many soft drinks, empty calories and yes-processed foods. And not enough exercise.

I asked people in my original column to talk to a real farmer before making up their minds. Obviously you haven't done that. If you had you would know that corn has not been "genetically modified" to make more starch. Note: We are talking about field corn, not sweet corn. GM crops do mean, however, that farmers can raise more with a lot less labor, pesticides, chemicals and soil erosion.

Organic foods have their place, but note they take a lot more tillage, which means more soil erosion. Also, true organic fertilizer is manure and that can spread diseases. Raising food organically will also take a lot more labor. There is a reason fresh fruit and vegetables cost more, they take a lot more management to grow.

Also just because something is labeled organic, or "natural" that doesn't mean it is.

As for subsidizing fruits and vegetables please note that the majority of those items are raised on "contract" for large companies. As for subsidizing truck farms and small "independent" vegetable and fruit farms, I'm all for that. In fact, I challenge you to come up with a workable plan to make that happen. I would certainly back your efforts.

Without a plan to help the smaller vegetable farmer, then what you say is happening in the corn subsidy would be much worse in fruit and vegetable farming.

Here are two more things you have said:

"It is sold to the American public as necessary to help the "poor family farmer" in order to have food security and cheap food."

This part is true, and you only have to look at recent events to know that if corn hadn't been subsidized (and therefore available and cheap) before, the recent food riots would have started much sooner. (Actually the movie King Corn and many of its subsidy points are about 3 years late and therefore out of date)

"Since the subsidy is distributed according to acres owned, the "poor" farmer with few acres gets much less than the "rich" farmer with many acres."

Not exactly true, many of the subsidies have to do with the yield per acre and not with owned acres.

Again, make sure your facts come from other places besides a 90-minute film or a Michael Pollan book. Current corn prices mean subsidies (and cheap corn) are probably a thing of past anyway.

Also if you had talked to a farmer, or even read my column in full, you would know that feed for cattle and HFCS -- the focus of this film- are less than 25 percent of what corn is used for. The other 75 percent goes to ethanol, exports and feed for chicken, hogs and other livestock.

Also note: It is unequivocally untrue that beef is fatter than it was 35 years ago. Beef and all livestock meat is much leaner than it was in the 1970's. As I've noted before corn fattened beef has been here for well over 100 years. Most Americans prefer it. When they don't, then the one million family farmers left will adapt. They always have and that is why they are still here to raise food for you.

Sincerely,

Marcia Gorrell

-- Posted by Marcia Gorrell on Wed, Apr 30, 2008, at 6:44 PM

Dear NanaDot,

I am interested to hear who in the U.S. are "real farmers," if you don't think that we are?

You are right a lot of vegetables do come from other countries. I agree completely, that is a concern.

I will be glad to have a discussion with you about farming in America. I, however, would like to have it without personal attacks.

And for the record, if you read all of Farmalls comments you will see he/she tells me they are not a farmer.

Sincerely,

Marcia

-- Posted by Marcia Gorrell on Fri, May 2, 2008, at 12:19 PM

KING CORN: A REVIEW

I am compelled to write and comment on the recent documentary, King Corn, because of the many misleading statements made in it.

First, the hair test that Dr Macko uses to estimate the percentage of corn in the diet, while useful for what it was intended, gives somewhat misleading results in this application. First, a little background on this test.

This test depends on the fact that in nature, some elements, such as carbon, have different forms with different weights, due to having differing numbers of neutrons in their nucleus, and thus slightly variable weights. These differing weights of the same elements are called isotopes (from the Greek isos =equal+ topos=place). Thus in the case of carbon, we have the normal isotope C12 with 6 protons and six neutrons for an atomic weight of 12, and we have isotope C13 with 6 protons and 7 neutrons for an atomic weight of 13. In nature there is a mixture of these two isotopes, and plants take up and use both isotopes from the CO2 in the air to use in building plant tissue, and we have both isotopes in our body used interchangeably in our tissues and chemical reactions.

The test Dr. Macko is using to differentiate corn from other plant materials in the diets of humans and livestock utilizes the fact that a class of plants, called C4 plants, which includes corn, preferentially take up a different proportion of these two isotopes of carbon to make their tissues than do the class of C3 plants, which comprise the vast majority of other plants including forages.. These ratios of isotopes of carbon continue on in the food chain, and their proportions can be measured in the hair to determine which proportions of plants have been consumed, either C3 or C4 (assumed in the film to be corn).

What this film does not disclose however, is that livestock consume a number of other C4 plants in their rations other than corn. Sorghum is also a C4 plant. It is grown extensively throughout the West in dryer states such as Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, and parts of Colorado. In areas where it is grown it is used almost exclusively for livestock feeding. Thus, the above test would be incapable of differentiating an atom of carbon as coming from livestock fed corn or sorghum.

This same rationale would also apply to millet, which is also a C4 plant used for livestock feeding, grown in the northern central states, chiefly the Dakotas and Nebraska.

When we turn to plant foods directly consumed by humans, we also find a problem with the test used. Sugar cane is also a C4 plant, and thus the sugar derived from it would be indistinguishable from corn in whatever form consumed as far as the hair test described.

These factors thus makes this test somewhat unreliable as a measure of exactly how much corn is in our diet, either directly or in the diets of the livestock we consume.

Next, I want to turn to their description of cattle feeding, and their reporting of its effects. It is somewhat disappointing that the makers of this film did not avail themselves of the opportunity to educate themselves as to the facts regarding the cattle feeding industry when they had a good opportunity to do so. First, as to their claim that feeding corn causes death within 120 days. Curiously, their reference for this appears to be a random passer-by they met during filming. The reality is quite different.

Traditionally feeders take in either grass fed calves at 450 to 600 pounds, or grass fed yearlings (1 year old animals) at 550 to 800 pounds, and finish them out with a mixture of grains, protein supplements, roughage, and vitamin/mineral supplements to a slaughter weight of 1100 to 1400 pounds. Cattle are usually fed an average of 177 days if started on feed as yearlings, and 237 days if started as calves, according to John D. Lawrence, extension livestock economist, with the article available at http://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/li...

The grain or energy component of the ration is balanced with whatever grain happens to be available and most cost effective locally. In the Mid-west that would be corn. In other parts of the western US, sorghum, millet or barley would be the energy component of choice, and in the eastern US soft wheat would often be the feed of choice.

Dairy cows are also fed a high concentrate ration required for high milk production. They are feed high rates of grain over many milking cycles with obviously no early death, as a high value dairy cow obviously would not be fed such high grain diets if it would lead to early death.

The acidosis referred to in the movie certainly can become a problem. It is caused by an overgrowth of lactic acid producing microorganisms in the rumen when high-carbohydrate foods are introduced too rapidly and abruptly. It is easily controlled or prevented by introducing high-concentrate feeds gradually over a period of time, a common practice used in all feeding and dairy production situations.

The idea that grain feeding is somehow unnatural is intimated at extensively in the movie. Nothing could be further from the truth. Cattle and other livestock have been given high-concentrate feed over historical times. Even so called "Grass Fed" beef is almost always given a brief finishing feeding period with a higher concentrate finishing feed. If all US livestock were to be exclusively pasture raised, as they obviously can not and will not be, due to the many many millions of additional acres required, meat would be many multiples of times more expensive, and meat would obviously be a specialty, seasonal food, as there obviously would not be any pastures available during the winter months.

There are actually some benefits to a more highly grass fed animal. It has a lower fat content, and there is some evidence that it contains more omega-3 fatty acids. These are actually only slight advantages, as the fat content of beef can be minimized by eating actual cuts of meat with close trimming. Eating most of one's beef in the form of hamburger is not a good practice, as quite a high content of the fat is not trimmed off and gets into the hamburger. Meat is actually best viewed as not a good primary source of omega-3 fatty acids, which are more efficiently obtained in the diet through oils and supplementation. Grass fed beef will continue to be a boutique item demanded by a specialty clientele. It is a good product, and some even prefer its unique flavor.

Now let us turn to the corn plant itself, which in the film is strangely attacked and demonized. One of the most reprehensible parts of the film was the interview with the Harvard professor, who repeatedly made statements to the effect that corn is a non-food, is nutritionally empty, and has been deliberately bred to be so. This is quite misleading. This Harvard professor should know quite well (or maybe he doesn't ?!) that corn, along with all plants domesticated by humanity over many millennia have been extensively selected for different varieties used for different purposes.

In the case of corn, our North American native grain, it consists of a number of varieties hand selected both during prehistoric times and by many generations of traditional farmers. We currently have 4 major types; sweet corn, used for eating fresh and canning, flour corn, used for milling into corn meal for human consumption, the well known popcorn, and dent corn, also know as field or feed corn.

Field corn has been selected specifically to produce the energy source or carbohydrate portion of animal feeds. Field corn typically contains 9% protein, 5% oil, with the remainder being carbohydrates. The latest USDA figures for 05-06 total corn utilization indicates 54% being used for animal feed, 20% being exported, 14% being used for ethanol, 5% being used for High Fructose Corn syrup, and 7% being used in various other human food products.

Corn is one of the handful of staple grains producing the main food source for human beings. These grain staples, including corn, wheat, rice, barley and sorghum, produce collectively 90% of the calories required by human beings worldwide. World civilization as we know it could not exist without these staple grains. To say that carbohydrates, by far the greatest requirement in the human and animal diet and which are used for energy production, are "empty" calories is certainly a misstatement. There are no "empty" calories or "bad" foods. There are only good and bad diets. To expect that one food would have all the components of a healthy diet is naive. This is the reason all responsible nutritionists continually speak of eating a variety of foods.

As for the cheap trick of trying to eat a mature cob of field corn, and saying it is a "non food" simply because it is not palatable and requires processing, the less said the better. Simply take note that not one of the other staple grain crops that support 90 % of human nutrition, wheat, rough rice, barley, sorghum etc, would be edible in their raw state either.

Now let us address the issue of High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS). Here I quite agree with the main thrust of their argument. There is all kinds of good scientific evidence that a diet with a large percentage of HFCS has some deleterious effects, diabetes and obesity being among them. Fortunately, it is actually quite easy to keep the majority of HFCS out of one's diet. The majority is to be found in two products, soda type drinks, and fruit juices with additional sweetener added. The former really has no redeeming qualities, and should be eliminated from the diet, and the latter has many and increasing alternative choices on the shelf that either have no sugar added, or have natural sweeteners, this obviously in response to consumer demand. There are other snack type foods with HFCS in them, but also many without. There usually are many choices. Obviously for those who are purists about absolutely no HFCS of any amount, this may take care.

To those with corn allergies, I can only say I feel the greatest sympathy. I do hope you find good choices among all the many other food choices available.

I also want to comment on the lumping together of corn consumption in all its forms as being equally bad. No doubt HFCS is not good nutrition, but to conflate that form of corn consumption, with consumption as meat products or other corn products is unconscionable. There is not a shred of evidence that livestock fed corn as a feed carry the negative effects of HFCS. Just ask the residents of Mexico, where corn is actually a staple, whether corn is a part of a healthy diet. We in the US of course use wheat mainly as our staple source, either as bread or pasta.

Finally, let me just briefly comment on the statements that the farm program has some conspiratorial part in encouraging corn overproduction. First, the farm program has always tried to balance its provisions to be commodity neutral, that is, it endeavors to try to have farmers make planting decisions based on marketplace signals and good agronomic practices, rather than program provisions. It is not always perfect in this regard, but that is its aim.

The idea that farmers will plant corn, or any other crop simply because of a relatively small government payment is woefully out of date. The farm price of corn used in the movie was well under $2.00 This has not been the case for quite some time. The last I checked, the price of corn was over $6.00. I can assure you that farmers today do not make their main planting decisions at this point based upon a declining program payment.

In summary, to think that farmers here or in other countries will stop planting corn is quite unrealistic. We have the lowest grain supplies worldwide today since the last days of World War II. We will be planting more corn going forward, or at least we will try.

Finally, I want to say I am neither involved in corn production nor cattle feeding. I am a concerned person in traditional agriculture that tries to correct unfounded ideas whenever I can. I salute these young college people for their idealism, and their concern for the HFCS issue. I can only say that their credibility on this issue would not have been damaged quite so badly if they had stuck to the facts.

-- Posted by Richo on Fri, May 2, 2008, at 5:51 PM

I have heard the term genetically engineered used in the article in the responses several times. I'm not exactly sure what the engineering is for in corn. I remember hearing about the DOA permitting genetically engineered tomatoes back some years ago. The permission was accepting tomato's that had a gene of a moth spliced into its DNA. It seems that this moth had a natural repellent characteristic to other insects. According to the program by allowing the genetic engineering of the tomato with this gene the tomato would inherit this natural insect repellent ability and therefore not require the heavy use of pesticides to produce. I don't know about the varsity of the claims or results all I can tell you is that it bothered my enough that I quit eating tomatoes that are imported from south of the border. If it not home grown from old seed stock I don't eat it. The shame is I really love tomatoes.

-- Posted by John Q. on Sat, May 3, 2008, at 12:13 AM

I just got through watching the ABC News clips on ATT Yahoo. They had a two minutes segment on Corn subsidies. Mr. Cook of the organization mentioned by Jodi was asking some pretty pointed questions. They highlighted a "farmer" in California showing pictures of his office building and were questioning why when corn is selling for three time as much as in previous years should he still be getting over four million dollars this year in corn subsidies.

This report starts a series of troubling questions but doesn't address any solutions in the time allotted.

-- Posted by John Q. on Sat, May 3, 2008, at 12:59 AM

I just got through watching the ABC News clips on ATT Yahoo. They had a two minutes segment on Corn subsidies. Mr. Cook of the organization mentioned by Jodi was asking some pretty pointed questions. They highlighted a "farmer" in California showing pictures of his office building and were questioning why when corn is selling for three time as much as in previous years should he still be getting over four million dollars this year in corn subsidies.

This report starts a series of troubling questions but doesn't address any solutions in the time allotted.

-- Posted by John Q. on Sat, May 3, 2008, at 11:02 AM

NanaDot, this was one producer of all of the Producers in California. I'm sure that there may be more than just this one producer in the State of California. What about other producers in other states?

-- Posted by John Q. on Sat, May 3, 2008, at 11:32 AM


Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


Semi View
MARCIA GORRELL
Recent posts
Archives
Blog RSS feed [Feed icon]
Comments RSS feed [Feed icon]
Login