The Complete Patient

We all need to become more savvy not only about the food we eat and where we obtain it, but about interpreting all the related media messages that are created—spin, as the politicians like to call it.

We like to think that our country has a free press, and it’s other countries like China and Saudi Arabia that put out propaganda. But as a number of people commenting on my previous post point out, we are subject to all kinds of propaganda about food and health (not to mention politics and culture)—it’s just sometimes a little more slick and subtle than in other countries.

An important public relations battle is being fought under the radar, as it were, over these issues. Whether it’s about raw milk or the spread of disease or the labeling of food products, it happens. The good news is that more of us are becoming sensitive to it. I think that Steve Bemis makes an excellent suggestion in advising that we try to counter it with letters to the editor and every other such way.

The bad news is it’s going to be a long and tedious fight, because the germ fighters have used fear so successfully. I had that point driven home recently in a note forwarded to me involving a correspondence with a well-established science-health writer who’s been known to be open-minded. I don’t feel it’s appropriate to share the person’s name, since the note is a private email between a raw milk farmer and the media person. But here is a key paragraph:

“I embrace the good bugs, but not at the risk of exposing young children to the bad. It sounds like you have an excellent record--probably due to the fact… that your cows are on green pasture and, I presume, not in crowded conditions. But I've also seen the studies finding highly drug resistant disease-causing bacteria in raw milk on organic farms. How big is the risk? Maybe small. But I wouldn't risk exposing a young child, for all the benefits of the good bugs in raw milk.”

I should point out that this isn't the first time I've seen this argument from media people. It's one of the reasons the subject of raw milk hasn't received anything approaching fair coverage. Even for those “open-minded” individuals, a great fallback position is “for the sake of the children.” It’s going to take some effort to change their views on life.

The discussion about farmer profits, or lack thereof, illustrates how amazingly conflicted we are about food, both as growers and consumers.

I hear several issues being raised simultaneously, and that has a way of clouding matters:

--Personal goals versus business goals. Farming is an unusual profession in that people do it as much, or more, for personal fulfillment. They enjoy being outdoors, gain much satisfaction from growing things, like being with animals, enjoy manual labor, and so on. And today, more than ever, people are being drawn to farming by the appeal of doing something important—improving people’s health with nutrient-rich food. I hear a lot of idealism in the comments, about providing nutritious food to the masses.

I’ve always felt that business owners should look hard at their personal goals when starting a business, which leads me into the next issue...

--Personal goals as an extension of business goals. Some people seem to be saying that because food is essential for everyday life, prices should be kept affordable to the great mass of people. But there’s also recognition that while some people like paying $40 a gallon for coffee-flavored water, others prefer to pay $10 a gallon for real milk and $5 for a dozen real eggs.

I’d like to throw out the proposition that there’s no one right answer. If Dave Milano wants to sell his food at lower-than-market prices because he wants locals to have it to for good health, that’s a reasonable goal…for him. It’s a personal value decision that is also a business decision. A guy down the road may decide that his goal is to do the same thing, but make a reasonable profit as well, and the best way to fulfill both goals is to sell some of his food directly to locals, and haul some to a big-city farmers market, where he can charge two or three times what he charges the locals. Or, more grandiose, he may set up a nutritious-food Internet site where he charges even more than at the farmers market.  Well, that’s another reasonable personal-values decision turned into a business goal.

Joel Salatin won’t ship beyond a 100 mile radius of his Virginia farm because he wants each community to develop its own local food sources. Mark McAfee will ship raw milk nearly anywhere, feeling that if people need the healthful benefits of raw milk, they should be able to get it. Each is a reasonable personal approach. But each farmer has also integrated personal goals into business decisions.

--Competitive issues. There’s another factor at work here that tends to get overlooked. Direct-to-consumer sales are soaring because demand is ahead of supply. So some farmers are facing the “dilemma” of whether to charge higher prices, in light of their idealistic personal goals. I’d like to throw out a factor that hasn’t received much consideration here: the risk factor. As we’ve seen on this site numerous times, farmers who produce raw milk face serious legal risks, and it almost doesn’t matter what states they are in. The regulatory authorities are making life difficult for meat producers, as well, and that situation isn’t likely to ease as the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) takes hold. Indications are that vegetable growers could face regulatory problems as well.

Even the most permissive state situation can turn on a dime. And we’re not even talking about the risks from weather, energy costs, etc. Any business running high risks needs to calculate that risk into its pricing considerations. Investors often talk about “the risk premium” for certain securities. Well, sustainable farmers face a major “risk premium.”

We are seeing some big changes in our society as increasing numbers of people come to understand the importance of consuming nutritious food—the growing number of farmers markets and CSAs tell us that. Not everyone recognizes or understands that, and those that don’t are often the ones who think nothing of paying $4 for a box of sugared cereal, and objecting to paying $4 for a dozen eggs. Those people need to be educated, but until they are, should farmers sell their eggs at $2 a dozen because the factory system has taught them to expect that? (And that’s why the factory system can never be expected to produce nutritious and consistently safe foods—the pressure is always on to cut costs and increase profit margins.)

This whole situation gets so murky because it really is complicated. But it's important for us as individuals to try not to mix apples and oranges. or should I say, raw milk and pasteurized milk.  

I’d like to discuss food prices from a different perspective than they tend to get talked about. I find it interesting that a number of farmers commenting on yesterday’s post seem to feel uncomfortable about their pricing, and feel the need to justify the prices they charge customers in terms of the cost of feed, labor, insurance, taxes, etc., etc.

Unfortunately, most consumers don’t care about a farmer’s expenses (any more than they care about an automobile manufacturer’s expenses or a toy store’s expenses). What they care most about is getting the best value for their money. And the best value doesn’t necessarily equal the lowest price.

The farmer selling the $7-a-pound duck was showing some signs of understanding the value concept by emphasizing that the ducks were raised on organic feed, were a special breed with less fat than others, and were locally produced. For me, those are important benefits—attributes I know I likely wouldn’t find even at Whole Foods, and thus a good value.

The person who reacted by saying $7 was too much wasn’t necessarily saying she couldn’t afford the duck, but rather that $7 wasn’t a good value to her. Presumably, milk at $9 a gallon is okay. (I’m presuming she has spent that at least occasionally, because that is what the dairy sponsoring the listserve charges.) Maybe she needed to personally visit the duck-raising facilities, like she visits the dairy. Or feel that duck fat is good for you. Or understand that duck carcass can be made into soup (and receive a recipe along with the duck).

Where I’m going with this is to suggest that owners of sustainable farms who sell directly to consumers think about pricing in terms of benefits to the buyer (especially versus the competition, which is generally grocery stores). I can think of a bunch of attributes right off the bat whereby products sold directly excel: freshness, nutrition, taste, and safety.

Then there are other factors, even including scarcity. The fact that the duck farmer is likely the only one raising organic duck in the Boston area can be turned into a benefit. If it’s as tasty and satisfying as I suspect it is, I should feel good that I was one of the lucky ones who got to eat that duck.

If I was willing to travel 120 miles north of Boston, into Vermont, possibly I could find half a dozen producers of organic duck, and therefore not be surprised to pay perhaps $3.50 a pound. In fact, I do pay $2 a dozen for New Hampshire eggs, the same quality that costs me $4.50 near Boston, and $5 for milk that costs me $9 near Boston. It all gets into supply vs demand as well as demographics (what the local population values), but it also gets into the challenge of justifying price via benefits. The more competitors you have, the more challenging it is.

Now, if the Boston-area farmer was charging $10 a pound for her duck the next week because she felt she could get away with a higher price, I might very well feel she was ripping me off, and decide that that outweighed all the other benefits, and not buy from her again. If enough others felt the same way, this farmer might lose many customers, even if her product remained top notch.

Part of my point here is that farmers need to articulate their particular benefits to their prospective buyers. This is to reassure people they received good value.

But also, especially in this food arena, farmers need to educate buyers. Whole Foods has done a wonderful job of making consumers feel good about paying high prices for their food, via skillful use of education.

Often farmers take for granted processes that are highly valued by consumers. For example, raw milk producers typically cool their milk right after it’s milked, and meticulously clean their milking and bottling equipment to keep bacteria counts down.

Well, there’s nothing wrong with explaining—via a flyer, brochure, or internet newsletter—how the cooling process works and letting consumers know that the equipment is disassembled for cleaning once a week. It’s all reassurance to most that the milk will be free of pathogens…and thus a benefit. Then, you’re not just selling milk, you’re also selling insurance. (Yeah, I’m paying $9 a gallon, but it’s worth it to me to both get such a nutritious product and also feel really good about how safe it is.)

In this vein, I have to disagree with a few comments, like Dave Milano’s lament, “No matter how good a naturally-raised chicken or duck looks in comparison to today’s industrial foods, it is still what it is: a basic food.” My reaction: Shhh. The market has been so polluted with processed and unhealthy foods that “basic food” is now a premium product. That helps perfectly position many small farms to, finally, be in the right place at the right time. There’s nothing wrong with building your business based on the marketplace coming to value what you produce because your competitors have screwed up.

To the extent consumers feel good, and healthy, about their purchases, they'll educate others and, as milkfarmer notes, "the revolution" will grow.  

***

If you're in the business of growing vegetables, and figured all the government harassment and interference is focused on  farms with animals, I have some potentially bad news.  The Cornucopia Institute reports that the U.S. Department of Agriculture is considering rules supposedly designed to reduce risks from pathogens, by restricting certain organic growing techniques.

This from a recent Cornucopia release: "The rules would likely mirror those that are already in place in California, where farmers have been asked to take extreme measures with little or no scientific justification. While the rules themselves do not directly eliminate biodiversity on farms, they discourage wildlife and vegetation. As a result, some large produce buyers, such as processors, supermarkets and fast food chains, are using those rules as a precedent to come up with their own standards--often extreme measures without scientific backup."  

"For example, farmers have been told to destroy hedgerows and other non-crop vegetation around farms that provide important habitat for beneficial wildlife, and to erect fences around their fields, which negatively impacts widlife corridors. Such measures have not been shown to eliminate or reduce the likelihood of E.coli contamination."  

Still more reasons to sell direct. And more evidence that the germ police remain out in force. 

It was a seemingly ordinary posting on a raw milk listserve I subscribe to in Massachusetts (sponsored by a raw milk dairy, Oake_Knoll_Ayrshires, at Yahoo Groups). On the Wednesday before Thanksgiving, a farmer offered “Certified organic fresh duckling available first come first serve basis.”

They sounded wonderful: “Locally raised, free-range ducklings from a certified organic poultry … These ducklings are Muscovy, known for having less fat than the traditional Peking duck.” Small ducklings about four pounds, and large one about ten pounds. Cost: $7 a pound, or from $30 to $70 a duck.

If we hadn’t already committed to a turkey at Whole Foods for Thanksgiving, I would have seriously considered one of these ducks.

Yet the first comment on the listserve in response to the posting stated, “I was almost tripping over myself to get out the door to camp out in order to make sure I got one of these. Until I saw the price. Ouch. I just paid $2.25 a pound for turkey. Happy backyard-raised turkey (but not organic, much less certified). As much as my husband and I
adore eating duck (and you better bet we do) I can't buy one…Seven bucks a pound. Yowza…”

That price concern sparked a major discussion about the role of price in food from sustainable farms. Among the comments:

“Organic feed costs more than double, and I'm finding triple these days, the cost of conventional feed. So I don't wonder at how you were able to find conventionally fed turkeys at that price.”

"I think presenting the organic movement and the choice of high quality foods as some expensive, elitist endeavor is very wrong. Even when I earned minimum wage, I made buying top quality food a priority because nutritious food gives me the most pleasure in life. I know people on food stamps that think nothing of a $100+ monthly cable bill or paying for cell phones. A coworker thinks my shopping at Whole Foods or the Health Food market in Quincy is too expensive
for her or normal people (not fanatic about nutrition or environment) to consider. Yet I didn't deride her for saving up to buy a flat-screen plasma TV & HD upgrades, even though she admits there's barely anything worth watching on TV these days. I gladly give up buying new stuff to pay a bit extra for toxin & genetic-engineering free food, especially if it means the farmer makes more from the transaction.”

 

“I know that organic and locally grown food is often more expensive than we would like. But the quality and flavor are worth it to me. It is a quality-of-life issue. So I spend $8.50 per gallon for raw milk (much more when you figure in the travel cost). People (myself included) spend that much or sometimes more for a bottle of wine. And for what? Not nutrition! So it's about priorities.”

 

“Consider what people pay DAILY at places such as Dunkin Donuts, etc. -- makes all the organic/raw food seem like quite the bargain!!”

 

“I find that it often doesn't matter what your financial status is when it comes to making healthy food decisions. We have friends who have a SIGNIFICANTLY higher household income than ours, and have all of the material trappings that come with that, but eat horrible, poisonous, processed food and think nothing of it. To them, being healthy is choosing artificial sweeteners over sugar. Their children are always battling ear infections, etc. It doesn't matter how much money you have if you don't have your health, and that is why we spend our income on food and alternative healing practices not covered by health insurance. I think that people are so afraid to change because it means admitting they've been doing wrong by themselves and their children, or going out of the familiar and changing lifestyles. Like my grandmothers ganging up on me because I don't feed my children crap like they used give me whenever I visited them as a child. Their reasoning being ‘you ate it, and you turned out fine!’ They don't realize that I have spent the last 10 years ‘cleaning house’ in my body.”

 

“I introduced my elderly in-laws to raw milk, and despite having grown up on summers spent at family farms, they still will not even try it, claiming that they can't trust it!!!! And this, even after reading the multitude of information out there on the negatives of pasteurizing and homogenizing, and its harmful long-term effects!”

It is encouraging to see people come to the defense of the duck farmer. We’ve been so conditioned as a society to see cheap food as a major benefit of our factory system that it can be difficult to accept the reality that food from sustainable farms must cost more because more labor and higher-quality feed/pasture is required to produce food that is more nutritious and safer than the factory food.

The process of coming to that mindstate often includes a personal journey that involves some illness along the way. But it is also a function of marketing. The agribusinesses, with heavy government backing, have marketed cheap food as desirable. But there are all kinds of examples of very successful premium products--cars, watches, furniture…and foods. The duck farmer is on the right path: emphasize benefits and differentiate your product from the mass-produced stuff. As several individuals point out following my previous post, the regulators eventually respond to consumer pressure as well.

I am of two minds about Thanksgiving. Like most everyone, I am grateful for the bounty and family time that are part of the holiday. But I always feel a sense of uneasiness about what follows, the assault on our senses by the advertising and retailing orgy we are all supposed to join.

I am of two minds, as well, about the heartening report from Ron Klein, following my Monday post about ginger, describing his positive experiences with the Michigan Department of Agriculture. This is the same MDA that conducted a sting operation on Richard Hebron last year for distributing raw milk, and just last month had a state police swat team ready to move on Greg Niewendorp for protesting the bovine tuberculosis testing program.

Has the MDA implemented sensitivity training to its inspectors to help it work more effectively with its constituents? I don’t want to sound overly cynical, since it would be wonderful if the agency had turned a new leaf and decided it really wanted to work in cooperation with farmers and support sustainable farming practices.

Then I look around and see the opposite happening in other places. In California, Mark McAfee reports that Organic Pastures will be filing suit against the state December 17, and shortly thereafter requesting a preliminary restraining order against enforcement of the 10-coliform-per-milliliter requirement for raw milk, passed by the legislature in October.

“We are trying everything politically possible to get a delay in the enforcement letter issued,” he states. “It is not possible to see or foresee what will happen here.” He also says he’s raised 90% of the $5,000 goal for legal expenses.

In Wisconsin, the state’s Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection continues its practice begun last May to make acquisition/renewal of a dairy license contingent on participation in the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). No premises registration, no dairy license. This is forcing some Amish farmers to abandon dairy farming because registration violates their religious teachings, reports Mary Zanoni, an advocate against NAIS who has been monitoring Wisconsin happenings closely.

Virginia sustainable farming practitioner Joel Salatin has an incisive take on where the struggle over farming practices and nutrition have led us. He sees a hijacking of “sound science” by government and corporate interests that then use consensus by establishment scientists to push anti-sustainable-farming and anti-consumer agendas.  It’s an intriguing notion, and well worth reading.

The encouraging trend in all this is that there's a lot more information circulating about nutritional and health issues than just a few years ago. Information makes things more open, and openness tends to spark discussion, debate...and compromise. Sometimes, after an upheaval of the sort that occurred in Michigan with Richard Hebron, all sides begin to value the attractions of compromise. But likely there need to be unheavals in any number of other places as well before we see meaningful national movement in positive directions.