Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
And here's an example of the typical whatever claiming the ad violates federal law.
Yes. Two democrats are twice as dumb as one.It there anything DUMBER than a Democrat? Nope!
Manufacturers use thickening agents to give plant-based m*lks a similar texture to dairy milk but this can cause digestive issues. The most popular emulsifiers in plant-based m*lks are xanthan gum and guar gum. Xanthan gum can cause digestive discomfort, has been linked to weight gain and can increase the risk of colitis and other intestinal disorders. Guar gum is made from a bean plant and is highly processed, making it difficult to digest.Lefty's getting triggered? How about the small dairy farmers?
So, an ad meant to boost dairy consumption seems to have backfired, but the dirty secret of dairy advertising is that many dairy farmers don’t like the ads and don’t want to pay for them. This was also true back when the more popular “Got Milk?” ads ran nationwide.
The “Wood Milk” and “Got Milk?” ad campaigns were funded by a government-created program named the Milk Processor Education Program. The program is the brainchild of giant factory farms. These giant businesses run on economies of scale, so their marketing wants you to think that all milk is the same, regardless of where it comes from. According to the giant conglomerates, all that matters is whether you “got milk.”
This is the opposite of what small dairy farmers want. Small farmers want you to think about whether the farmers are local, how they treat the animals, and whether they use environmentally responsible methods. In fact, small farmers hope that you care enough about these issues to pay a few cents more instead of buying milk from the giant factory farms.
But the federal government forces small farmers to pay for these ads that they detest. The government imposes special fees on all dairy farmers and then spends that money on the ads promoting the giant farms’ message. The small farmers’ messaging has been drowned out in a sea of mass-produced milk, while the extra fees to pay for the ads push the small farmers out of business.
Not surprisingly, these unpopular programs have resulted in legal challenges. The First Amendment protects your right not to say things with which you disagree, and this includes paying for them. So, at first, some of the small farmers won. Dairy farmers Joseph and Brenda Cochran challenged the program and won an early legal victory.
But in a 2005 case brought by small cattlemen against the “Beef: It’s What’s for Dinner” campaign, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the government was really the one speaking in these ads. Therefore, according to the Court, the First Amendment did not apply. These federal “checkoff” programs have been out of control ever since, taking from small farmers in order to pay for ads that primarily benefit their well-heeled competitors. Ms. Plaza’s “wood milk” ad is just the latest example.
Embarrassing âWood Milkâ Campaign Shows Why Congress Must End Forced Farm Advertising
A new dairy industry campaign mocking plant-based milks appears to be backfiring. What you may not know is that dairy farmers are forced by the government to pay for ad campaigns, whether they like them or not.www.forbes.com
Four times, due to the feedback loop.Yes. Two democrats are twice as dumb as one.
Bravo! lolYes. Two democrats are twice as dumb as one.
No no no no NO it's pure CARBONNever mind that wood is a RENEWABLE (don't all the envirobats just LOVE them some renewables?) resource, that provides millions of blue collar working class jobs.
Your statement here is half true and half misleading fake news misinformation.Never mind that wood is a RENEWABLE (don't all the envirobats just LOVE them some renewables?) resource, that provides millions of blue collar working class jobs.
I operate a tree farm, numbnuts...I also live in a county that is about 80% managed forest.Your statement here is half true and half misleading fake news misinformation.
True, wood is a renewable resource.....if we're talking about tree farms.
You can plant pine saplings on an industrial scale and have lumber in (maybe) 10 years. If you've ever visited a tree farm however you realized right away that this is nothing like a "forest."
It is a crop, and it feels like any other monoculture crop.
Old growth, virgin timber forests however a totally different thing. They are ancient and diverse.
When a logging company decimates one of these biomes that's it. It's gone for half a dozen generations, if not forever.
Your spin about environmentalists being opposed to ALL timber harvesting is typical conservo, pro industry, misguided bullshit.
We're not against logging. We're jus for responsible logging, and that's what logging companies hate; responsibility.
Selective cutting is just not as profitable as clear cutting. That's all.
Selective cutting is just not as profitable as clear cutting. That's all.
So you agree with me.I operate a tree farm, numbnuts...I also live in a county that is about 80% managed forest.
So spare my your condescending know-it-all bullshit.
I operate a tree farm, numbnuts...I also live in a county that is about 80% managed forest.
So spare my your condescending know-it-all bullshit.