What is the connection between what you eat and how you feel?
Does the way an animal or crop is raised impact its nutritional value?
How are farming methods contributing to environmental problems and human health issues?
These questions and others like them represent the crossroads of agriculture and public health, that complex interdependency between what we eat and how it is raised with our individual and collective well-being.
They are the kinds of questions that seem to be popping up more and more, from the mainstream press to scientific journals and trade publications.
But clearly the frequency of the questions does not mean we have answers. In fact, as any researcher knows, most so-called answers just lead to more questions, more debate and more avenues for research.
Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.
Hey! What a rich and inviting pool you left for exploration here. Thanks!!
These connections are not new. JI Rodale started "Prevention" magazine - then soon added "Organic Gardening." This witnesses his belief in food production and health outcome relationships.
Thanks for these neat notes!
- Karl
Submitted by: Karl Schneider on November 4, 2008 09:55 PM
I take your point, Karl, that the ag-health connection isn't new, but I do see these recurring ideas as falling along a spiral. That is, we've not come back to the same point so much as we've spiraled upward. The view from here is similar, but we are further along -- at least I trust that we are.
Submitted by: Mary Ann on November 5, 2008 11:23 AM
Great point, MA! Good idea the spiral! Not in the same place, but with progress we cycle. Thanks for that positive note, :).
- K
[Note: Karl's response was originally posted as a comment to the following post on "Ag at the Polling Place." I've moved it here to continue the thread to which he is responding. -- Mary Ann]
Submitted by: Karl on November 6, 2008 10:00 AM
The gateway provides a central starting point for anyone interested in exploring the ag-public health connection. Keep up the awesome work, dude.
Submitted by: Water Damage on November 21, 2008 08:12 AM
I would like to encourage young farmers to consider diversifying their operations by adding a hydroponic green house. Growing food locally is a massive trend in the food production industry and it is being supported by corporate power houses like Walmart and many other grocery chains. Hydroponic growing uses 1/10 the amount of water and 1/10 the amount of land required to produce traditional field row crops. You can produce a crop all year long and smooth out some of the volatility that you are exposed to in other markets. I am not suggesting you change your whole operation, just trim off an acre.
Alex Tiller
http://blog.alextiller.com
Submitted by: Alex Tiller on November 26, 2008 01:42 PM
This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Who's more likely to die on the job, a firefighter or a farmer?
You're a savvy bunch, so I'm sure you correctly chose the farmer. But agriculture actually had the dubious distinction of claiming two of the top ten most dangerous jobs in America for 2006. Farmers and ranchers ranked sixth, with 37.1 fatalities per 100,000 workers, and general agricultural workers ranked tenth, with 21.7 fatalities per 100,000. [This according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. (PDF | 123 KB)]
Compare those numbers to the overall average of worker deaths on the job of 3.9 per 100,000. Agriculture is anywhere from 5.5 to 9.5 times more dangerous.
See for yourself.
Browse the results of a Google News search for the phrase "farm accident." At the time of this writing, that search yielded 39 hits from the last month alone. Even allowing for some duplication and false hits in the results, that's still a stunning rate of deaths and accidents happening on farms every day. And though the numbers will likely be different at the time you follow that link, they won't be different enough.
We're losing almost 600 people a year -- both adults and children -- to the hazards of farming, including heavy machinery, harmful chemicals, and extreme weather. Add to that the National Safety Council's estimate that agriculture contributes to another 90,000 disabling injuries, and you'll understand the need to promote farm safety and health programs.
So take a look at some of the following resources from the Library's Education and Outreach pages and other places across the Web, and spread the word about farm safety. As is often said, safety is no accident.
Lively discussions and different opinions are encouraged within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. Questionable language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and gratuitous links will either be edited or deleted. Comments are moderated and will not appear on InfoFarm until they have been approved.
The Rural Information Center also has an Agricultural Safety Web page under the Rural Health section.
Submitted by: RIC on November 8, 2007 02:23 PM
Hey, thanks, RIC. Sorry I missed it, but I'm glad you chimed in. Looks like a great page you've got there.
Submitted by: Mary Ann on November 8, 2007 03:09 PM
Mary Ann - I checked the BLS reference, but could not find the fatality rate per 100,000 workers for firefighters. In the BLS reference I did find the number of firefighter fatalities but not the fatality rate. The chart in the BLS reference that has the farming fatality rates does not include firefighter fatality rate. So, I do not see the basis for the comaprison betwen firefighters and farmers.
Submitted by: Tom on November 16, 2007 05:51 PM
Tom,
The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that there are 283,630 fire fighters in the United States.
The Bureau also indicates, as you saw, that fire fighter fatalities rose to 42 in 2006.
Given those figures, I calculated the fatality rate for fire fighters to be 14.8. (Divide 42 by 283,630; multiply the result by 100,000 to get the rate per 100,000.) That number falls well below the figures provided for farmers and other agricultural workers (37.1 and 21.7, respectively).
Of course, like all statistics, there are many ways to look at things, and even the original counting or methodology might be different. Here are two examples related to fire fighter fatalities:
With numbers that far apart, it's obvious the two organizations are counting fire fighters and fatalities very differently.
Another researcher (and former fire fighter) looked at fatality rates based on actual time "at risk," rather than just on the job. His results showed a much higher risk factor for fire fighters because he used a different process for normalizing the numbers.
Which is correct? I'm not qualified to say. That's why I left things in the number-crunching hands of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Submitted by: Mary Ann on November 19, 2007 11:27 AM
Wow. 600 people a year is an astronomical number. I knew farming was dangerous, but that really gave me some perspective. Thanks for the safety tip links.
Alex Tiller
http://blog.alextiller.com
Submitted by: Alex Tiller on May 19, 2008 07:11 PM
This blog does not represent official communications from the National Agricultural Library, the Agricultural Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.