By Robert Pore

robert.pore@theindependent.com

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack Monday announced the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s intention to purchase up to $25 million of dry beans and up to $16.3 million of processed apple products for federal nutrition assistance programs.
The dry bean industry has been distressed in recent months due in part to the global economic downturn.
“I want to offer my thanks to the Secretary for a positive response to our request,” said Gov. Dave Heineman said. “This comes at a critical time for our western Nebraska dry bean industry and I know it means a lot to them, as well as our state. I also appreciate the coordination and support we had from our Congressional Delegation.”
Heineman said Nebraska dry bean processors have not been able to find domestic or foreign markets for the contracted supply of 2008 great northern beans. Without markets for contracted beans, processors have been unable to bid on the remaining 2008 supply still held by producers in western Nebraska.
“The Great Northern bean industry is vital to Nebraska and its farmers,” said Sen. Ben  Nelson. “The purchase of these beans will allow bean farmers to plant this year’s crop and continue to provide their quality product to the world. I applaud this decision by the USDA.”
Nebraska produces 85 percent of the nation’s Great Northern bean crop and the requested assistance under the USDA’s Section 32 program will help preserve this important industry.
Nelson said ehe beans will also provide healthy lunches for thousands of students nationwide through school lunch and other assistance programs
Nebraska’s Dry Edible Bean growers not only feed the world, but also contribute greatly to the U.S. economy while doing so, he said. Half of the product is exported to foreign markets such as Mexico, the United Kingdom, Haiti, Dominican Republic, France, Greece, Northern Africa, Canada, Cuba and Iraq.
“Nebraska is the number one producer of Great Northern Beans in the United States,” said Nelson. “The USDA says Nebraska accounts for the majority of the U.S. Great Northern crop which means if you’re eating baked beans in Boston, Senate Bean Soup in Washington, a cassoulet in Paris, a vegetarian stew in San Francisco, or White Bean Chili in Dallas, and they’re made with Great Northern Beans, chances are they were grown in Nebraska.”
It is estimated that the Nebraska produced 2008 Great Northern bean crop totals 62,000 metric tons.  There are an estimated 1,500 farmers in western Nebraska who produce the beans for various purposes.
“I am very pleased by today’s announcement that Nebraska’s dry bean farmers will have a much needed market and also provide a healthy staple for domestic food programs like the Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Programs and the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations,” said Sen. Mike Johanns. “Today’s global economic conditions have changed the landscape of our agricultural industry, and this action by the USDA is critically important to Nebraska growers.”
Rep. Adrian Smith said this is good news for farmers in the Third District.
“Today’s announcement means an economic hardship can be alleviated for an important part of Nebraska’s economy, while at the same time assisting school lunches and domestic food programs,” he said. “I’m proud Nebraska’s congressional delegation was able to work in tandem with Governor Heinemann’s office to see this issue through.”

As a reporter for the Grand Island Independent, I’m fortunate enough to be allowed to not only write daily articles for the newspaper and this weekly column for Trade West, but the have a blog at www.theindependent.com
The blog is called “Answers for a New Age.” The posts on that blog (www.agline.com) reflect my firm belief that science and technology, as it evolves, really do provide the answers for a new age.
The beauty of the new electronic age of communication is that it’s interactive. Comments, both positive and negative, allows for the conversation to continue and ideas and observations to flow freely.
The more diversity of ideas that are generated, the greater chance solutions will be found or informed public opinion will change the direction of public policy or collective societal attitudes.
For example, recently I posted an article about a study that showed that as people become more educated, they tend to choose foods that are lower in calories but higher in nutrients.
According to the study, “The energy density of the diet (i.e. available energy per unit weight) is one indicator of diet quality. Lean meats, fish, low-fat dairy products and fresh vegetables and fruit provide fewer calories per unit weight than do fast foods, sweets, candy and desserts. Energy dense foods provide more calories per unit weight but tend to be nutrient-poor.
“Diets of low energy density and high nutrient content have been associated with less weight gain and with lower rates of obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and some forms of cancer.
“In contrast, energy-dense diets have been linked to higher obesity rates and higher disease risk. Improving diet quality by lowering its energy density is standard advice for weight control, cancer prevention and better health.”
In light of the recent concerns of a possible flu pandemic, I commented on my blog post that,   “Good nutrition leads to better health. Better health leads to strong immune systems. Good immune systems protects you from out breaks of the flu and other communicable diseases, along with heart problems, diabetes and a host of other aliments.”
Whether it’s education, health care, the environment, or a host of other societal concerns, we seem to think the answer is always to throw more money at the problem in hopes to cure it.
But when it comes to either education, health care or the environment, the principle of Occam’s razor normally applies that usually the simplest solution is the best solution.
While that is not a hard and fast rule, it makes common sense.
While health care is important and in need of reform, why not reward people for good behavior with proper diet, good nutrition and exercise. Face it, would you rather pay higher health care cost or the costs of having a lifestyle that promotes good health?
In the blog, I commented with the following question: “Does the following study suggest that this country’s cheap policy for many years  (on average Americans spend less than 10 percent of their disposable income annually, according to the USDA) has lead to poor nutrition hence weaker immune systems and more communicable diseases and a lot of other health problems?”
If we paid a little more for our food by focusing away from highly processed foods to home made meals made from scratch, health care cost will go back down like they were in the 1960s, though we would pay more of our disposable income for food.
That’s a perfectly good trade-off in my book.
That blog lead to this response by a reader:
“I cant believe it took this long for someone to figure this simple problem out.  When a poor family can only afford Mac and cheese, pop, ramen noodles, etc……, instead of fresh fruit, veggies, lean meats, etc….,  then poor health and obesity will always plague the low income and poor.  I have known this for decades.  What took so long for it to come to the attention of the media?  Good health = Low medical costs.  Duh!!!!!!  I wonder if our President and government will figure it out?  Naaaaa!!!!!”
Again, good common sense prevails.
In an article I reported on in the Grand Island Independent last week, both Sen. Mike Johanns, R-Neb., and the American Farm Bureau Federation went on record in supporting the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) taking the first step to raise the limit on the amount of ethanol blended with gasoline from 10 percent to 15 percent.
According to Bob Stallman, American Farm Bureau Federation president, a higher ethanol blend would promote environmental protection, help create jobs and reduce dependence on foreign oil.
Both Johanns and the American Farm Bureau Federation’s comments were in response to a request for public comments by EPA on a proposed waiver of the Clean Air Act to raise the ethanol blend level.
But the question, though, is why does it seem that it always takes some type of crisis to motivate people into action.
This should have been done years ago, along with encouraging automakers to make all vehicles capable of running on E85 instead of the more expensive line of cars, SUVs, and trucks.
If the U.S. would have been heavily motivating the auto industry in the country to aggressively build all cars capable of running on 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gas and aggressively pursue policies for hybrid cars that run on both gasoline and electricity, I don’t believe we would be seeing the current economic collapse of the domestic auto industry and the government bailouts that are now being conducted.
Along with higher fuel efficiency, the hybrid alternative fuels and electric cars would have not only kept the domestic car industry thriving, but put more disposable income into people’s pocket because they would not have to pay more for fuel. Maybe, just maybe, the current financial crisis would not have prevailed.
And the article lead to another common sense proposal from a online reader from Louisiana: “Does the Senator have a plan to modify the cars, trucks, and the pipelines first before going to E15??? If he doesn’t, then he is committing political suicide. He will ruin everyone’s car and truck that isn’t Flex Fuel or E85 already.
“I totally agree with following the Brazil model of reducing carbon footprint of 90 percent, but do it the right way. Modify all future cars to E85 and give coupons to have older cars modified to E85. Then start raising the blend. For the cars and trucks that can’t be modified, allow them to continue using the old E10 pumps until they get their autos modified.”

The following post from the University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture has very good advice when it comes to parent’s responsibility on making sure their children are safe.

According to Wally Goddard, family life specialist with the University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture, “Fear is the modern plague.”

“We worry about terrorist attacks, child abductions, school shootings, murder and mayhem. Our fear is spilling into our children’s lives. Based on our talk and media reports, they are afraid,” Goddard said.

He points to a recently released study by Joy Burnham, associate professor at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa, showing that some of the most prevalent fears for children in second through 12th grades are terrorist attacks, drive-by shootings, tornadoes, drowning and kidnapping.

According to the article: These fears are often fueled by media frenzies, which afford easy access to the most unusual and extreme doings in any corner of the world and which can leave us feeling that chaos is commonplace, according to Goddard. But, he says, the news of science is far more reassuring than the media reports.

For example, Daniel Gardner writes in his book, “The Science of Fear: Why We Fear the Things We Shouldn’t – and Put Ourselves in Greater Danger,” that the risk that any one of the 70 million children in America will be stolen by a stranger is only about 0.00016 percent, or 1 in 608,696, and that nine out of 10 stranger abductions are resolved within 24 hours. Yet people continue to act as if stranger abductions were an ever-present danger.

Gardner also writes that modern developed countries have become some of the most peaceful societies in human history.

The biggest factor into this spectacular change was the decline in deaths among children, he says. In 1900, almost 20 percent of all children born in the United States – one in five — died before they were five years old; by 1960 the number of deaths in that age group had fallen to 3 percent; by 2002, it was 0.8 percent.

“Not only should we be more peaceful and grateful, we should communicate a feeling of safety and gratitude to our children,” says Goddard. “This is one of the best times in history to be alive.”

Goddard believes kids are probably suffering more negative health consequences by being kept indoors under the watchful eyes of their parents than they are by being outside where they can engage in unstructured play in the fresh air and sunshine. Obesity and related diabetes and other health problems caused in part by too much time sitting inside are far more dangerous for most children than are the specters haunting parents’ imaginations, he says.

That doesn’t mean parents should throw caution to the wind and give their children free reign to play wild in the streets or wander the town with reckless abandon, however.

Discussions about stranger danger, for the most part, may be better driven by a child’s interest, he says. Statistics show that more abductions are committed by people children know than by people they don’t, so warnings about not talking to strangers may be moot. And it’s unrealistic to expect that any type of instruction would ensure that a child could outwit the most conniving of adults.

Beyond honestly answering whatever questions a child might have, a parent’s best strategy is simply to use good common sense. Teach children basic safety information, like how to cross a street and stay on the sidewalk, and remind them to go straight to their destination rather than wandering off and getting lost.

Parents should find out where a child is going when he leaves home, as well as what time they will check in or come back home, and it may be a good idea, in some situations, to have them to call when they reach their destination. If he’s going to a friend’s house, it may be wise to make sure someone will be there when they arrive.

And if you really want an answer of a new age, this is it:

“But don’t let fear run your life,” Goddard says. “You may as well stay up at night worrying about whether you’re going to be hit by a meteorite. Fastening seat belts is probably a lot more important than keeping kids from playing outside. Good sense is the governing rule.“

Recently, the Nebraska Department of Agriculture had to put out a public alert concerning wild pigs in the Boone area. The pigs were a threat to hog farmers because they carried a disease that could infect domestic hogs.

The wild hogs were imported from Texas where their growing numbers pose a threat to the public and livestock in that state.

With concerns spreading about the outbreak of the North American flu and how it’s impacting hog farmers in the U.S.,  imported wildlife poses a whole new public health threat to this country, as the article below indicates.

Wildlife imports into the United States are fragmented and insufficiently coordinated, failing to accurately list more than four in five species entering the country.

So reports a team of scientists from the Wildlife Trust, Brown University, Pacific Lutheran University, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Global Invasive Species Programme.

A paper on their findings is published in this week’s issue of the journal Science.

The poorly regulated U.S. wildlife trade can lead to devastating effects on ecosystems, native species, food supply chains and human health.

“As our world, in many senses, grows smaller and smaller with the ease of international travel, the network of connections has increased, facilitating the spread of diseases,” said Rita Teutonico, senior advisor for integrative activities in the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Directorate for Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences (SBE).

SBE co-funded this research through the agency’s Human and Social Dynamics (HSD) priority area. HSD was supported by all NSF Directorates, and by NSF’s Office of International Science and Engineering and Office of Polar Programs.

“These scientists report a pattern of trade in wildlife that includes a very large number of animals, coupled with a poor understanding of what species are traded,” said James Collins, NSF Assistant Director for Biological Sciences. “The findings highlight the need for further research because of the unknown effects these animals and their pathogens can have on native organisms.”

A global trade in wildlife generates hundreds of billions of dollars each year. The researchers report that during a six-year period from 2000 through 2006, the U.S. imported more than 1.5 billion live animals.

“That’s more than 200 million animals a year–unexpectedly high,” said scientist Peter Daszak, president of the Wildlife Trust, who co-led the research.

The animals collected were from wild populations in more than 190 countries around the world, and were intended for commercial sale in the U.S.–primarily in the pet trade.

“This incredible number of imports is equivalent to every single person in the U.S. owning at least five pets,” said biologist Katherine Smith of Brown University, co-leader of the study.

More than 86 percent of shipments contained animals that were not classified to the level of species, making it impossible to assess the full diversity of animals imported, or calculate the risk of non-native species introductions or disease transmission.

“Shipments are coming in labeled ‘live vertebrate’ or ‘fish,’” said Daszak. “If we don’t know what animals are in there, how do we know which are going to become invasive species or carry diseases that could affect livestock, wildlife–or ourselves?”

The wildlife trade has previously led to disease introductions such as the 2003 monkeypox outbreak following the import of infected African rodents for the pet trade.

“The threat to public health is real, as the majority of emerging diseases come from wildlife,” said Smith. “Most of these imported animals originate in Southeast Asia–a hotspot for emerging diseases.”

The research team calls for direct measures to decrease the risk of such “pathogen pollution” and proposes guidelines to protect human, animal, and ecosystem health.

Recommendations:

• Stricter record keeping should be required to inform risk analysis on animal imports.
• Third-party surveillance and testing should be established for both known and unknown pathogens at the exportation points in foreign countries.
• Greater public education is needed to educate individuals, importers, veterinarians and pet industry advocates about the dangers of diseases that emerge from wildlife and that can make their way to domesticated animals and humans.

“We need to look at all the factors that impact ecosystems–the whole picture,” said Daszak. “The global wildlife trade is promoting a process that will impact our health and the health of the planet.”