Exposing the Gaps in GMO Facts

"GMOs are bad."  "GMOs are unsafe."  "GMOs cause cancer."  "GMOs are evil."

If you've ever said one of these phrases or heard someone say it, then allow me to let you in on a little secret... 

GMOs are changing the world for the better! 

Let's start with the basics:

What are GMOs?

    GMO stands for genetically modified organisms.  Genetically refers to the genes of the organism.  Modified refers to the fact that some factor has been changed.  And organisms refers to the living thing (crop, bacteria, fungi, plant, etc.) that received a change.

Why do we use GMOs?

    A farmer's biggest worries which could prevent a good crop yield are insects, weeds, and weather.  Weather is an unpredictable factor which cannot be controlled.  Insects and weeds however, can be controlled using genetically modified or GM crops.  This ensures a farmer can get the best yield possible out of every field they plants.

Aren't GMOs just pesticides?

    No!  GMOs are actually what a farmer uses to avoid/limit the use of pesticides.  Some GM crops are changed to help crops repel a particular type of insect that feeds on it.  Other GM plants are developed to be resistant to specific weeds, limiting the use of more weed control.

Are GMOs safe?

    Yes!  In fact, GMOs have undergone more detailed evaluations than any other group of plants that we consume.  Why?  Because ensuring the safety of the foods farmers produce is a top priority in the agriculture industry.

Do GMOs cause cancer?

    No!  Every credited study and evaluation done on GMOs has come to the same conclusion: there is no data to indicate that consumption of GMOs affects human health.

Isn't non-GMO healthier than GMO?

    They are both equally as healthy!  Currently, there are no health benefits to eating GMO products over non-GMO or vice versa.  However, with changing technology, this could change in the future as there is technology in process to create more nutritional foods using GMOs.

What about organic vs. GMO?

    The biggest difference between organic foods and GMO foods is how they are grown.  GM crops are able to avoid/limit the use of pesticides because of the GMOs they have.  Organic crops have restrictions on what they can or cannot use to ensure they can be properly labeled as organic.  For example, organic crops can still use pesticides, however, they are limited to the type they are able to use.  

Are all GMO products labeled?

    Yes, as of 2016, Congress passed a bill stating all food containing a GMO ingredient is required to have one of three types of labels to inform consumers: a statement on the package, directions to a website or a phone number, or a QR code.

So, I ask you, why do GMOs get such a bad rep?  
Why is Science so frowned upon in the Agriculture Industry but often, idealized in the rest of Society?  

ANSWER🠊 the media is one of the biggest influences on public thoughts/opinions of a controversial topic.  The media is, many times, the reason why the general public will learn to either love or hate something.  But there is one area the media lacks in... facts.  An abundance of opinions does not make a fact.  Similarly, a bunch of facts do not make an opinion but rather an educated statement.

As someone who is actively involved in the agriculture industry and understands many of the misconceptions, hidden lies, and untold truths about this necessary industry, my dedication toward agriculture only continues to grow.  I CANNOT FORCE YOU TO CHANGE YOUR MIND.  I can, however, inform and educate you and help one decipher fact from opinion.

GMOs have been making a positive impact on the agriculture industry and thus, benefiting the economy.  Sadly, misconceptions about GMOs cause controversial responses about them.  

In the past two decades GMOs have been around, GMOs have...

• reduced the use of pesticides
• increased the yields of crops
• decreased the consumer prices of foods
• enhanced nutrient composition
• provided a greater food security
• AND MORE!!

GMOs are only continuing to grow and be pursued.  New technology and sciences are constantly being worked on, all so YOU, the consumer, will have a safe, healthy, nutritious food every day.

We all want the "Best of the Best" which is why I CHALLENGE YOU to try something new!

BUY a food labeled "GMO"

RESEARCH from credited sources (I provided you with a couple that I used!)

What are GMOs  USDA GMOs & Organic

START a conversation with an Agriculturist

ASK me a question!

MAKE your own opinion about GMOs

The Fight for Our Cheese Right

 When you hear the word "Colby", what's the first thing that pops into your mind?  As a small-town girl who's traveled all over the country, I've come to make this question a staple for any new person that I meet.  And why?  Because the answer is always the same... "CHEESE."  

After living in Minnesota for the past year of college, I have become known as the "crazy cheese Wisconsinite" who judges a state by their cheese, and honestly, can you blame me?  If you've ever been to Wisconsin and tried any of our 600 varieties of cheese produced in the state, then you'll know we take our cheese very seriously.  And with every right to.

As the only state that requires a license to produce cheese, Wisconsin holds this badge of honor close to our hearts.  Not to mention, our Master Cheesemaker Program is one of two in the entire world, THE ENTIRE WORLD PEOPLE.  And this program is literally in our backyard.  Need more proof of Wisconsin's pride in its cheese?  Every Master Cheesemaker in the United States is proud to call Wisconsin their home.  That's a lot of mastery, all from the Cheese State I am happy to call home.

So if you don't know me, let me enlighten you about my cheese obsession.  I grew up just outside of the small town of Colby, right in the heart of America's Dairyland.  And a short half mile bike ride to the south, lied the ever historic, Colby Cheese Factory.  Growing up, I remember exploring through the remains of the building, wondering what it was like in its prime years.  This began the spark of my now, obsession, with cheese.

From cheese tasting at the local 4-H meetings to secretly adding cheese curds on the griddle at dairy breakfasts to making cheese in my animal science class, cheese became a huge part of my life.  Give me a slice of Colby Cheese and a slice of Cheddar, and I could tell you which is which simply on texture.  Living in my Cheese Town my whole life gave me an appreciation for cheese you just can't find anywhere else. 

It wasn't until I went to college, that I truly understood the importance of good cheese.  Ensuring I would stop at Nasonville Dairy for fresh Colby cheese curds, Marieke Gouda for gouda and Ellsworth Creamery for cheddar were all guaranteed stops as I went back to school.  

But let's focus on the main reason for even writing this, Colby Cheese.  As Wisconsin is in fact, the cheese state, it is disappointing to note that we still do not have a state cheese.  And yet, we've been making cheese in this area since the 1830s.  That's before Wisconsin even became a state!  

So where is our pride for our cheese, Wisconsin?  We boast about being the biggest producer of cheese in the country, 4th in the world, and we can't say that we have a specific cheese as Wisconsin's State Cheese.  This bill has been going on for a while now and enough is enough. 

Wisconsin Cheesemakers Association, why can't you commit?

To say you don't want Colby Cheese to be the state cheese because it will create a marketing advantage for Colby Cheese is like saying you want to get a C (when you could get an A) in a class so your friends won't know you're actually good at Calculus.  That is literally how ridiculous you sound.  

When in life were you told to make yourself dumber to conform to your friends' opinions?  Never!  And yet, we see this every day where people of all ages are conforming to society's idea of perfection to not "hurt" anyone's feelings or never show our own perspectives.  It is because of thoughts like this from people we want to look up to, that today's society crumbles under pressure.  If we cannot learn to stand up for something we care about (making Colby Cheese the state cheese), then what's the point?

To validate your argument would contradict other state symbols that are already in place.

For example,

• Are we going to argue now that milk cannot be a state beverage because it will take away sales from non-dairy alternatives?
• Are we going to complain that Polka being the official Wisconsin dance will result in no other dances being done?
• Does having the dairy cow as the official state domestic animal prevent people from raising beef cattle instead?
• Will having the American Water Spaniel as the state dog breed result in no one wanting any other breed of dog?
• Does having cranberries as our state fruit mean strawberry farmers will not be able to make it?
• Are we really going to say that having the Sugar Maple as our state tree means Pines and Birch will never be planted again?

Wisconsin Cheesemakers, these are the same as your argument.  Having a state cheese will do no more to the market than what these state symbols does for them.  Colby Cheese should be the state cheese for the same reasons these things listed above are already state symbols... because they represent the state.

And just so we're clear, I'm not fighting for Colby Cheese because I think it is the best cheese ever invented, because honestly, it's not my favorite.  I will always eat fresh Colby Cheese curds but I would be lying if I didn't tell you my favorite cheese is actually Muenster, followed by Gouda and Swiss.  No, for anyone confused, Colby Cheese should be the state cheese because of the history behind it.

To live less than a mile from the original cheese factory, to listen to that sweet squeak of a fresh Colby Cheese curd, to know that such a powerful symbol started in the small town of Colby, Wisconsin is an accomplishment all Wisconsinites should be proud to celebrate.  For me, Colby Cheese is more than just another product on the shelf.  No, when I see Colby Cheese in the store, I smile because I know it all started in the little town I call home.

When I said in the beginning that I ask strangers what "Colby" means to them, it isn't just a question.  It is a conversation starter which leads to a deeper knowledge that I want to share with the world.  Any accomplishment in life is worth celebrating and to see the way the Colby community has come together time and time again to support the things we care about, that is the real reward.  

Any true Wisconsinite will tell you, cheese is more than something we find on our Culver's Butterburger or sprinkle on literally everything, cheese is a way of life here in Wisconsin.  To deny the Dairy State, America's Dairyland, and the Cheeseheads, a symbol of the very reason we were given all these names, is a disappointment for this Wisco girl.  

Why deprive Colby Cheese of the rightful name it deserves?  What about all the good things that could come out of this?  Imagine the publicity for cheese, Wisconsin, and the agriculture economy.  Are we really willing to sacrifice a good deed for such a critical industry because a Cheesemaker thinks its a bad idea?  The community of Colby alone in favor of this act would outnumber those against this bill, and we're a really small town.

The fight for our cheese right has gone on long enough.  We are not asking for a world title (we already have that).  We, the people of Colby and many other Wisconsinites, want the recognition Colby Cheese deserves because the history needs to be preserved.  And what better way to preserve it than have it written down in legislative law?

Colby- The Official Cheese for the State of Wisconsin 

I wrote it down.  Now all we need is YOU.  Let's make this official together.  Who wants to be present at an event that will go down in history?  Who wants to make a difference in every true Wisconsinite's life.  Vote "yes" for Colby Cheese, because the history speaks for itself.

Wisconsin Lawmakers, we need your help.  Let's come together as the community we are and give a little recognition to our glorious state we are so lucky to call home.  Because who better to have the first state cheese, than the state who created its own cheese?

Mark your calendars, our hearing is July 7th, 2021.  

In Wisconsin,

    I believe in the future of agriculture.

    I believe in the necessity of community.

    I believe in representation.

    I believe in state symbols.

    I believe in small town pride.

Because no matter what the decision, I believe in Colby Cheese.

30x30... A Recommendation to a New Reality

After seeing and reading multiple articles about the 30x30 which was put into place shortly after the Biden-Harris Administration was put into office, I decided I needed to do a little digging myself, because as an advocate of agriculture and seeing the concerns this plan was putting into agriculturalists' perspectives, I too was curious then of what exactly the goal and plan of the 30x30 is.

If you haven't heard of this campaign then let me enlighten you a bit.  Technically called "Conserving and Restoring America the Beautiful", this is a preliminary report to the National Climate Task Force which recommends a ten-year, locally-led campaign to conserve and restore the lands and waters in the United States.  As many people are calling this campaign the 30x30, this is due to the goal to conserve at least 30% of our lands and waters by 2030.

While reading through this campaign, it was interesting to note how many times the words recommendation, locally-led, and voluntarily were used in this campaign.  

• For the amount of so-called "recommendations" this campaign had discussed, nothing was really put into words on what exactly was going to be done to help conserve our lands and waters.  You can read a lot on the "why" we should conserve and work to help this campaign succeed but if you don't understand that many wildlife are endangered, many habitats are being lost, and many environments are dying all due to pollution, then you clearly live under a rock.  Pollution and lack of care by Americans is what has led this country to the state we are in today so by stating multiple times that "we recommend that we conserve our lands and waters" may sound good to the average American, you really aren't saying much of anything.
• The reason there were so many "recommendations" was because the goal of this campaign is the leaders want it "locally-led."  Every need to conserve stated in the campaign, was followed by the want for locally-led programs.  Now in some communities, who already use conservation practices, this locally-led idea will work out perfectly.  However, for communities who do not practice any type of conservation as it is, what makes these leaders think they will sporadically start that now?  
• Based on the little research I've done on this topic, the biggest concern many farmers have with this campaign is the idea of "voluntarily" supporting this campaign.  As it was addressed many times in the campaign, the leaders want farmers, ranchers, forest owners, and others to get involved through voluntarily actions.  Many, however, are concerned that these efforts may turn forceful as to achieve their desired percentages by 2030.  Other articles I read concerning this campaign quoted farmers speaking about their concerns of how those who don't want to participate could be forced or incentivized into participating, which for many seemed unethical.
  

While reading the introduction of the campaign, some keys notes stuck out to me.  When addressing the three main problems they hope to resolve, it was interesting to note "roughly half of the riparian ecosystems and wetlands in the lower 48 states have already been lost, while more than 17,000 square miles of ranchland and farmland were lost to development or fragmented in the last two decades."  This statement clearly addresses the fact that the loss of conservative land is too often due to development.  The sad part is developed land equivalates to around only 3 percent of the land in the United States.

So let's break this down.  If only 3 percent of U.S. land is developed, what is the rest used for?  Around 40 percent of U.S. land is used for agriculture purposes including farmland, grazing and pastures, and crops although this number has decreased drastically over the past few decades.  Currently around 12 percent of U.S. land is protected, which consists of forests and national parks.  The remaining around 45 percent of U.S. land is undeveloped.  Based off of these numbers, one would think it shouldn't be too difficult to get that 12 percent of protected land up to 30 in one decade, but it really depends on where that additional land is getting pulled from.

President Biden is quoted with saying "America's farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners have an important role to play in combating the climate crisis and reducing greenhouse gas emissions by sequestering carbon in soils, grasses, trees, and other vegetation and sourcing sustainable bioproducts and fuels."  Here's my issues with this statement:

• Why do only farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners have a role with climate crisis and reducing greenhouse gasses?  
• Are we honestly blaming the agriculturalists for all these issues when this industry isn't the number one for the cause of pollution, climate crisis, and greenhouse gasses?
• Can we talk about all the farmland that's been lost in the past few decades due to being developed for urban use?

Another issue to point out in the introduction is where they stated, "in too many neighborhoods and communities across America, families are finding too few close-to-home opportunities to safely enjoy the outdoors."  The sad part being, this was never looked at as an issue until the entire American population was forced to stay inside.  Americans never had a problem with staying indoors when they were never told they couldn't go outside.  But as soon as the pandemic started, suddenly many cities and less priviledged and/or undeveloped communities are complaining or finally want to address the issues of not having any parks, open areas, and safe places to go outside.

As someone who comes from a rural background, always having a place to go outside was never an issue.  A park, a field, a neighbor's house, or a background offers easy access in rural communities to get the needed fresh air even before the pandemic started.  Even after living in a very suburban area for a year, I still found many parks and trails to use to my advantage.  I will agree that yes, there is a lack of outdoor recreational areas in certain places, but more times than not, people aren't even taking advantage of these places.  Give this five years, and I guarantee the campgrounds will never be packed like they were last year and this year.  

This campaign for America the Beautiful could be a good idea and it could benefit the United States.  However, the outline which was put in place on how to go about this campaign needs some work.  Recommendations don't go very far in a plan when there is no set plan in place.  These officials are leaving it up to the locals to lead America to a better place.  Although the general idea of this makes sense, it leaves much open, blank space.  

With no direct definition of how these recommendations will become a reality and simple stating we need to conserve more of America's lands and waters, no progress is being made.  I understand the farmer's concern of not knowing what this means either as they were targeted multiple times throughout the document making it appear like they were a significant part of the problem.  

The first step in fixing any situation is identifying there is a problem.  The second step is admitting YOU are a part of it.  When I say "you", I mean anyone who lives in America.  We all contribute to the issues of pollution and lack of conservation and until there is leadership taken to change it, no reform will ever happen.  But it isn't enough to write up a bunch of recommendations and tell the public all the things that need to happen and then just leave it to be "locally-led" and the government will follow.  Why?  If there is a leader willing to lead this, chances are they are already trying to change and help things.  But in many places where this conservation may really be needed, there is no leadership there to help focus the efforts and truly make a difference.

My interpretation of this campaign is different than every article that I've read.  Neither of the perspectives are necessarily wrong however, none are necessarily right.  There is clearly the need for reform and change in the way America is protecting it's land but how it gets accomplished will be determined by the American people.  

If you haven't already, I strongly encourage everyone to read the campaign and form their own opinion and perspective on it.  What I read in the articles versus the information that was actually given in the campaign were two different things from my perspective.  Find yours by reading the campaign at Conserving and Restoring America the Beautiful.  

Dairy Industry vs COVID-19

Due to the growing concerns of the pandemic of COVID-19, I thought I would take this opportunity to really focus in on what exactly this pandemic is doing to the dairy industry.  The government has really focused in on what is considered an "essential" job and what isn't.  What most people fail to realize is, farming is essential for everyone.  And it must continue to go on, despite any pandemic going on.  The cows still have to be fed and milked.  The crops still have to be harvested.  Farm life still moves forward even when the rest of society is taking a "break". 

Now it might seem that the dairy and agriculture industry does not receive the best news coverage and always seems to have a "bad" image however, it's not due to support media, but rather the lack of it.  For almost every other industry, you can clearly see all the support they receive, however, with the dairy industry, we do not have the funding needed to have the support we need.  We rely on the support of our consumers which in the long run, is not enough for the industry to survive on.

As so many products are receiving restrictions on how much one consumer can buy at a time, it's only natural that a restriction was put on dairy products as well.  However, there isn't a shortage of dairy products, especially milk, in fact we now have a surplus of it because of the restrictions.  If a restriction had never been put on the dairy products, there wouldn't be thousands of farmers having to dump out their milk due to there not being anyone to take it.  The restrictions need to be lifted and consumers need to keep buying milk.

The biggest way the dairy industry is supported is by local, county, and state fairs.  Why?  This is the time when we can get a vast variety of consumers all in the same place.  We can reach a target audience that is huge within a 12 day period.  However, due to the COVID-19, many fairs are already being cancelled or postponed.  Although many people may not realize the impact of this now, once the summer hits, the impact will be incredibly large. 

Media support is key to make an idea grow from nothing to something.  Without it, you lose the respect of your consumers.  Because the dairy industry is so large, even with the negativity it receives, it is still able to keep moving forward.  Consumers who are loyal to the dairy industry will advocate for it through thick and thin.  It's because of their advocacy that the industry is able to thrive and keep going.  And because the agriculture and dairy industries are essential, they spend less money on advertising for the industry and more on keeping the industry moving.

When summer comes, these industries rely on the dairy breakfasts, fairs, carnivals, and other events to keep the industry moving.  Unfortunately, without many of these events happening, the dairy industry is going to lose so much of its advertising.  These events were put on to promote and without them, there are very few ways to promote and reach a huge audience at the same time.

Will COVID-19 take away the support of the dairy industry and drive the industry down farther?  Or will the consumers keep the industry alive with their support?

• The answer depends on YOU.  Buy more milk.  Buy more dairy products.  Keep the industry alive.

Can I Get a Glass of Milk with That?

Here in the state of Wisconsin, we are never short of milk sources and you are almost guaranteed to have it at every meal of the day.  We take pride in being known as the "dairy state" so it's no surprise milk is always present.  However, this isn't the case for every city in the state anymore.

Now, before we dive into yet another crazy story about my hometown, let's just take a look at the statistics of milk concerning health.  Why is it that dairy milk is the preference in so many areas, especially in places where agriculture is such an important part of the economy?

In a 8-ounce glass of milk there are...

• 8 grams of protein
• 103 calories
• 2.4 grams of fat
• 366 milligrams of potassium
• 12 grams of carbohydrates

One serving of dairy milk (8 ounces) also meets the daily values for the following nutrients

• Calcium
• helps build and maintain strong bones and teeth
• Riboflavin
• supports body growth, red blood cell production and metabolism
• Phosphorus
• strengthens bones
• Vitamin D
• helps promote the absorption of calcium
• Pantothenic Acid
• helps convert food into energy
• Potassium
• regulates fluid balance and helps maintain normal blood pressure
• Vitamin A
• promotes good vision and healthy skin
• Niacin
• promotes proper circulation

Now these are the facts behind dairy milk.  Yet, dairy milk still often receives a backlash.  Weird with all the benefits it gives to us, right?

In my hometown, we were fortunate enough to get our milk machine back and running in my high school in Colby, Wisconsin.  This was a great asset for the school and the Colby FFA, as they received all proceeds and were the ones running the milk machine.  The FFA was able to sell 16oz bottles of Keifer (which is similar to a smoothie or yogurt), 12oz bottles of 2% chocolate milk, 12oz bottles of 1% chocolate milk, and 12oz bottles of 2% white milk.  We also sold 12oz bottles of orange juice in the machine.  This was a great alternative for students who wanted something other than flavored water and soda.  It was also a huge success during sporting events as chocolate milk is much better after a hard workout than powerade and gatorade.

However, recently it has come to my attention that the FFA is now being restricted in the size and kinds of milk they can have in the machine.  Because of these restrictions, the FFA is no longer able to sell Keifer, as it is 4oz too large of a serving size nor are they able to sell 2% chocolate milk, as chocolate milk has to be low fat, meaning 1% or lower.  The Colby FFA was also required to make all of the bottles they are selling 8oz bottles as that is the serving size for milk.  

Coming from an agriculture background, this is honestly an outrage.  Milk is a healthy option for students and can often provide them with healthy energy that they need to get through the day.  Not only are the serving sizes limited, but costs have gone up for the FFA to attain the 8oz bottles as compared to 12oz.  

If we can have soda machines with 12oz bottles, why are we restricting the serving size of milk?

We have the market opportunities in the school district.  There's a demand to have the product in the school.  I can remember seeing the middle school students walking up to the high school just to buy milk.  Students enjoy the milk and so do the teachers.  At some points during the school day, there have been lines behind the machine just to get some milk.  During sporting events, such as basketball and volleyball games, the FFA almost always sold out by the end of the night.  You can clearly see the demand for this and yet we are still trying to regulate it.

Not only that, but the Keifer we used to be able to sell was local, meaning we were helping out our local farmers while providing the students with healthy options to fulfill their needs throughout the school day.  

In schools, we work to market a healthy living style for students.  We have constantly had this theme drilled into our heads.  Why then, when we finally are giving students the option for this, are we being forced to take that healthy option away, leaving the students in a demand?

Whole milk plays a vital role in ensuring children are able to grow, develop and e attentive during the day, however currently whole milk is prohibited for children over the age of two in public schools and daycare centers because of the Federal Dietary Guidelines.  As a person who grew up drinking whole milk and 2% milk, it doesn't even sound appetizing to have to drink 1% milk.

Our market is there.  The demand is high.  And yet we are still being restricted.  Help us put this restriction to an end.  Local schools in central Wisconsin are working to make this happen.

So join the fight and help the cause.  Let's keep dairy in our schools.

#wewantmilk #widairyproud

For more information on what locals are trying to do, have a read at the link below...

https://97milk.com/assets/pdf/WholeMilkLetter.pdf 

Conforming to Sustainability

After speaking about sustainability for the past couple of weeks in my classes, I have come to realize this subject is not as simple as it may first appear.  Driving home on the weekend to see vacant lands where forests once used to be really hits differently.  These areas can't even be used for farmland as they are too swampy in this area.  So how then, is this considered sustainability?

How a message is portrayed to an audience can be a make it or break it in the marketing world.  The media in itself influences what we like, how we think, how we act, and who we are because more times than not, we make ourselves to believe that we must be like everyone else.  We must conform to how others see the world.  This can be a good thing, but it can also cause problems in the real world. 

In an advertisement, we are often persuaded to buy something or think that we need a particular product in our lives.  With sustainability being such a hot topic in today's economy, it's not surprising that we use sustainability as yet another way to conform to how the rest of the world thinks.  It's not necessarily a bad thing but we need to learn to not lose our sense of uniqueness in the process.

Americans are being convinced that sustainability is necessary. It is the only way- but to what terms? When does the psychological push end and we, as Americans can live without being influenced by others?  The problem is we are always influenced by what is going on around us.  We are programmed to accept the general opinion; to conform to society's views but when will that stop and we can not be influenced by the choices of others?  When will we start thinking for ourselves?

Sustainability is becoming a hot topic in the media because so many people believe it is the only way to "save our planet."  The crazy thing is the general public just doesn't understand.  We, as a country, as a society, as an industry and economy, have become too developed, too industrialized to go back to the way things used to be even 30 years ago.  And yet, the public still listens to the celebrity endorsers who are encouraging people to "save the trees" and "buy less stuff" as a way to help with this problem.

In marketing, a person can easily persuade an audience one way or another using something called the persuasion matrix.  With this process, a marketer is using a number of techniques to convey a message to their target audience which will hopefully influence them enough to sway their opinion on the matter at hand. 

This is exactly what people do when speaking about sustainability.  Often, you will hear people talking of "the good old days" and when "life was simpler" because they believe we could go back to that again and be just as well off.  The problem with this is, it is physically impossible to do this in today's society.  We have become too industrialized, too acceptance of the new ways of society that without them, we would be helpless.  I guarantee one could not go without using the Internet for even a day.  We have just become accustomed to a certain standard of living that even attempting to go back would never work.

Yes, sustainability is important but to what extent?  There's only so much we can do before one will realize we cannot go back in time nor will we want to.  We've made progress in America.  We've built a higher standard of living because we can.  We have the technologies to do it.  For someone to say, sustainability is our only hope does not understand the amount of changes we've made in society.  We've become better in so many areas.  Why would we want to take that away?

I may not see as many trees as I'm driving to my hometown.  I may see more open land than forests.  But I don't see skyscrapers in my small hometown so that's what counts.  Sustainability is about using what we have with caution and making sure we will still have enough for generations to come.  We are working toward a better tomorrow.  So instead of worrying about what we are doing wrong, let's focus on what we are doing right in this country.

We have the technologies to become greater than we already are.  Let's use that to our advantage and continue to progress.  Let's show the world we are more than the waste products we make.

Starbucks Did What?

I can tell you right now, as I sit here writing this, I have a hot cup of coffee sitting next to me.  Coffee, for me and many other people, isn't just a drink, it's a way of life, a lifestyle if you will.  Now personally, I can tell you, I will forever and always drink my coffee black.  Unless of course, I'm going into a coffee shop where you can bet I will become that "basic white girl" who orders the sweetest thing on the menu because, let's be real, you're not paying $5 for the same thing you drink at home.

Now when one goes to a coffee shop, and I'm not talking about the cute little shops you find downtown where you can sit with your mug and stare out the window.  I'm talking your basic Starbucks, Dunkin Donuts, or Caribou Coffee.  These places live to give the public what they want, and now they can give even more options.  Now, these coffee shops can gloat about having dairy-free drinks, vegan-friendly options, and the perfect blend of whatever you want.

The word on the street is Starbucks is trying to increase their sustainability by decreasing their carbon footprint.  And just how exactly are they going to do this?  Well, it's a funny thing but Starbucks wants to fully eliminate the use of dairy milk in their menu.  I'm sorry but when did dairy milk create such a huge carbon footprint in this world?

Now before everyone goes crazy and this turns into a rage on the dairy industry, I just want to point out a few facts.

• Dairy milk will forever and always be a healthier and more nutritious option to milk substitutes such as almond, soy, and coconut juices.  It doesn't matter how much you modify and process these juices, they cannot beat what dairy milk already has naturally.  
• Second, dairy milk, being naturally made and not needing a factory for it to be made, cannot produce that much a carbon footprint.  Why?  We live in a country that produces dairy milk all over for the industry.  And everyday we are improving this industry to make it as efficient as we can.
• Third, with dairy milk being produced nationwide, you are able to find it in any state, without having to go too far.  But Starbucks, your drinks aren't just made with milk.  What about the coffee beans you have to import?  What about the dragon fruit which we all well know doesn't grow in this area?  What about the labels and packaging you use on everything?  Your point is invalid.  Milk isn't the problem here.
• Fourth, for anyone who currently uses dairy milk in their drinks, they're not just going to willingly switch to a substitute nut juice.  I've tried all of those drinks people dare to call "milk" and let me tell you, they taste nothing like it.  
• Fifth, this economy and country was built on agriculture.  For you to think you can take that away from us, you are gullible and naive.  This country was built on a foundation of hard work, labor, and tillage of the soil and for those who know this, and hold it close to their hearts, there is no way they will ever turn their backs on such a great industry.

So again Starbucks, I'm just going to ask how you think eliminating dairy milk from the equation is going to help with your sustainability?

But really, what will happen with customers if Starbucks goes through with this idea, and does, in fact, get rid of dairy milk on their menu.  Will customers be influenced to leave and take their business elsewhere?  Will they not care and just adjust to buying something else?  And really, even I wonder, myself, what would I do if Starbucks decided dairy milk just wasn't the way?

How we can determine this can be done a numerous number of ways, but sometimes the best thing to look at is the Consumer Decision-Making Process versus the Internal Psychological Process.  When I first learned about these in class, I was slightly intrigued and slightly annoyed.  Don't get me wrong, I love marketing but I hate psychology, so when my professor started using psychology in his presentation, I was like "hold up.  What are we talking about?"  And this got me thinking.

Consumers are used to buying what they do based off of some original principle.  Often, it is not even their own opinions that influence them but rather what the vast majority of people around them think.  This was truly a remarkable thing to watch and observe.  And the more I learned about these two processes, the more I began to understand these processes.

Let's look at how these two processes are playing out in the Starbucks instance.

1. In the real world, a consumer is faced with a problem and they initially recognize that it is a problem.  See, but internally, the consumer always has a motivation to go along with their problem.  It's like saying there's no pizza in the fridge while internally you are hungry, so therefore you want pizza, thus creating a problem in the first place.  Similarly, with Starbucks' attempt to eliminate dairy milk, this is the physical problem.  But now, consumers are faced with the internal reasoning as to why this is even a problem for them.  And for some, it might not be.
2. With the problem named, now consumers are searching for information on the problem.  Anything to help them make a decision on it.  And already, so many people have both backfired on Starbucks' decision, as well as been in favor of it.  The use of the Internet can make anyone feel intelligent and be able to search whatever information they want within a few seconds.  On the flip side of this, consumers also have a specific perception on the world.  Myself, coming from an agriculture background, automatically had the perception that Starbucks just isn't handling their sustainability the right way, but this is how I view the world, as a constantly changing society with the need for agriculture to always be in it.
3. Next, we move on to alternative evaluation where a consumer begins to compare different brands.  In this particular case, one would compare dairy milk to its substitutes to try to determine which is better or worse in this scenario.  But with this comes our internal attitudes we have of specific things.  I will always be strong willed against nut juices because they are not natural and they are not true milk.  That is my attitude on the subject and nothing anyone will say can change that.
4. Purchase decision can play a big role in what we buy.  We are loyal to a specific brand such as Coca-Cola fans knowing they will never buy Pepsi because they are loyal to their brand.  Similarly, if someone is partial to dairy milk, they will not stray from it.  This, in turn, brings us into the integration process which then gives us rules we've already made in our minds.  We do quick evaluations and mental shortcuts in our brains to determine whether or not we are going to buy a product.  It's as simple as seeing a deformed can of beans and grabbing the one behind it because that one looks normal.  This is our human nature to want the thing that fits our internal beliefs and desires.
5. The final stage in this process is the post purchase evaluation.  And it's as simple as "am I content with what I bought?"  If not, why?  If I were to order a soy latte, I would know for a fact I would not be happy with the final purchase because it is not what I would have originally wanted.  I would've have wanted dairy milk instead.  This, then leads us to the behavioral learning theory where we develop our opinions based on how we react with the end product.

You see, marketing to the consumers requires internal thought processes which you can only imagine.  They change for every person and are different for everyone.  Starbucks, you may be okay if you go through with your sustainability plan to eliminate dairy milk but you may also not be okay.  Every consumer is different.  And every thought process is one in itself.  

Starbucks, you give us options and choices for a reason.  You want to please the largest amount of consumers as possible.  Don't take away our options to "attempt" to make yourself look better to the competition.  We, as consumers need to make these decisions on our own, and when we don't have the power to do that, that is when we lose interest in the things we used to enjoy the most.

I was never a huge Starbucks fan, but that was because I preferred Dunkin Donuts.  I had a brand loyalty already to Dunkin Donuts, but occasionally, I would splurge on a Starbucks drink.  After this announcement, my attitude has been changed and I do not care for the company.  It's my choice.  This is my decision.  But the consumer needs to remember they ALWAYS have a choice.