The popularity of Oscar-nominated Food, Inc. and writers Michael Pollan and Mark Bittman make it clear that consumer interest in food and farming issues is now deeply embedded in the cultural mainstream.

And that’s not just my personal impression. Two brand new polls show a surprising degree of agreement on consumers’ concerns about the quality of food and how it’s produced, considering that one was commissioned by an environmentally-oriented foundation and the other by an organization that’s out to advance the interests of large scale agribusiness. I’ll come back to those results in a minute.

Shoppers’ buying habits reflect their growing interest in food quality and where it comes from. Healthy food-oriented chains such as Whole Foods are thriving, farmers’ markets are more prevalent than ever, and organically grown food is the fastest growing segment of the agriculture sector. Before long, it’s inevitable that consumers’ growing interest in food issues will start to affect their behavior in the voting booth as well.

Industrial agriculture has taken notice, as evidenced by the “Food Dialogues,” a series of panel discussions convened last week (Sept. 22) in four cities as part of a $30 million public relations campaign mounted by big agricultural interests. Billed as an effort to connect consumers with farmers and ranchers, the event was created by the U.S. Farmers and Ranchers Alliance, whose membership list is a who’s who of major industrial agriculture organizations across the country.

While the panelists were mostly sympathetic to industry, they included World Wildlife Fund’s Jason Clay and Roots of Change President Michael Dimock, who said many smart things about the sustainability of modern agriculture. The event triggered comprehensive reactions by rancher Jeff Fowle and author Anna Lappé, and a story in yesterday’s (Sept 28) New York Times.

The Alliance set limits on the scope of the “Dialogues,” keeping potentially divisive issues like the farm bill or the corn ethanol debacle off the agenda and thereby skirting the touchy topic of how government policies affect what we eat. That’s too bad, because the farm bill is especially relevant right now as the Super Committee budget cutters in Congress tasked with reigning in federal spending take a hard look at what farm programs to cut. Many informed observers believe the committee will effectively re-write the farm bill this fall, a full year ahead of schedule. (For a little context, check out Why the Farm Bill Matters.)

President Obama, farm state senators and commodity groups have already weighed in, underscoring the likely impact of the Super Committee’s work on the future of US food and farm policy. We at Environmental Working Group have also issued several of our own analyses of how the Super Committee could, and should, reform farm policy. And today, 56 conservation-oriented groups, including EWG, have come together to lay out a set of principles that should guide the panel’s deliberations.

That’s why the polling information I can tell you about here is important, because it’s a unique window into what American consumers are really thinking, not just what big agribusiness wants you to believe.

In July, the David & Lucile Packard Foundation commissioned the Benenson Strategy Group and Voter Consumer Research to conduct a survey of American attitudes on issues related to agriculture, the environment, and the federal budget. Here–for the first time anywhere–are some highlights of the findings, based on 1,200 telephone interviews conducted nationally. (The poll had an overall margin of error ±2.83 percent.)

• 78 percent said making nutritious and healthy foods more affordable and more accessible should be a top priority in the next farm bill.
• Americans value conservation programs with environmental benefits more than programs with economic benefits such as job creation or recreation dollars.
• 69 percent said reducing the use of chemicals that contribute to water pollution should also be a top priority.
• 52 percent said subsidies for crops such as corn and soybeans should top the list of programs to be cut, and 49 percent named crop insurance as the next target. Only 31 percent ranked conservation programs as top targets for cuts and just 23 percent wanted to chop food aid for low income Americans.
• 57 percent did not agree with cutting funding for farm conservation programs, saying they save money by preventing pollution.
• 38 percent said protecting soil and farmland to ensure future food security should be the top priority of conservation initiatives, while 34 percent put protecting water quality at the top.
• 60 percent said farmers should be required to meet environmental standards such as protecting water quality or soil health as a condition of receiving subsidy payments and subsidized crop insurance. That number jumped to 65 percent in the six biggest ethanol-producing states.
• 75 percent said helping family farmers stay in business should be a top or high priority in agriculture policy and 31 percent would make it the top goal of subsidy programs.

The Alliance’s two polls, conducted in August by Ketchum Global Research Network and Braun Research, sampled an even larger number of consumers (a total of 2,417) and, separately, 1,002 farmer and ranchers. The polling was part of the preparation for the “Food Dialogues.” Their website offers only a limited sampling of the results, but in some ways the USFRA’s poll findings were consistent with what the Packard survey found:

• 79 percent of consumers said “producing healthy choices… is very important for farmers and ranchers to consider when planning farming and ranching practices.”
• 70 percent said their shopping decisions are affected by how food is grown and raised, although 72 percent said they “know nothing or very little” about it.
• 73 percent of consumers were satisfied with the availability of healthy foods and 66 percent are satisfied with food safety standards, but, 42 percent said the U.S. is “off on the wrong track in the way we produce food,” as against 39 percent who said it’s “heading in the right direction.”
• the five top topics consumers wanted more information about are, in order: how chemicals are used; how pesticides are used; food safety standards; effect of government regulations, and; how antibiotics are used/genetic engineering in crops.
• according to an account in the online Hagstrom report, 42 percent of the consumers polled said the way food is produced has improved in the last 10 years, but 37 percent said it has worsened.
• of those who said it has worsened, 1-in-5 cited its “environmental impact.”

If you want to influence how the next five years of farm policy are written, arm yourself with the Packard Poll results and head on over to EWG’s food and farm bill action center, where you can tell Congress that you won’t stand for industrial agriculture’s hold on the food system anymore.

Originally published on Environmental Working Group

Yoplait yogurt, the 19th largest dairy processor in the country, announced today that by August of this year, all Yoplait branded products will be made with milk that is 100 percent farmer certified to come from cows not treated with rbGH (or recombinant bovine growth hormone) an artificial hormone also known as rbST (recombinant bovine somatotropin).

In an e-mail announcement sent out Friday, Yoplait noted that it’s the first leading yogurt brand to go “rbGH-free,” which may come as a surprise to companies such as Stonyfield, Nancy’s, Cascade Fresh, Brown Cow, and other organic industry leaders, all of which have been in the forefront of the movement to reject the synthetic hormone in milk products.

“It’s an honor to welcome them into the no-rbGH club,” said Gary Hirschberg, the Stonyfield CE-Yo. “Better Yo-Late than Yo-Never.” In 1993, Stonyfield was the first dairy in the U.S. to secure agreements with milk suppliers not to use artificial hormones like rbGH (trade name Posilac) soon after it was introduced.

The use of rbGH has been linked to increased rates of infections in dairy cows, elevated antibiotic use, and unresolved questions about its links to serious human health risks, including cancer. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and all 25 members of the European Union have banned the use of rbGH, and the Codex Alimentarius, the United Nations’ main food safety body, twice decided that it could not endorse the safety of rbGH for human health.

In case you can’t recall why U.S. companies have been pumping cows full of this junk for 16 years, just a small reminder that rbGH was brought to us by Monsanto, which has much sway in our government. (For the seminal article on the chemical giant, read the piece in Vanity Fair.) And, in yet another winning decision by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the agency gave its seal of approval, despite serious questions about the safety of rbGH.

According to the Breast Cancer Action (BCA), when rbGH is injected into a cow, that cow’s milk will contain higher amounts of another powerful hormone called insulin growth factor 1 (IGF-1). IGF-1 is natural and necessary, but too much of it may cause health problems. Studies have shown that elevated levels of IGF-1 in humans may increase the risk of breast cancer. More research is needed to better understand whether the elevated levels of IGF-1 in milk make their way into our bloodstream. Although it hasn’t yet been proven that the use of rbGH will definitively lead to breast cancer, BCA notes that the current evidence is cause for concern and for action.

Slight problem: Yoplait, owned by General Mills, marketed its yogurt as being healthy for women, and participated in breast cancer awareness projects, including pledging a 10-cent donation to a breast cancer organization for every pink lid consumers mailed back to the company.  Because Yoplait yogurt was made with milk from cows injected with rbGH, there was a contradiction in their message.

Yoplait’s move away from rbGH can be linked in large part to the BCA’s Think Before You Pink campaign—which demands transparency and accountability on the part of companies that align themselves with breast cancer and urges companies to do all they can to ensure their products don’t contribute to the high rates of the disease. BCA uses the term “pinkwashing” to describe companies, like Yoplait, that participated in breast cancer fundraising or “awareness” campaigns but manufactured products that may be linked to the disease.

One of the reasons the Yoplait campaign was successful is due in large part to consumer education efforts by organizations such as the Oregon chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility. “When Yoplait says that they’re dropping rbGH because of consumer demand, they’re not kidding,” said Rick North, PSR’s Project Director for Safe Food, who has been on the frontlines of this effort. “They’ve received thousands of postcards from all over the country opposing rbGH and also letters from hospitals and colleges expressing their displeasure with the hormone. This was not only the right thing for them to do, it was the smart thing.”

As it turns out, Americans don’t want their milk messed with. A recent Consumers Union poll [PDF] revealed that 70 percent of consumers polled are concerned about dairy cows being given synthetic growth hormones and 93 percent of consumers agree that dairies that produce milk and milk products without artificial growth hormones should be allowed to label their products as being free of these hormones.

Consumer demand for rbGH-free dairy led big retailers like Wal-Mart, Krogers, Starbucks, Tillamook, Safeway and Chipotle Restaurants to get on the milk wagon and phase out the hormone in all of their dairy products. California Dairies, Inc., which produces nearly 10 percent of the nation’s milk, went rbGH-free last year. And, by the end of summer 2009, the New England dairy industry will be rbGH-free as well.

Faced with dwindling sales of rbGH, Monsanto tried to thwart informed consumer choice by pressuring the FDA and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to restrict labeling of such products as “rbGH-free.” That didn’t work out too well, so Monsanto and their supporters launched a state-by-state assault attempting to ban or restrict rbGH-free labeling in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, Indiana, Kansas, Utah, and Missouri. So far, these attempts have not been successful, as dozens of farmers, environmental and consumer groups joined forces to beat them back. Still limping along, a bogus non-profit called American Farmers for the Advancement and Conservation of Technology (AFACT) was formed last year to join the battle. This “grassroots” group received funding from Monsanto and was formed by Osborne and Barr, a PR firm founded by two ex-Monsanto employees. Seems that AFACT is actually ALIE.

In the meantime, stay tuned and ready for action to make sure your favorite dairy can continue to label their products “rbGH-free”. Be sure to buy rbGH-free milk from one of the aforementioned brands, and even better, buy organic. Click on your state to find a list of rbGH-free dairy brands at Sustainable Table.