The cost of obesity in the United States is as high as $147 billion annually.

This figure from the new study from RTI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also stated persons who are obese spent $1,429, or 42 percent, more for medical care in 2006 than those of healthy weight.

Janice Hermann, Oklahoma State University Cooperative Extension nutrition specialist, said obesity is a risk factor for many chronic diseases including heart disease, some cancers and type 2 diabetes.

“To reverse the obesity epidemic there has to be change to promote healthy lifestyle choices for all people,” Hermann said. “It’s important we educate people about living healthy lifestyles so we can become a healthier society.”

The report, Recommended Community Strategies and Measurements to Prevent Obesity in the United States, includes strategies to promote the availability of affordable healthy food and beverages, encourage breastfeeding, encourage physical activity and limit sedentary activity, support safe communities that support physical activity and encourage communities to organize change.

Hermann said the USDA’s MyPyramid and Dietary Guidelines provide dietary and physical activity recommendations for health as well as weight loss. The MyPyramid’s Web site is  www.mypyramid.gov.

“The amount of food a person needs from each MyPyramid food group will depend on age, gender and level of physical activity. The MyPyramid’s Web site will also provide dietary recommendations to help with weight loss,” she said.

In addition to good nutrition, physical activity is important. According to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 30 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity on most if not all days of the week is important for health benefits. To prevent weight gain it recommends 60 minutes and 60-90 minutes each day to lose weight or maintain weight loss.

“Develop an eating plan for lifelong health,” Hermann said. “It’s important to stay with the basics of healthy eating and physical activity for a healthy lifestyle.”

By Robert Pore

When the country of origin meat labeling campaign began back in the 1990s, a key point the proponents emphasized was that the American people deserved to know where the meat they fed their families originated from.

After years of battling the meat industry, country of origin labeling is now the law of the land. Now, proponents of alternative energy are proposing using the same tactics but instead of focusing on food, it’s all about the origin of where the fuel you put in your car comes from.

According to Gen. Wesley Clark, co-chairman of Growth Energy, American citizens want to know where “their hard-earned dollars ultimately go every time they fill up their cars and trucks.”

“Most Americans don’t want their paychecks going to Venezuela and other regimes that don’t agree with and support the U.S.,” Clark said. “Requiring country of origin labeling of our fuel supply will empower consumers with the knowledge and ability to make informed decisions.”

Well, Clark isn’t that far off, as Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela is the second leading supplier of oil to the United States.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, imports in June 2009 three countries exported more than 1.00 million barrels per day to the United States

.The top five exporting countries accounted for 64 percent of United States crude oil imports in June while the top ten sources accounted for approximately 82 percent of all U.S. crude oil imports.

The top sources of US crude oil imports for June were Canada (2.001 million barrels per day), Venezuela (1.119 million barrels per day), Mexico (1.099 million barrels per day), Saudi Arabia (0.902 million barrels per day), and Nigeria (0.769 million barrels per day).

The rest of the top ten sources, in order, were Angola (0.435 million barrels per day), Iraq (0.374 million barrels per day), Russia (0.305 million barrels per day), Columbia (0.286 million barrels per day), and Brazil (0.269 million barrels per day). Total crude oil imports averaged 9.172 million barrels per day in June, which is an increase of (0.241) million barrels per day from May 2009.

EIA reports that Canada remained the largest exporter of total petroleum in June, exporting 2.529 million barrels per day to the United States, which is an increase from last month (2.206 thousand barrels per day). The second largest exporter of total petroleum was Venezuela with 1.237 million barrels per day.

Clark is calling on the United States Congress and the White House to take action to dramatically enhance the market transparency of the nation’s fuel supply by requiring a national standard of country of origin labeling (COOL) for fuel.

According to Growth Energy, the Label My Fuel initiative would create a COOL standard similar to requirements already in place for common consumer items, including apples, beef, cars and coffee. The goal is to help create consumer awareness of the costs and national security implications of the nation’s addiction to foreign oil.

Growth Energy also has a website promoting the cause, labelmyfuel.com,, which showcases the costs

of American dependence on foreign oil, and serves to rally grassroots support for Congressional action on COOL for fuel legislation.

“America’s dependence on foreign oil has a staggering impact on both our national and economic security,” Clark said. “Supply disruptions and sudden price hikes have shocked the wallets and pocketbooks of everyday Americans one too many times.

According to Growth Energy, the economic implications of America’s dependence on foreign oil are

“astounding”:

— The U.S. Department of Energy found that America’s dependence on foreign oil has cost our country more than $7 trillion dollars over the last 30 years.

— The United States has sent as much as $500 billion a year overseas for oil — a massive transfer of wealth.

— The Center for Forensic Economic Studies estimates that for every dollar spent on foreign crude oil, an additional $1.55 is removed from the U.S. economy.

— According to the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, American taxpayers foot a $50 billion-a-year bill to secure petroleum shipping lanes.

“American ethanol is the only existing alternative to gasoline today that is creating jobs, cutting greenhouse gas emissions and reducing our dependence on foreign oil,” said Tom Buis, Growth Energy CEO. “Country of origin labeling for fuel will let consumers know if they are pumping a domestic-made fuel, like ethanol, or fuel from a foreign source.”

The campaign, if successful, could be a boom to Nebraska’s ethanol industry which is recovering from its economic doldrums it faced last year.

The Renewable Fuels Association reported last week that U.S. ethanol producers continued setting new records for production, as demand for renewable alternatives to gasoline grow. They point to a recent report from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) that said American ethanol facilities produced 694,000 barrels per day (b/d) in June 2009. That is up 109,000 b/d from a year ago.

Ethanol demand, as calculated by the Renewable Fuels Association, continues to outpace production. According to RFA calculations, demand was 721,000 b/d in June, up from 633,000 b/d a year ago. EIA also reports fuel ethanol imports of 29.5 million gallons in June.

The news is good for the nation’s growing alternative fuel industry, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. EIA reported that renewable energy sources (i.e., biofuels, biomass, geothermal, hydroelectric, solar, wind) provided 11.6 percent of domestic U.S. energy production in May 2009 – the latest month for which data has been published.

For the first five months of 2009, EIA reported that renewable energy production was 5.5 percent higher compared to the same time period in 2008, and 9.7 percent higher than the same period in 2007. Comparing the first five months of 2009 to the first five months of 2008, wind increased by 29.9 percent, hydropower increased by 8.7 percent, geothermal increased by 0.7 percent, and biomass + biofuels increased by 0.5 percent, while solar remained largely unchanged.

For the first five months of 2009, EIA reported that U.S. renewable energy production was comprised of hydropower (35.9%), wood + wood wastes (30.2%), biofuels (19.1%), wind (9.0%), geothermal (4.5%), and solar (1.1%).

On the other hand, domestic energy production from fossil fuels dropped by one percent during the first five months of 2009 compared to the same period in 2008 while nuclear power’s contribution increased by 1.9 percent.

“As Congress continues to debate energy funding priorities and climate legislation, it would do well to take note of the clear trends in the nation’s changing energy mix,” said Ken Bossong, Executive Director of the SUN DAY Campaign. “Fossil fuel use is dropping sharply while month-after-month the mix of renewable energy sources continues to set ever-higher records and is now even outpacing nuclear power.”

A good post in answering some of those organic vs. local questions  people have when it comes to buying their fruits and veggies.

ST. PAUL, MN—The emerging trend toward healthier, fresher foods that are also gentle on the environment presents new dilemmas for conscientious consumers. Marketers tout the attributes of “organic” food, while the “local foods movement” is gaining popularity throughout the world. The “organic-or-local” debate is particularly interesting when it comes to fruits and vegetables; proponents of each system offer strong evidence to support their cause. Consumers frequent local farmers’ markets because they expect higher quality, freshness and taste, and lower prices. Organically grown produce is considered to be healthy and environmentally friendly because of the use of less-damaging pesticides. But do consumers really understand the difference between “organic” and “local” produce? And what price are we willing to pay for these fresh, premium products? These questions present challenges for growers, retailers, and ultimately, savvy consumers.

Understanding consumer preferences and willingness to pay for organically grown and locally grown fresh produce helps producers and retailers determine what type of fresh produce to grow and sell, what to emphasize in marketing efforts, and what prices to charge. Intense competition from large-scale growers has forced small-scale farmers to find new niche markets for their commodities through value-added marketing. But information related to consumer preference and willingness to pay for both organically and locally grown fresh produce is sparse, presenting a fertile field for researchers.

Chengyan Yue, the Bachman Endowed Chair in Horticultural Marketing at the University of Minnesota–Twin Cities and colleague Cindy Tong published the results of a research study in HortScience that investigated consumers’ preferences and willingness to pay (WTP) for organically grown and locally grown fresh produce. The research team combined hypothetical and nonhypothetical experiments for the study, which was conducted with 365 volunteer participants at the Minnesota State Fair in August 2008.

The researchers found that consumers’ willingness to pay for organic produce was about the same as they would pay for local produce. But the frequency of purchases was different for organic and local produce. Participants were asked “When you buy fruits and vegetables, how often do you buy locally grown (or organically grown) fresh produce when it is available?”. For locally grown produce, 14% of participants chose “always”, 40% chose “most times”, 38% chose “sometimes”, and 8% chose “seldom” or “never”. For organic produce, 6% chose “always”, 15% chose “most times”, 39% chose “sometimes”, and 40% chose “seldom” or “never”.

Additionally, the team determined that consumers consider ”freshness” and ”safe to eat” as ”very important” attributes when purchasing locally grown produce, and recommended that these attributes be stressed by local growers when promoting their products. Consumers considered ”good for health” and ”safe to eat” as their main reasons for purchasing organic produce, implying that these selling points be emphasized in promotional materials.

Yue explained that the study showed consumers’ demographics affected their choice between organically grown and locally grown produce. For instance, older consumers were less likely than younger consumers to choose organic tomatoes, while females were more likely than males to purchase locally grown tomatoes.

Stated Yue, “Furthermore, we found that consumers patronized different retail venues to purchase fresh produce with different attributes. The results of this research are very important for small-scale farmers, market organizers, and sponsoring agencies in making their production and marketing decisions.”

By Robert Pore

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced Thursday the purchase of $30 million in pork as a measure to improve the economic climate for the industry.

“Our pork producers have been in economic distress for well over a year,” said Gov. Dave Heineman. “This type of assistance is critical for improving the market atmosphere for pork.”

Heineman, along with eight other governors from key pork producing states, sent a letter to President Barack Obama in August outlining several steps to aid pork producers, including asking for the federal government to purchase pork for government feeding programs.

Heineman said he and the Nebraska Department of Agriculture officials will continue to dialogue with Nebraska pork industry leaders.

“Pork is an important segment of our agriculture industry in the state,” said Agriculture Director Greg Ibach. “We are hopeful that USDA’s actions today will improve the outlook for our swine producers so they can weather this period of unprofitability.”

In June, USDA reported that Nebraska inventory of all hogs and pigs was 3.25 million head. This was down 4 percent from June 1, 2008 but up 3 percent from March 1, 2009. The USDA, also reported that in 2007, there were 2,200 hog farms in Nebraska with 100 of those farms having 5,000 head or more of inventory amounting to 57.5 percent of the state’s hog inventory.

Nebraska is also one of the nation’s leading hog slaughtering states. The USDA reported that in July, hog slaughter plants in Nebraska killed 627,000 hogs, down from 649,000 hogs in July 2008.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced Thursday USDA’s intention to purchase an additional $30 million in pork products in FY 2009 for federal food and nutrition assistance programs. USDA will survey potential suppliers to seek the lowest overall cost by publicly inviting bids and awarding contracts to responsible bidders. Altogether, USDA has purchased approximately $151 million in pork products for food and nutrition assistance programs this year through annual appropriation and Recovery Act funding.

Sen. Mike Johanns, R-Neb., said that along with the pork product purchase, USDA is also revising the Livestock Indemnity Program (LIP). LIP provides critical assistance to livestock producers when losses are incurred as a result of harsh weather, including Nebraska losses in June. The pork is being purchased for federal food and nutrition programs at a time when many pork producers are struggling to make ends meet.

“This is great news for cattle and hog owners in Nebraska and across the country,” Johanns said. “I am very pleased USDA has taken these actions to increase the accuracy of livestock compensation, and to provide a boost to pork producers facing tough market conditions.”

According to Johanns, until now, LIP used two weight classes—under and over 400 pounds—to classify cattle for compensation. Yet the cattle lost can weigh more than 1,000 pounds, resulting in cattle of wide-ranging weights falling into the “over 400 pound” category, and therefore less accurate compensation. USDA will add a new category of over 800 pounds to more specifically classify cattle for compensation purposes.

Johanns and seven of his colleagues on the Senate Agriculture Committee sent a letter in July to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack requesting such a change to LIP. He also urged Vilsack to purchase pork products for nutrition programs.

Earlier this summer, thousands of Nebraska cattle in feedlots died from hot, humid conditions.

According to Johanns, USDA has now purchased approximately $151 million in pork products this year. Federal programs that will benefit from the purchases include the National School Lunch Program, the School Breakfast Program, the Summer Food Service Program, the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations, the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, and the Emergency Food Assistance Program.

The American Farm Bureau Federation reports that America’s pork and dairy producers have lost much of their equity over the last year. With a wave of restructuring and forced herd sales expected over the next few months, Farm Bureauis asking Obama to initiate and continue several national measures to provide relief.

Farm Bureau is asking the Obama administration to transfer $100 million to the Agriculture Department to purchase pork for domestic food and nutrition programs. The money would come from a $1.85 billion package to fund the government’s response to issues related to H1N1 influenza. Stallman pointed out that part of today’s decrease in pork prices is due to the widespread misuse of the term “swine flu” rather than the H1N1 virus, which caused pork prices to drop sharply in spite of the fact that pork remains safe to eat.

The U.S. Meat Export Federation reported a recent survey that found nearly two-thirds of China’s consumers stopped eating pork in the early stages of the H1N1 influenza outbreak this year, and more than one in five consumers in the world’s largest pork market still believe that eating pork can result in catching the flu virus.

To add to America’s agricultural export woes, the National Pork Producers Council has joined 33 other food and agricultural organizations urging the Obama administration not to penalize China over tires imported into the United States.

What concerns the ag and food groups is that China will retaliate against U.S. products as pork and soybeans, for example, have been mentioned as candidates for retaliation.

“Pork producers are facing dire circumstances and need the government to step up to purchase more product,” Stallman stated. “The recent (price) for hogs is down $25 per head in only the last four months. If the futures price is an accurate forecast of where hogs will be priced at year’s end, producers will be losing $50 per head. Even the futures price for next April indicates a $25 per head loss.”

While many food processors are posting profits as a result of higher food price (Kraft, Kellogg, General Mills, ConAgra), Stallman said farmers and ranchers are feeling the squeeze of the economic downturn especially livestock producers.

While only a fraction of all farm loans have been affected yet, Stallman said many small and regional commercial banks are facing credit concerns. More than 80 banks have failed—the most since the early 1990s, according to Stallman.

“As long as land values hold up, lenders should be willing to refinance carryover debts,” he said. “Falling land prices are making it harder for farmers to borrow because land is their biggest source of collateral. This is particularly true for the pork and dairy sectors. Considering these bank problems, we fear they may not be able to provide leniency to farm borrowers.”

In August, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Agricultural Statistics Service, Nebraska Field Office reported that farm real estate values in Nebraska continue to climb.

Nationwide, farm real estate, a measurement of the value of all land and buildings on farms, saw a decline, according to the USDA.

According to the USDA, Nebraska’s farm real estate value rose from 2008, extending a trend that began in 1993.

Farm real estate value on Jan. 1 averaged $1,340 per acre in Nebraska, a record high. This is up $10 per acre or 1 percent from last year’s level.

Also, according to Farm Bureau, another contributing factor to the downturn in milk and livestock prices is U.S. agricultural exports have dropped more than 20 percent in the first six months of this year compared to a year ago. Net farm income is forecast to be $54 billion in 2009, down $33.2 billion and 38 percent from the preliminary estimate of $87.2 billion for 2008. The 2009 forecast is $9 billion below the average of $63.2 billion in net farm income earned in the previous 10 years.

According to the USDA, in 2008, Nebraska was the nation’s second leading live animal and meat exporting state behind Iowa with exports of $1.134.8 billion. Nebraska was leading the nation in the export of hides and skins at $391.5 million and animal fats at $212.8 million.