Skip to main content

Reposted: Earl's Plays Antibiotic Beef Card

Folta Note:  We don't have Earl's Restaurant in Florida. However, notes from Canadian friends suggest they have a raging Chipotle on their hands.  The chain has eliminated Canadian beef based on an illusion health claim.  
The note below is from Lesley Kelly, and appeared on her Facebook page. I'm proud to repost her eloquence here, and hope that others share the message. 

I thought we had a great thing going but...I’m going to have to break up with you.

I can say I’m not surprised. We all saw this coming. You’ve joined the ranks of the Chipotles and A&Ws and have thrown your neighbour (the farmer), the Canadian agriculture industry and our struggling economy under the bus with your recent announcement to source meat from outside of Canada under the “Certified Humane” label. What exactly does that label mean anyways?

You see, when you joined this club, it indirectly applies that our food system is not one of the safest in the world. It misrepresents how much Canadian cattle farmers love their animals and treat them with the care and dignity they deserve. It implies that farmers aren’t concerned about animal pain and antibiotics. It pits farmer against farmer when it shouldn’t have to be that way. And let’s not forget the environment. Farmers are environmentalists. We care for the land, water and air because this life we lead raising and growing food is our livelihood, our passion, our future and a responsibility we don’t take lightly or for granted.

Now don’t get me wrong. I value competition, our trade neighbours down south and that we as consumers have a choice as to what we want to spend our money on, but not based out of fear of the alternative and not having more to the story than just warm and fuzzy buzzwords and a catchy label.

The consumer ought to know that there is more to this story, but unfortunately, you only tell your side in order to sell more burgers and steaks. They should know that “no antibiotics in the beef” as outlined on your website (link below: 6th paragraph) means that this is an industry standard. Farmers give their animals antibiotics to help save their lives and ease their pain and suffering. When we do give them antibiotics, they have to go through a withdrawal period and all the meat is thoroughly tested numerous times before hitting the grocery store shelves.

You state your method is “great for the planet” but you failed to mention that hormones help us decrease our environmental footprint. In Canada, farmers can give their cattle hormones early on (for only about 120 days) to help them process their food more efficiently into muscle tissue. If we didn’t use these hormones, it would take 12% more cattle, 11% more feed, 10% more land and create 10% more greenhouse gases to produce the same amount of beef.

By stating that your meat is “sourced consciously” implies that farmers haven’t worked tirelessly with consumers, industry experts, and food companies to implement a code of practice that addresses the public’s concerns, helps gain their trust and dispels myths.

This isn’t to say one production method (like "Certified Humane” or the one my neighbor chooses) is superior over the other. All methods have advantages and disadvantages and we are continually striving to improve. As farmers, we make decisions based on what is best for our animals, land and operation. But just like you, we also want what is best for consumers. We are consumers too.

I’m sorry it has to end like this, but resorting to fear marketing leaves me no choice. It was fun while it lasted.

I’m really going to miss your dynamite roll and lettuce wraps.


A Saskatchewan Farmer’s Wife, Mom & Agvocate

Kevin Folta (left) and Lesley Kelly (right) at the Farm Forum Event in Saskatoon. 


Popular posts from this blog

Scientific American Destroys Public Trust in Science

This is a sad epitaph, parting words to an old friend that is now gone, leaving in a puff of bitter betrayal. 
When I was a kid it was common for my mom to buy me a magazine if I was sick and home from school.  I didn't want MAD Magazine or comic books.  I preferred Scientific American
The once stalwart publication held a unique spot at the science-public interface, bringing us interesting and diverse stories of scientific interest, long before the internet made such content instantly accessible.  It was our trusted pipeline to the new edges of scientific discovery, from the mantle of the earth to the reaches of space, and every critter in between.
But like so much of our trusted traditional science media, Scientific American has traded its credibility for the glitz of post-truth non-scientific beliefs and the profits of clickbait.The problem is that when a trusted source publishes false information (or worse, when it hijacked by activists) it destroys trust in science, trust in s…

Chipotle's Ag-vertising to Fix their Anti-Ag Image

After years of anti-farmer rhetoric, disgusting anti-agriculture videos, and trashing farmer seed choice, Chipotle now seems to have found a love for the American farmer that is as warm and inviting as the gooey core of a steak burrito.  Their new "Cultivate the Future of Farming" campaign raises awareness of the hardship being experienced in agriculture, and then offers their thoughts and some seed grants in order to reverse it. 

But are they solving a problem that they were instrumental in creating? 

The crisis in agriculture is real, with farmers suffering from low prices, astronomical costs, and strangling regulation.  Farmer suicides are a barometer of the crisis.  Farms, from commodity crops to dairies, are going out of business daily. It is good to see a company raising awareness. 

From Chipotle's website- The "challenge is real" and "It's a hard living"-- and companies like Chipotle were central in creating those problems. 

However, Chipotle&#…

Mangling Reality and Targeting Scientists

Welcome to 2019, and one thing that remains constant is that scientists engaging the public will continue to be targeted for harassment and attempted reputation harm.  

The good news is that it is not working as well as it used to.  People are disgusted by their tactics, and only a handful of true-believers acknowledge their sites as credible. 

But for those on the fence I thought it might be nice to post how a website like SourceWatch uses a Wikipedia-mimic interface to spread false and/or misleading information about public scientists. 

Don't get me wrong, this is not crying victim.  I'm actually is screaming empowerment.  I spent the time to correct the record, something anyone can check.  Please look into their allegations and mine, and see who has it right. 

This is published by the Center for Media and Democracy.  Sadly, such pages actually threaten democracy by providing a forum for false information that makes evidence-based decisions in policy issues more challenging.  It…