Environmental news you won't see in the headlines

   Often the headlines in the news can be misleading.
   Just think: we only hear about those who suffer some tragedy, not the 280 million-plus who successfully accomplish another day's work. We hear the "bad news," not the "good."
   As they say in media circles, "if it bleeds, it leads," or "bad news sells" - not unlike the old adage that if Thomas Edison invented the light bulb today, tomorrow's headline would read, "Candle Industry Devastated."
   Such persistent focus on the negative can often lead to misperceptions of reality or misunderstandings about the positive contributions made to and by society. This "condition," if you will, permeates many sectors of our social and business climate, as well as how we describe everyday items.
   For example, we discriminate in our purchase of milk because it contains either 2 percent or 4 percent fat. We don't think in terms of the positive: the product being 98 percent or 96 percent fat-free. Similarly, a factory closing that results in the loss of hundreds of jobs garners more attention than a new or existing plant creating a like number of jobs.
   So too, it seems, regarding the public's perception of the environment. Certainly, negative impacts on the environment capture headlines and work their way into general perceptions, and even the political arena.
   Protection of the environment is, indeed, an important responsibility of our civilized society. This nation, and its states, has accomplished much with respect to clean air, clean water and toxic waste reduction. We don't often hear of the vast deeds government agencies and individuals undertake to preserve and protect our natural resources.
   Not that pollution is a problem to be ignored. To the contrary, we often only hear of pollution caused by business and industry, and not the vast actions taken for conservation and pollution control.
   A classic example of such efforts are contributions that farmers, ranchers and other agriculturists make each year to protect "their" and "our" environment. Consider this:
   Come next deer-hunting season, you probably won't read or hear that individual farms and ranches are the source of food and habitat for some three-quarters of Arkansas' wildlife (a wildlife population that, by the way, continues to flourish).
   You may have seen an Environmental Protection Agency report that indicates that pollution threatens 40 percent of the nation's assessed stream-miles - and implicates farming as the chief cause of half of it.
   What this report doesn't explain is that only about 15 percent of the nation's streams have been assessed. Eighty-five have not. That means only 6 percent of U.S. stream-miles are actually in question!
   Not that the 6 percent are unimportant, but they must be kept in perspective. In the positive view, some 94 percent of this nation's stream-miles have not been assessed.
   While environmental agencies and activist groups focus on the negative, agriculture (in partnership with various state and federal agencies) takes the positive road. For years now, farmers have diligently begun using an array of conservation and environmental management practices. Among other preservation efforts, they include:
   • New technologies that have reduced farm chemical use by a significant 15 percent in the past decade.
   • Conservation tillage of nearly 40 percent of the nation's farmland.
   •Removal of much of the nation's most highly erodible land from production, more than 31 million acres in the past 10 years alone.
   •Almost 2 million miles in buffer strips along U.S. rivers and streams.
   These and other environmentally friendly actions have resulted in a 24 percent drop in soil erosion since 1982; more than 5 million additional acres of trees since 1985; and since 1992, a 10 percent reduction in wetlands losses.
   At the same time, both quantity and quality of food available to the average food buyer have been improved.
   You may read or hear headlines that agriculture often is required to adhere to certain state or federal environmental rules. This is true.
   What you may not read or hear, however, is that farmers are achieving progress such as that above voluntarily.
   And American consumers have shared in this progress through public support and funding of several federal programs. Initiatives such as the Environmental Quality Improvement, Conservation Reserve, Forestry Incentive and Wetlands Reserve programs have all contributed to enhancing soil, air and water quality.
   Farmers are good at complying with environmental rules and regulations. However, their commitment to sound stewardship practices is rock solid and long established.
   And that's another positive piece of information on the environment you probably won't find in the headlines.