Can’t ya take a joke?!?!

I sometimes enjoy the irreverent satirical humor of The Onion and its competitor The Daily Currant.

Problem is, some people just don’t get the joke.

Several times recently I’ve needed to point out that articles being shared all over social media with accompanying incredulous comments were, indeed, a spoof. These are generally perpetuated by folks of reasonable intellect. They just tend to take things at face value and, often, overreact.

This sort of behavior makes things like Chipotle’s recent foray into on-line television programming potentially more destructive. No doubt, there will be an element of the on-line community that mistakes these offerings as documentary evidence that those “big ag” folks are up to no good.

When these things start getting passed around with the “Look what they’re doing to us now!!!” comments, the ag community needs to be prepared to appropriately respond, not by attacking either the burrito barons or their unwitting accomplices but by providing context, acknowledging that Chipotle’s just trying to be humorous and sell some product. Product, by the way, that is made with ingredients not remarkably different than anyone else. In fact, the chain sometimes runs short of the stuff they usually use and resorts to sourcing ingredients from conventional agriculture. It seems at that point they would just shut down to preserve their “integrity,” but that’s not a call for me to make.

So be ready to gently intervene, but please stop short of saying something like “Aww, it’s all in fun!”

It’s not.

In fact, there’s really not one funny thing about it.

Let’s clear the air about Farm Dust

Rep. Kristi Noem (R-S.D.)

If supporting US Representative Kristi Noem’s HR 1633: Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act of 2011 makes me a conspiracy theorist, then I’m in good company.  Most of the major agriculture organizations in the country have supported this measure.  It all boils down to a basic mistrust of the EPA who, during the current administration, have grown even more heavy handed in their regulatory zeal, most of it aimed at farmers and ranchers.

I’m really not sure why the regulators and environmentalists are so afraid of this measure, except for their innate and irrational fear and loathing of “big ag,” whatever that is.

According to the Library of Congress summary, the measure

Prohibits the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from  proposing, finalizing, implementing, or enforcing any regulation revising the national primary ambient air quality standard or the national secondary ambient air quality standard applicable to particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter greater than 2.5 micrometers under the Clean Air Act (CAA) for one year.

Exempts nuisance dust from the CAA and excludes nuisance dust from references in such Act to particulate matter, except with respect to geographic areas where such dust is not regulated under state, tribal, or local law if the Administrator finds that: (1) nuisance dust (or any subcategory of nuisance dust) causes substantial adverse public health and welfare effects at ambient concentrations; and (2) the benefits of applying CAA standards and other requirements to such dust outweigh the costs.

Defines “nuisance dust” as particulate matter: (1) generated from natural sources, unpaved roads, agricultural activities, earth moving, or other activities typically conducted in rural areas; or (2) consisting primarily of soil, other natural or biological materials, windblown dust, or some combination thereof.

So the administration of “nuisance dust” under 1633 would be a local or state matter.  It would also mean that the claims of health hazards presented by dust would need to be substantiated rather than supposed.

Massachusetts Rep. Ed Markey’s opening statement in the Energy and Commerce Committee where the bill was introduced, stated “There is no plan to regulate farm dust anymore than there is to regulate fairy dust.”  If the regulation of farm dust is such a myth, why would you want block this resolution?  All it really does is ensure that the EPA can’t go back on the pledge of EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to Senate Ag Committee chair Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)  that she would propose keeping the current standard for particulate-matter pollution.

How about if we look at it as sort of a good faith insurance policy?