Thursday, March 19, 2015

Nutrients Are Pesticides: The Dose Makes The Poison

Most people find it odd that I am a Registered Dietitian who is licensed as a commercial pesticide applicator. I actually find it quite advantageous because what I studied in my nutrition degrees both undergrad and grad school, applies across multiple biological systems, not just human systems, but soil and plant systems too. Because I have a solid understanding of the science of nutrition, I therefore have a solid understanding of the science of pesticides. Many of the nutrients I studied as an RD, have applications as pesticides.

Paracelsus was correct when he coined the term "The dose makes the poison". 

First, lets start with some definitions:

Nutrient: "Chemical substances obtained from food and used in the body to provide energy, structural materials, and regulating agents to support growth, maintenance and repair of teh body's tissues. Nutrients may also reduce the risk of some diseases" Whitney & Rolfe, Understanding Nutrition, 9th edition (yes I know, my copy is dated. This is the one I used to tutor undergrads during grad school, not my copy as an undergrad!)

Pesticide: A pesticide is a chemical used to prevent, destroy, or repel pests. (EPA)

Any chemical can be toxic, whether its natural or synthetic, depending on how much you eat, drink or absorb. Nutrients are the chemicals make up of food. 

Nutrients in high doses work as pesticides to control bacteria, fungi, molds and mildews, mainly in fruit and vegetable crops. Nutrients are typically used as protectant fungicides, meaning they are used proactively before disease appears to protect the foliage of the plant. Remember from high school biology how important photosynthesis is in the growth and development of a plant? Without foliage, or if foliage is damaged from mildews, a plant cannot photosynthesize efficiently. Photosynthesis is the process that converts sunlight into energy (carbohydrates). Photosynthesis is required for fruits and vegetables to ripen. Without sufficient foliage on the plant, grapes wouldn't ripen and turn sweet, tomatoes wouldn't turn red, watermelon wouldn't get sweet and pink, strawberries wouldn't turn red and sweet. Fungicides, in the form of nutrients like sulfur, copper, zinc, and manganese protect the plant in advance of any disease. They are not "treatments" and do not work after a plant has developed a disease, they only work to protect the plant from developing the disease. 

First, let's look at the recommended dietary intake of nutrients for humans:


Nutrient
RDA
UL
Major functions:
Zinc
8-11 mg/d
40 mg/d
Cellular metabolism
Protein synthesis
Wound healing
Cell division
DNA synthesis
Manganese
1.8-2.3 mg/d
11 mg/d
Activates many enzymes that are critical to metabolism, bone development, and wound healing.
Copper
700-900 µg/d
5000-10000 µg/d
Critical in the function of enzymes that control energy production, connective tissue formation, and iron metabolism.
Sulfur
No RDA-Metabolic
breakdown of the
recommended intake for
protein and sulfur amino
acids should provide
adequate inorganic sulfate
for synthesis of required sulfur-containing
compounds.
No UL
The body does not use sulfur as a nutrient by itself. Contributes to protein structure. Acts as a bridge between amino acids in hormones like insulin.

Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA): average daily level of intake sufficient to meet the nutrient requirements of nearly all (97%-98%) healthy people.

Tolerable Upper Intake Level (UL): maximum daily intake unlikely to cause adverse health effects.


Next, let's look at the recommended application rates of these nutrients as pesticides as approved by EPA:

Pesticide
Rate/Acre
Oral LD50
Controls For:(grapes/tomatoes)
Zinc
3-4 lb/acre
1400 mg/kg
Phomopsis, Black Rot, Botrytis, Downy Mildew
Manganese
1-4 lb/acre
5000 mg/kg
Anthracnose, Early Blight, Late blight, Bunch rot, Downy mildew
Copper
0.75 – 1.75 lb/acre
1847 mg/kg
Downy Mildew, bacterial spot, anthracnose,
Sulfur
3-20 lb/acre
2000 mg/kg
Powdery Mildew, spotted mite, red spider mite.

For comparison purposes - Vitamin D is highly toxic with an LD50 of 10 mg/kg, whereas table salt (sodium chloride) has an LD50 of 3000 mg/kg.

What is LD50?

Oral LD50An LD50 is a standard measurement of acute toxicity that is stated in milligrams (mg) of pesticide per kilogram (kg) of body weight. An LD50 represents the individual dose required to kill 50 percent of a population of test animals (e.g., rats, fish, mice, cockroaches). Because LD50 values are standard measurements, it is possible to compare relative toxicities among pesticides. The lower the LD50 dose, the more toxic the pesticide.
A pesticide with an LD50 value of 10 mg/kg is 10 times more toxic than a pesticide with an LD50 of 100 mg/kg.
We went from milligrams per day as a recommended dietary allowance to pounds per acre to control for disease. The vastly escalated dose converted these nutrients from dietary healthfulness into effective pesticides. 
You can see, although these pesticides are "natural", as in nutrients, they are still toxic. By definition, a pesticide must kill or control something. 
There is no such thing as a nontoxic pesticide. 
Here is a good graphic that depicts the toxicity of natural versus synthetic pesticides:
Sense About Science
If this topic is of interest to you, I recommend these excellent additional readings:
As an RD, I know these nutrients are essential for health and wellness in our diets.
As a pesticide applicator, I know these pesticides are essential for the health and wellness of my fruit and vegetable crops.
The nutrients in your multi-vitamin are not toxic but these nutrients are not edible at the pesticide dose.
The dose makes the poison. 

Saturday, February 21, 2015

Dietary Guidelines & Sustainability: 25 Years Late To The Party

As both an RD and a farmer, I've been following the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee's (DGAC) work with great interest. Since Thursday's release of the committee's recommendations for the 2015 Dietary Guidelines, there has been much chatter on social media about what's "in" (cholesterol & caffeine) and what's "out"(saturated fats, added salt & sugar). But my real interest is in their inclusion of "sustainable diet" in their recommendations, so I downloaded Chapter 5 hoping for "something new" to the discussion of food production as it interplays with nutrition and health. I was most disappointed. I'm really taking off my RD hat and looking at this chapter from a farmer's perspective.

I think the dietary guidelines advisory committee is 25 years late to the party.....

Congress addressed sustainability in the food and farming system as far back as the 1990 Farm Bill. Under the law of the 1990 Farm Bill, the term sustainable agriculture means

"an integrated system of plant and animal production practices having site specific application that will, over the long term:

  • satisfy human food and fiber needs.
  • enhance environmental quality and the natural resource base upon which the agricultural economy depends.
  • make the most efficient use of nonrenewable resources and on-farm resources and integrate, where appropriate, natural biological cycles and controls.
  • sustain the economic viability of farm operations
  • enhance the quality of life for farmers and society as a whole."


From what I read, the DGAC did not acknowledge the 25 year old Congressional definition anywhere in the chapter on Food Sustainability and Safety. Instead they offered a modified Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) definition:

"Sustainable diets: Sustainable diets are a pattern of eating that promotes health and well-being and provides food security for the present population while sustaining human and natural resources for future generations.

Food Security: Food security exists when all people now, and in the future, have access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food to maintain a healthy and active life."

The document continued by offering the following graphic:

Source: Scientific Report of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, Chapter 5, Food Sustainability and Safety
This graphic is interesting when compared to the 1990 Farm Bill definition because it basically mirrors what was implemented 25 years ago. What the DGAC is saying is we now need to move toward sustainability in  these new dietary guidelines.

What the DGAC is missing is that US farmers have already been moving along the sustainability continuum. We got the message 25 years ago and have been doing our due diligence to ensure that our food and farming system is both resilient and sustainable. 

So over the last 25 years, what has happened in our food and farming system to improve sustainability? According to the USDA annual Agriculture Resource Management Survey (ARMS)
  • Use of commercial fertilizers and pesticides has been declining in recent years, due to improvements in technology. 
  • Adoption of "best management practices" (BMPs) in fertilizer use (rate, timing and application method to conserve the resource and maximize plant uptake) has increased. A full 35% of all cropland has met ALL 3 nutrient BMPs, and a significant portion of remaining cropland has some BMP practice implemented.
  • US Farmers have increase resource efficiency, producing more food on less land with fewer inputs.
  • There are 96 million acres of cropland planted in no-till farming systems and that percentage has been increasing over time at a rate of 1% per year (Howard G. Buffet Foundation).
  • According to the Conservation Tillage Information Center, 109 million acres of the 239 million acres of US cropland practice conservation agriculture. 
  • As a result of conservation tillage, soil health has improved. Erosion has declined, microbial life has increased, and we are on track to making continuous quality improvements as a whole. 
Source: The Food & Agriculture Organization

These statistics were confirmed by the metrics analyzed by the Field to Market report which looks at national sustainability trends in US agriculture (also not referenced by the DGAC). Which perhaps behooves the question: were the experts were not aware that the 1990 Farm Bill defined sustainable agriculture, and why did they not use the plethora of data and statistics on sustainability practices from the agency charged with implementing the Dietary Guidelines (USDA),

But you ask, what about livestock? This is the crux of what the DGAC focused on in their call for American's to lower their meat consumption. That a meat-based diet consumes more resources than a plant based diet. 

Source: Animal Agriculture Alliance
There has been great improvement in the resources animal agriculture once used compared to today's production. Farmers and ranchers are producing more food with less resources than in decades past. While the DGAC fingers agriculture, specifically livestock, as contributing "up to 30% of human-generated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the data shows otherwise: 

Source: USDA Economic Research Service
According to the EPA "Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2012",  agriculture represents 10% of the GHG contribution. Where did the DGAC get 30%? Obviously not from the EPA. 

So am I saying that agriculture isn't a factor in the loss of resources? No, we're part of the problem, as is all human activity. We are also part of the solution.

Am I saying that agriculture has done its part? No, we have more to do. Science and research will direct the way for us to continue along the sustainability continuum. 

Am I saying that the DGAC should not consider sustainability in the dietary guidelines? I think that if this section of the recommendations remains in the final guidelines, it will need to be validated by experts in the field of agriculture and sustainability.

So I applaud the DGAC for the work they have done. It was no doubt a huge undertaking. As an RD and a mom, I appreciate the emphasis on eating more fruits and vegetables, increasing whole grains, things that we have known and continue to strive for. But I am disappointed in their lack of recognition of how far agriculture has come in the last 25 years moving our food and farming system greatly along the sustainability continuum. Sustainability is part of our daily lives on our family farms. As I blogged about last summer, Stewardship is our middle name. The DGAC came a little late to the party.


Saturday, January 31, 2015

Writer's Block

I have several topics I've started and deleted this month. Nothing is flowing. I don't write unless it flows. If someone wants to lob a question or suggest a topic they want me to write about that may unstuck my writer's block, I'd be appreciative :)
Jennie

Monday, December 29, 2014

GMO versus NonGMO: The Cost of Production

Recently I was asked to answer a question on GMO Answers regarding what the productions costs are comparing GMO and nonGMO crops. For my family farm, that specifically means corn or soybeans. The hay including alfalfa, tomatoes, green beans, and grapes have not been genetically engineered, they are "conventional" or traditional hybrids from other means of plant breeding.

Answering the question in terms of costs necessitates the entire picture of yield and price per bushel, otherwise a farmer would have an incomplete picture by which to make business decisions that impact the sustainability of the family farm. The other critical piece that folks don't seem to grasp is the market demand in various regions. Farmers grow what there is demand for, plain and simple. What markets are available in our region and the products they want from farmers. Economics 101. We don't grow what we can't sell. For us, there is greater demand for GMO derived feed and imgredients than there is for nonGMO feed and ingredients. Strange isn't it? You haven't heard that before have you? The media would lead you to believe otherwise, but the media aren't connected to the farm community or its markets. If you are believing only what you read in the media, then you are not seeing the entire picture, just a very small slice of their pie, so to speak.

The data below is our data, no one else's data. We can't make sustainable business decisions based on hypotheticals or someone else's data. We make decisions for our farm based on our outcomes and experiences. These figures are not everyone else's figures. These figures do not extrapolate to our neighbors or farmers in other regions or states. These figures are what drives our decision making and choices for the coming year. If the market changes, we change our decision making process. If yield or costs change, we change our decision making process. In the end, our goal is to have healthy soils producing healthy foods and have a sustainable family farm to leave for the next generation.

GMO vs NonGMO Production Comparison

Will Rogers is credited with the quote: "The farmer has to be an optimist or he wouldn't still be a farmer."  Optimistically, each winter we review our harvest data comparing our crop yield by variety to our cost of production for that crop that season, in consideration of the type of growing season we had, in order to decide what seeds to purchase for the coming season.

Since 1998, we have been growing both GM and non-GM corn and soybeans. (We don’t actually use the term “GM” or “GMO” since all domesticated crops have been genetically modified, but am using the acronym for the sake of this audience). We run the numbers ever year for every variety and every crop because that’s the only way to run any successful business. We collect the data on what worked and what didn’t work and make changes and improvements or what many businesses call “continuous quality improvement.”

2014 Corn Production Non-Irrigated

Cost Per Acre
Non BT Corn
BT Corn
Seed
$65
$114
Fertilizer
$123
$123
Herbicide
$40
$21
Crop Insurance
$40
$40
Fertilizer Application
$7.50
$7.50
Planting
$28
$28
Nitrogen Application
$9.50
$9.50
Pesticide Application
$9.00
$9.00
Harvest
$28.00
$28.00
Hauling
$25.00
$25.00
Drying
$60
$60
Land Rent
$150
$150
Total Cost of Inputs
$585/ac
$615/ac
BPA=bushels per acre
186 BPA
221 BPA
Current cash price/bu
(Salisbury, MD)
$4.01
$4.01
Gross Income/ac
$745.86
$886.21
Net Income Difference
$161
$271


2014 Soybean Production Non-Irrigated

Cost Per Acre
Non-GMO for Food
GMO for Feed
GMO for Seed
GMO High Oleic

Seed
$41
$53
$53
$53

Fertilizer
$21
$21
$21
$21
Herbicide
$40
$18
$18
$18
Crop Insurance
$32
$32
$32
$32
Fertilizer application
$7.50
$7.50
$7.50
$7.50
Planting
$20
$20
$20
$20
Pesticide application
$18
$18
$18
$18
Harvest
$28
$28
$28
$28
Hauling
$9
$9
$9
$9
Land Rent
$150
$150
$150
$150
Total Cost of Inputs
$366.50
$356.50
$356.50
$356.50
Bushels/Ac (BPA)
35 BPA
50 BPA
50 BPA
55 BPA
Price/Bushel
$12.25
$9.60
$11.50
$11.25
Gross Income
$429
$480
$575
$619
Net Income Difference
$62
$124
$219
$263

The first year we planted Bt corn was 2000. As you can see from the chart below, it has out-performed conventional corn every single year. What is most noteworthy however, is the importance of its performance in unfavorable growing years.  We had drought conditions from 2010-2012. A healthy crop is a more productive crop and in bad years, that can make the biggest difference to the financial sustainability of the family farm. I previously had included our organic corn data in this chart but have since removed it. We grew conventional, biotech, and organic corn simultaneously but stopped our organic production in 2011. It average was below 50 bushels per acre and makes a very poor comparison. We decertified our organic ground and for that reason, I no longer include the data.

Corn (non-irrigated)
2000
2004

2010
(slight drought)


2011
(drought & hurricane)

2012
(drought)
2013
2014
Biotech  Acres
10
276
573
397
464
290
275
Avg Yield BPA
171
182
110
44
111
214
220
Conventional Acres
647
415
195
213
261
75
200
Avg Yield BPA
165
167
91
18
57
202
186
Biotech/Bt
Yield Advantage
6.4
15
19
26
54
12
34
Price/Bu
$2.35
$2.55
$5.18
$6.47
$7.40
$4.41
$4
Net income difference
Due to yield
$15.04
$38.25
$98.42
$168.22
$399.60
$53
$136

Likewise in our soybean production history, we have consistently experienced a better yield in our GM soy over our non-GM soy. We grow four “classes” of soy: soy for food, soy for feed, soy for seed, and a specialty GM bean High Oleic (HO) acid beans. The HO beans go for feed but the oil that is extracted is used in baking and frying which eliminates the trans-fatty acids from using hydrogenated soybean oil as an ingredient. These beans are kept segregated and true to their variety in order to have the highest quality HO oil from the extraction process.

Soybeans (dryland)
1998
2000
2005 
2010
(slight drought)
2011
(drought
& hurricane)
2012
(drought)
2013
2014
Biotech Acreage
195
322
416
270
522
527
200
300
Yield bu/a
54.2
50.3
53.5
46
37
43
48
55
Conventional Acreage
156
184
213
306
750
675
175
100
Yield bu/a
48.2
43.2
46.3    
36
34
36
25
35
Yield Difference
6 bu
7.1 bu
7.2 bu
10 bu
3 bu
7 bu
23
20
Price/Bushel
$6.90
$6.62
$7.25
$11.30
$12.52
$14.55
$13.55
$11.25
Income Difference/
Acre
$41.40  
 $47.00  
$52.20
$113.00
$37.56
$101.85
$312
$225

Even when there is a premium involved with growing a non-GM grain, due to better yields, GM has out-performed non-GM on our farm every year. We have experienced higher yields in all of our GM crops in the nearly 17 years we have been using the seeds. We grow what we have market access to sell in our region. Our choice to buy seed is based on the success of various seeds we have tried and well as University research conducted in our area. We don’t pay attention to data that comes from other growing regions in the US because it generally isn’t relevant to the conditions we experience. We use a “prove it” mentality in that we will give a seed a try on a limited number of acres and do our own compare and contrast to our other fields. Our decision making is balanced by diversity of the markets we can access, the demand within those markets, and the productivity that we have seen for ourselves to justify which type of seeds to plant each and every year.

As I said at the beginning, these are our costs and our production figures. Don't assume they are the same for all farmers. They are not.


Wednesday, November 26, 2014

Is that not #RealFood?

Despite being the biggest producer of grains as well as fruits and vegetables in the State of Maryland, the Eastern Shore farming community has seemingly been labeled as not "real food farming."

Last week, the Baltimore Sun ran an article by reporter Dan Rodricks about the purchase of a Kent County farm using tax payer funded "Program Open Space" monies which was discussed by the Board of Public Works who approves such purchases. Besides the fact that the State paid $2.8 million or nearly $11,000/acre, nearly $5000 per acre more than current farmland values, it was also proposed that the farm be leased directly to a lawyer/farmer for $1 per year, bypassing the otherwise required statewide competitive bidding process required for any of the rest of us Maryland farmers to lease state-owned land. The land would be used as part of a "Food Hub" nonprofit also supported by this lawyer turned farmer who has been a noted financial backer to the Democratic party. Thus the Comptroller deemed the deal "sleazy".

My issue is not about the purchase of the farm though do question why outgoing Governor O'Malley would waste taxpayer dollars by paying such a ridiculous amount for farmland. (And go on about how the State out-competes farmers by paying exorbitant prices that would never cash-flow a farming operation and disadvantages farmers by giving landowners artificial economic value.) Rather, my issue is with  the premise that there is a lack of "real food" grown on the Eastern Shore. I dispute the notion that there is not "real food farming" here on the Delmarva. If you are a Marylander who never gets off of Route 50 on your way to the beach in the summer, then maybe that is your impression. Or if you're an urbanite who doesn't know a lima bean from a soybean plant or sweet corn from field corn, you may have no idea what you see as you drive past our farms. If you have never talked to a farmer except at a farmer's market, you may not know the sheer volume of "real food" grown here because farmers like me, do not sell to consumers, but sell directly to companies who make products like spaghetti sauce or who distribute directly to the grocery store.

 The full article is linked here: "Behind 'sleazy' deal, a good idea about food." 

My issue with the "good idea about food" is this (emphasis mine). The article says:

"Separate from the Wick Farm deal, Braver wants to lease land from the town of Easton, in Talbot County, and build a large warehouse-style building where Eastern Shore farmers can bring their fruits, vegetables and meats to be distributed and sold throughout the region. She also wants to create an apprenticeship program for new farmers who will grow things people eat.

Right now, of course, that kind of farming — farmers' market farming — is dwarfed by the soy, corn and wheat farming that goes on here, along with dairy and Big Chicken.


Braver, an organic farmer, thinks we need to move to real-food farming for a bunch of good reasons: Fresh, local food is healthier, in part because it doesn't have to travel as far to market; it doesn't require as much fossil fuel to ship. We could put more Marylanders to work growing our own, right in our own backyard, and eventually become more "food secure" — that is, less reliant on produce or protein grown or raised hundreds of miles away.

"Currently, just 3 percent of the country's farmland is used to grow and harvest fruit and vegetable crops," Braver says, "And it's less than 2.5 percent in Maryland. We are not creating our own food. We want to expand real-food production on the Eastern Shore."



.....As if real-food production doesn't already exist on the Eastern Shore....?

First a few statistics using the 2012 USDA Ag Census:

Between the 9 Eastern Shore Counties, there are 30,023 acres of vegetables and nearly 700 orchard acres. This does not include 200 or so acres of winegrapes that have taken root on the Shore over the last 10 years or so. This doesn't include greenhouse production of which there is quite a bit as well.

By value, fruits and veges add up to a very nice diversification for quite a few farmers. Combining the 9 Eastern Shore counties, the value of fruits and veggies produced on nearly 31,000 acres is over $46 million. Those are some real dollar values to "grow things people eat."

So to illustrate this, here are some folks who "grow things people eat" right here on the Eastern Shore, many who have been at it for generations. 

My farm grew 7.21 million pounds of Roma tomatoes for spaghetti sauce & stewed tomatoes. Furmano's distribution is through the MidAtlantic and East Coast.
Is that not 
#RealFood?
Chesapeake Fields Farmers Cooperative grow 5.4 million pounds of soybeans for tofu each year. These soybeans are sold to Asian food processors in DC, Baltimore, Philly, NYC & Boston markets.
 
Is that not #RealFood

The article goes onto note that the Delmarva will be the future source of food for the New York City region.... So Columbia University's Earth Institute apparently is unaware of the current food distribution along the East Coast to know that this is already happening.
My friend Hannah who farms in Caroline County, grew 10 million pounds of cucumbers this year which end up as pickles and pickled products in Vlasic, Mt. Olive, and B&G pickles. These are brands with national and regional regional distribution.
Is that not #RealFood?


Picture
Chesapeake Greenhouse grows hydroponic lettuce, 42,000 heads per rotation, year round.
Is that not #RealFood?
Warwick Mushroom Farm in Kent County picks 500,000 pounds of mushrooms per week.
A half million pounds of mushrooms every week!
Is that not #RealFood?
1773 Maryland farmers grow soft red wheat at a $86 million value and supplies Auntie Anne's
with flour for their pretzel dough.
Is that not #RealFood?
Lisa and Tom Godfrey, owners of Godfrey's Farm-Locally Grown Fresh Fruit, Vegetables, Flowers & Plants in Sudlersville, Maryland
Photo: Edwin Remsberg
Godfrey's Vegetable Farm who are my neighbors in Sudlersville grow over 250 acres of fruits and vegetables including asparagus, cantaloupe, peaches, peppers, strawberries, sweet corn, tomatoes, and watermelon and sell whole sale to grocers like Whole Foods in Annapolis. 
Is that not #RealFood?




Arnold Farms, outside Crumpton in Queen Anne's County grows 350 acres of vegetables including sweet corn, eggplant, squash and sells to Whole Foods and Giant.
Is that not #RealFood?




Every year we grow nearly 200 acres of green beans.  This year we grew 22,500 bushels of fresh green beans which are distributed up and down the East Coast  from Florida to Maine and states in between and a variety of grocery stores. In addition we donated 2000 pounds of green beans to the Maryland Food Bank's Farm to Food Bank program providing fresh produce to food bank recipients.
Is that not #RealFood?


Later in the article, it says
"We could put more Marylanders to work growing our own, right in our own backyard, and eventually become more "food secure" — that is, less reliant on produce or protein grown or raised hundreds of miles away.

 So as to not leave my livestock farming friends out because sourcing local protein should not be a problem for consumers....
Photo: Edwin Remsberg
My friend Jen and her family operate one of the few hog farms left in the region. They produce about 2.5 million pounds of pork sold throughout the MidAtlantic and NorthEast region.
Is that not #RealFood?


Photo:Edwin Remsberg
My other friend Jenny and her sons raise broiler chickens, which are mentioned in the article as "Big Chicken". Her farm produces about 2 million pounds of chicken each year. One of the many ways farmers diversify is to add poultry barns in order to have a revenue stream that allows for the next generation of young farmers to return home and make a living farming.

So 

A. Is that not #RealFood?

and

B. Is that not how we raise up the next generation of family farmers by affording them a way to return to the farm?



Are we Eastern Shore farmers not already "growing things people eat"?
I grow #RealFood.