Here are some Free Kindle books on some really excellent topics…Enjoy!
Food Freedom or Fight
17 Jun 2014 Leave a comment
Here are some Free Kindle books on some really excellent topics…Enjoy!
15 Jun 2014 Leave a comment
in Agenda 21, Consolidation, Conspiracy, Control, Disease, Enforcement, GMO's, WTO Tags: El Salvador, gmo, Missouri Amendment 1, monsanto
This is just another example of the corporate control that dominates agriculture. Monsanto forces everyone to consume their toxic swill in the US unless they grow all their own food or buy ONLY from others or grow all their own food. This is just one of the many reasons why people who care at all about health and economic freedom should be against Amendment 1 on August 5th in Missouri. It is not about constraining HSUS from harming animal agriculture, it is about complete carte blanche for GMO’s of both animal and plant varieties in the State.
Here’s the article regarding El Salvador:

As one of the preconditions to authorizing close to $300 million in aid, the United States is pressuring El Salvador to purchase genetically modified seeds from Monsanto instead of non-GM seeds from local farmers.
According to Sustainable Pulse, a website covering developments related to genetically modified organisms and sustainable agriculture, the US will reportedly withhold $277 million in aid through the Millennium Challenge Compact if El Salvador refuses to purchase GM seeds from the biotech company Monsanto.
The website states that the stalled aid package was originally put on hold in late 2013, when it was revealed that Millennium Challenge Corporation would not deliver funds to the country unless “specific” economic and environmental reforms were made. Apparently, one of those is related to the purchase of GMO seeds.
Speaking with Verdad Digital, however, the president of the El Salvadoran Center for Appropriate Technologies (CESTA) criticized the US negotiating position and said the country should back away from its demand.
“I would like to tell the U.S. Ambassador to stop pressuring the Government (of El Salvador) to buy ‘improved’ GM seeds,” CESTA president Ricardo Navarro said, adding that the move would hurt the local economy and only benefit US companies.
Navarro specifically singled out Monsanto for criticism as well, saying, “There is a harmful corporation on the planet called Monsanto … it is truly disturbing that the U.S. is trying to promote them.”
In Europe, too, Monsanto’s GM seeds have garnered criticism. In March, France banned the growth and sale of the company’s insect-repelling maize seed MON 810, just a few days before it was revealed that insects in the US were developing resistance to the crop.
The comments from Navarro also arrive as Monsanto is under fire in several South American countries, including El Salvador and Brazil. As RT reported previously, El Salvador passed legislation in September 2013 banning glyphosate, used in Monsanto’s Roundup pesticides, as well as dozens of other agricultural chemicals.
Similar proposals are being considered in Brazil, where the country’s prosecutor general recently urged the National Health Surveillance Agency to “reevaluate the toxicity of eight active ingredients suspected of causing damage to human health and the environment,” including glyphosate and seven other chemicals.
As for why glyphosate is coming under such heavy scrutiny, new research has indicated that while the chemical is not as dangerous on its own, it becomes extremely toxic to humans once it mixes with natural metals found in soil.
Meanwhile, other reports have linked glyphosate to the outburst of a fatal kidney disease that has killed thousands of people in El Salvador and Sri Lanka, and could also help explain similar situations in Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and India.
10 Jun 2014 3 Comments
(From PRCNEWS.org, links at original post)
The Missouri DNR (and their counterpart in virtually every other State in the Union) has taken point on bringing about the EPA’s desired Clean Water Restoration Act plans. The CWRA never made it through Congress, but the EPA has no compunctions about handing out money to State agencies to have them move forward without legislative oversight by taking a full on back door approach to control land, water and people through “integrated land and watershed management”.
The ploy is coming to your doorstep via “nonpoint source” pollution management plans. Missouri’s plan is contained in a 166 page pdf, and it not fun reading…at least not for me. Here is a link to the pdf. You may make comments to the DNR through July 8th regarding the NPS Management Plan.
If past agency actions mean anything, they will say, “This is only a draft!” Well, as my friend Bob said regarding the National Animal Identification dissimulation, “It’s like finding a diary of a guy with very detailed plans about how he is going to come into your house, take all of your possessions and then rape and murder your wife and children, in extreme detail. When you confront him with it, he says, ‘Why are you so upset? It’s just a draft.'”
Here again is the link to the Missouri DNR “draft” for Nonpoint Source Pollution Management.
Areas to be managed under the NPS Management Plan. Note that they extend beyond the borders of Missouri.
Critical to understanding this plan are the definitions. Following are the most important definitions for our understanding.
First of all, we have to know what “noinpoint source pollution” means. From the plan, here it is:
Nonpoint source (NPS) pollution: Occurs when water runs over land or through the ground, picks up natural or human-made pollutants, and deposits them in surface waters or groundwater. Pollutants commonly associated with NPS include nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen), pathogens, clean sediments, oil and grease, salt, and pesticides.
Then we need to know what specifically the agency defines as “pollutant”. NPS is what occurs when water runs over land or through the ground….like when it rains. So we look for the definition of “pollutant”. Here it is:
Pollutant: Dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator reside, sewage, garbage, sewer sludge, munitions, chemical waste, biological material, radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt, filter backwash or industrial, municipal or agricultural waste discharged into water.
Rock? Sand? Biological material? How on earth are you supposed to stop rain and wind from moving rock, sand and…leaves, pollen, bugs, skin cells, egg shells, or other “biological material”? Obviously you can mitigate animal waste from livestock to a certain degree, but you can’t stop the trees.
Ok, fine. So we are again going to remove nature from involving itself in natural processes. If you are familiar with “good agricultural practices”, you already know about that.
Now then, what exactly is it that the DNR is going to “manage”? Well, “waters of the state” via “watershed” management. So how have they defined “waters of the state”? Here it is…and it is not good:
Waters of the state: All rivers, streams, lakes, and other bodies of surface and subsurface water lying within or forming a part of the boundaries of the state which are not entirely confined and located completely upon lands owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by a single person or by two (2) or more people jointly or as tenants in common. These waters also include waters of the United States lying within or adjacent to the state.
And then the watershed portion of their management is the real cherry on top in this plan. Here’s their definition:
Watershed: An area of land that catches rainfall and snowmelt, which then drains into low-lying bodies of water. Watersheds come in all shapes and sizes, from a few acres to over a million square miles and are sometimes difficult to delineate. Consequently, Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUCs) were created to logically convey the drainage relationship of stream systems, watersheds, and larger river basins.
So, even if you have a pond that is wholly contained on your property and you are a single person with free and clear title and no grant money that might cloud your title, you are still within a water shed, and therefore you fall into their management plan for “nonpoint source pollution”, which is anything that might get into water.
Following are some things that they intend to achieve through this new management plan. These will look very familiar to those who fought the White River Blueway designation at this time last year:
•Removing dams and levees
•Keeping a buffer zone from livestock
•Wetland Restoration and Renaturalization
The restoration of wetlands that are hydrologically connected to surface waters is important for the effective filtering of NPS pollutants. Projects that restore previously existing wetland areas that are being degraded through existing land uses such as farming, mowing or other activities are encouraged.
Nutrient management projects (must include more than planning);
Sediment control projects (particularly riparian or other filter areas);
Some forestry BMPs;
Some controlled drainage projects;
Livestock exclusion and manure management projects;
Conservation crop rotation projects with cover crops;
Riparian re-vegetation and/or protection projects; and
Buffers and field borders.
It’s beginning to sound entirely too familiar, isn’t it? The US Army Corps of Engineers and the USDA and EPA are partners in this plan. They will be doling out grant money to increase “stakeholder” support for these NPS management plans.
Please contact your County Commissioners and your State Representatives about this. It is entirely too overreaching and they are planning on throwing around grant money like we aren’t nearly 18 trillion dollars in debt.
Comments should be submitted to the Department of Natural Resources, Water Protection Program, Watershed Protection Section, P.O. Box 176, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0176 or by email to greg.anderson@dnr.mo.gov. Emails should provide contact information of the sender (i.e., name, mailing address, phone number) and include “Nonpoint Source Management Plan” in the subject line.
10 Jun 2014 Leave a comment
in Consolidation, Control, GAP, Uncategorized Tags: Department of Homeland Security, Ft Leonard Wood, Sustainable Ozark, Sustainable Partnership
Recently, I heard about a group calling themselves “Sustainable Ozark Partnership”…From the name, I didn’t like it. After finding a document delineating their desire to take a four county area surrounding Ft Leonard Wood and bring about total agricultural control to support the military base and other federal entities, specifically the Department of Homeland Security, I really don’t like it.
While I am total support of local food, I am completely against the leveraging of grant money to bring in “CEA” (controlled environment agriculture: very tall buildings that are dedicated to growing specific crops via computer controlled rotation and fertilization) buildings and make local farmers the captive supply food line for federal interests. And that is exactly what the “Sustainable Partnership” wants to do.
On it’s face, it looks like a feudal fiefdom for the military. Or a foodal fiefdom, if you prefer.
Here is the document with their intentions. Of course, one of those intentions is to get “stakeholders” to engage in the plan with the group seeking the grant money.
I haven’t had much time to devote digging into this, but I did find that similar plans are underway for Ft Hood in Texas. It is highly likely that there are many other programs in the works around armed services bases across the nation.
10 Jun 2014 Leave a comment
10 Jun 2014 1 Comment
in Disease, GMO's Tags: Glyphosate, gmo, Round Up and autism, Stephanie Seneff
Yesterday I came across some incredible information. As everyone is aware, the number of people affected by autism has been skyrocketing. I thought it was from vaccines and the additives present in them…Well, that looks like it is a part of the cause, but if you go through Dr Stephanie Seneff’s Power Point on Round Up prevalence and the increase in autism, it is simply stunning.
Here’s a chart form the PPT that really drives it home:

You can watch several videos of Seneff on youtube going over her various studies and the correlation between increases in various diseases and the striking relationship of glyphosate to the disease increase. Here is one that is about an hour long: Dr Seneff on Glyphosate and Autism.
Or you can copy this direct link below:
09 Jun 2014 Leave a comment
(Reuters) – The Department of Agriculture has warned of sticker shock facing home chefs on the eve of the Memorial Day holiday weekend, the unofficial start of the U.S. summer grilling season.
The agency said conditions in California could have “large and lasting effects on U.S. fruit, vegetable, dairy and egg prices,” as the most populous U.S. state struggles through what officials are calling a catastrophic drought.
The consumer price index (CPI) for U.S. beef and veal is up almost 10 percent so far in 2014, reflecting the fastest increase in retail beef prices since the end of 2003. Prices, even after adjusting for inflation, are at record highs.
“The drought in Texas and Oklahoma has worsened somewhat in the last month, providing further complications to the beef production industry,” USDA said.
Beef and veal prices for the whole of 2014 are now forecast to increase by 5.5 percent to 6.5 percent, a sharp advance from last month’s forecast for a 3 to 4 percent rise. Pork prices are set to rise by 3 percent to 4 percent, up from a 2 to 3 percent advance expected a month ago.
The USDA said overall U.S. food price inflation for 2014, including food bought at grocery stores and food bought at restaurants, would rise by 2.5 percent to 3.5 percent in 2014.
That is up from 2013, when retail food prices were almost flat, but in line with historical norms and unchanged from April’s forecast.
“The food-at-home CPI has already increased more in the first four months of 2014 then it did in all of 2013,” USDA noted. At-home spending accounts for about 60 percent of the U.S. food CPI.
A major factor for rising pork prices is the Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea Virus (PEDv), responsible for more than 7 million U.S. piglet deaths in the past year.
Egg prices are also climbing – up 15 percent in April alone – and are expected to rise by 5 to 6 percent on the year, and higher milk prices are feeding through to other products in the dairy case, particularly cheese.
Sweet lovers and caffeine addicts will see some relief, however, since global prices for sugar and coffee remain low, USDA said.
The agency forecast prices of sugar and sweets to rise by 1 percent to 2 percent in 2014 and prices for non-alcoholic beverages to rise by 1.5 percent to 2.5 percent. Both forecasts were lowered this month.
“It appears supermarkets are maintaining minimal price inflation on packaged food products, possibly in an effort to keep prices competitive in light of rising cost pressures for most perishable items,” USDA said.
So far the severe California drought has not had a discernible impact on national fruits or vegetable prices, USDA said, while warning that the effects are still to come.
(Reporting by Ros Krasny; Editing by Eric Beech, Doina Chiacu and Bernadette Baum)
09 Jun 2014 Leave a comment
This is happening all over the nation. It’s very likely occurring in your own area. I would hope that police would see that there is an issue with them becoming so militarized, but as the saying goes, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
NEENAH, Wis. — Inside the municipal garage of this small lakefront city, parked next to the hefty orange snowplow, sits an even larger truck, this one painted in desert khaki. Weighing 30 tons and built to withstand land mines, the armored combat vehicle is one of hundreds showing up across the country, in police departments big and small.
The 9-foot-tall armored truck was intended for an overseas battlefield. But as President Obama ushers in the end of what he called America’s “long season of war,” the former tools of combat — M-16 rifles, grenade launchers, silencers and more — are ending up in local police departments, often with little public notice.
During the Obama administration, according to Pentagon data, police departments have received tens of thousands of machine guns; nearly 200,000 ammunition magazines; thousands of pieces of camouflage and night-vision equipment; and hundreds of silencers, armored cars and aircraft.
The equipment has been added to the armories of police departments that already look and act like military units. Police SWAT teams are now deployed tens of thousands of times each year, increasingly for routine jobs. Masked, heavily armed police officers in Louisiana raided a nightclub in 2006 as part of a liquor inspection. In Florida in 2010, officers in SWAT gear and with guns drawn carried out raids on barbershops that mostly led only to charges of “barbering without a license.”
Military Equipment for Local Police
As the nation’s wars abroad wind down, many of the military’s surplus tools of combat have ended up in the hands of state and local law enforcement. Totals below are the minimum number of pieces acquired since 2006 in a selection of categories.

Source: Department of Defense
When the military’s mine-resistant trucks began arriving in large numbers last year, Neenah and places like it were plunged into the middle of a debate over whether the post-9/11 era had obscured the lines between soldier and police officer.
“It just seems like ramping up a police department for a problem we don’t have,” said Shay Korittnig, a father of two who spoke against getting the armored truck at a recent public meeting in Neenah. “This is not what I was looking for when I moved here, that my children would view their local police officer as an M-16-toting, SWAT-apparel-wearing officer.”
A quiet city of about 25,000 people, Neenah has a violent crime rate that is far below the national average. Neenah has not had a homicide in more than five years.
“Somebody has to be the first person to say ‘Why are we doing this?’ ” said William Pollnow Jr., a Neenah city councilman who opposed getting the new police truck.
Neenah’s police chief, Kevin E. Wilkinson, said he understood the concern. At first, he thought the anti-mine truck was too big. But the department’s old armored car could not withstand high-powered gunfire, he said.
“I don’t like it. I wish it were the way it was when I was a kid,” he said. But he said the possibility of violence, however remote, required taking precautions. “We’re not going to go out there as Officer Friendly with no body armor and just a handgun and say ‘Good enough.’ ”
Congress created the military-transfer program in the early 1990s, when violent crime plagued America’s cities and the police felt outgunned by drug gangs. Today, crime has fallen to its lowest levels in a generation, the wars have wound down, and despite current fears, the number of domestic terrorist attacks has declined sharply from the 1960s and 1970s.
Police departments, though, are adding more firepower and military gear than ever. Some, especially in larger cities, have used federal grant money to buy armored cars and other tactical gear. And the free surplus program remains a favorite of many police chiefs who say they could otherwise not afford such equipment. Chief Wilkinson said he expects the police to use the new truck rarely, when the department’s SWAT team faces an armed standoff or serves a warrant on someone believed to be dangerous.
Today, Chief Wilkinson said, the police are trained to move in and save lives during a shooting or standoff, in contrast to a generation ago — before the Columbine High School massacre and others that followed it — when they responded by setting up a perimeter and either negotiating with, or waiting out, the suspect.
The number of SWAT teams has skyrocketed since the 1980s, according to studies by Peter B. Kraska, an Eastern Kentucky University professor who has been researching the issue for decades.
The ubiquity of SWAT teams has changed not only the way officers look, but also the way departments view themselves. Recruiting videos feature clips of officers storming into homes with smoke grenades and firing automatic weapons. In Springdale, Ark., a police recruiting video is dominated by SWAT clips, including officers throwing a flash grenade into a house and creeping through a field in camouflage.
In South Carolina, the Richland County Sheriff’s Department’s website features its SWAT team, dressed in black with guns drawn, flanking an armored vehicle that looks like a tank and has a mounted .50-caliber gun. Capt. Chris Cowan, a department spokesman, said the vehicle “allows the department to stay in step with the criminals who are arming themselves more heavily every day.” He said police officers had taken it to schools and community events, where it was a conversation starter.
Kevin Wilkinson, the police chief of Neenah, Wis., said having a vehicle built for combat would help protect his officers. Credit Darren Hauck for The New York Times
“All of a sudden, we start relationships with people,” he said.
Not everyone agrees that there is a need for such vehicles. Ronald E. Teachman, the police chief in South Bend, Ind., said he decided not to request a mine-resistant vehicle for his city. “I go to schools,” he said. “But I bring ‘Green Eggs and Ham.’ ”
The Pentagon program does not push equipment onto local departments. The pace of transfers depends on how much unneeded equipment the military has, and how much the police request. Equipment that goes unclaimed typically is destroyed. So police chiefs say their choice is often easy: Ask for free equipment that would otherwise be scrapped, or look for money in their budgets to prepare for an unlikely scenario. Most people understand, police officers say.
“When you explain that you’re preparing for something that may never happen, they get it,” said Capt. Tiger Parsons of the Buchanan County Sheriff’s Office in northwest Missouri, which recently received a mine-resistant truck.
To an extent, I get that many organized criminals these days have ample military-style training and even access to military-grade weapons or…
Pentagon data suggest how the police are arming themselves for such worst-case scenarios. Since 2006, the police in six states have received magazines that carry 100 rounds of M-16 ammunition, allowing officers to fire continuously for three times longer than normal. Twenty-two states obtained equipment to detect buried land mines.
In the Indianapolis suburbs, officers said they needed a mine-resistant vehicle to protect against a possible attack by veterans returning from war.
“You have a lot of people who are coming out of the military that have the ability and knowledge to build I.E.D.’s and to defeat law enforcement techniques,” Sgt. Dan Downing of the Morgan County Sheriff’s Department told the local Fox affiliate, referring to improvised explosive devices, or homemade bombs. Sergeant Downing did not return a message seeking comment.
The police in 38 states have received silencers, which soldiers use to muffle gunfire during raids and sniper attacks. Lauren Wild, the sheriff in rural Walsh County, N.D., said he saw no need for silencers. When told he had 40 of them for his county of 11,000 people, Sheriff Wild confirmed it with a colleague and said he would look into it. “I don’t recall approving them,” he said.
Some officials are reconsidering their eagerness to take the gear. Last year, the sheriff’s office in Oxford County, Maine, told county officials that it wanted a mine-resistant vehicle because Maine’s western foothills “face a previously unimaginable threat from terrorist activities.”
County commissioners approved the request, but recently rescinded it at the sheriff’s request. Scott Cole, the county administrator, said some people expressed concerns about the truck, and the police were comfortable that a neighboring community could offer its vehicle in an emergency.
At the Neenah City Council, Mr. Pollnow is pushing for a requirement that the council vote on all equipment transfers. When he asks about the need for military equipment, he said the answer is always the same: It protects police officers.
“Who’s going to be against that? You’re against the police coming home safe at night?” he said. “But you can always present a worst-case scenario. You can use that as a framework to get anything.”
Chief Wilkinson said he was not interested in militarizing Neenah. But officers are shot, even in small towns. If there were an affordable way to protect his people without the new truck, he would do it.
“I hate having our community divided over a law enforcement issue like this. But we are,” he said. “It drives me to my knees in prayer for the safety of this community every day. And it convinced me that this was the right thing for our community.”
09 Jun 2014 3 Comments
in Consolidation, Conspiracy, Control, Dairy, Disease, Enforcement, FDA, food, Food Destruction Agency, food safety, food shortage
The FDA, Food Destruction Agency, has “clarified” their stance on cheese aged on wood. Short take, not allowed any longer in the US; and because of the lovely take over of all food granted them by the Corporate Board Members referred to as “Congress” under the Food Safety Modernization Act, no cheese imported to the US will be allowed to have been aged on wood either.
If you have thus far failed to see what is happening in this nation and across the world, I’ll sum it up for you. There will be no innovation and no creativity allowed. Our Heavenly Father’s creative attributes that He instills in us as we are created in His image is to be annihilated by rule, regulation, insurance premiums, or other “safety” measure.
This is an excellent article on the issue of cheese and the FDA. Don’t worry, whatever you desire to create/produce will be similarly regulated and destroyed…if it hasn’t already been regulated to death.
A sense of disbelief and distress is quickly rippling through the U.S. artisan cheese community, as the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) this week announced it will not permit American cheesemakers to age cheese on wooden boards.
Recently, the FDA inspected several New York state cheesemakers and cited them for using wooden surfaces to age their cheeses. The New York State Department of Agriculture & Markets’ Division of Milk Control and Dairy Services, which (like most every state in the U.S., including Wisconsin), has allowed this practice, reached out to FDA for clarification on the issue. A response was provided by Monica Metz, Branch Chief of FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition’s (CFSAN) Dairy and Egg Branch.
In the response, Metz stated that the use of wood for cheese ripening or aging is considered an unsanitary practice by FDA, and a violation of FDA’s current Current Good Manufacturing Practice (cGMP) regulations. Here’s an excerpt:
“Microbial pathogens can be controlled if food facilities engage in good manufacturing practice. Proper cleaning and sanitation of equipment and facilities are absolutely necessary to ensure that pathogens do not find niches to reside and proliferate. Adequate cleaning and sanitation procedures are particularly important in facilities where persistent strains of pathogenic microorganisms like Listeria monocytogenes could be found. The use of wooden shelves, rough or otherwise, for cheese ripening does not conform to cGMP requirements, which require that “all plant equipment and utensils shall be so designed and of such material and workmanship as to be adequately cleanable, and shall be properly maintained.” 21 CFR 110.40(a). Wooden shelves or boards cannot be adequately cleaned and sanitized. The porous structure of wood enables it to absorb and retain bacteria, therefore bacteria generally colonize not only the surface but also the inside layers of wood. The shelves or boards used for aging make direct contact with finished products; hence they could be a potential source of pathogenic microorganisms in the finished products.”
The most interesting part of the FDA’s statement it that it does not consider this to be a new policy, but rather an enforcement of an existing policy. And worse yet, FDA has reiterated that it does not intend to change this policy.
In an email to industry professionals, Rob Ralyea, Senior Extension Associate in the Department of Food Science and the Pilot Plant Manager at Cornell University in New York, says: “According to the FDA this is merely proper enforcement of the policy that was already in place. While the FDA has had jurisdiction in all food plants, it deferred cheese inspections almost exclusively to the states. This has all obviously changed under FSMA.”
Ah, FSMA. For those of you not in the know, the Food Safety Modernization Act is the most sweeping reform of American food safety laws in generations. It was signed into law by President Obama on January 4, 2011 and aims to ensure the U.S. food supply is safe by shifting the focus from responding to contamination to preventing it.
While most cheesemakers have, perhaps, begrudgingly accepted most of what has been coming down the FSMA pike, including the requirement of HACCP plans and increased federal regulations and inspections, no one expected this giant regulation behemoth to virtually put a stop to innovation in the American artisanal cheese movement.
Many of the most awarded and well-respected American artisan cheeses are currently aged on wooden boards. American Cheese Society triple Best in Show winner Pleasant Ridge Reserve from Uplands Cheese in Wisconsin is cured on wooden boards. Likewise for award-winners Cabot Clothbound in Vermont, current U.S. Champion cheese Marieke Feonegreek, and 2013 Best in Show Runner-Up Bleu Mont Bandaged Cheddar.
Wisconsin cheesemaker Chris Roelli says the FDA’s “clarified” stance on using wooden boards is a “potentially devastating development” for American cheesemakers. He and his family have spent the past eight years re-building Roelli Cheese into a next-generation American artisanal cheese factory. Just last year, he built what most would consider to be a state-of-the-art aging facility into the hillside behind his cheese plant. And Roelli, like hundreds of American artisanal cheesemaekrs, has developed his cheese recipes specifically to be aged on wooden boards.
“The very pillar that we built our niche business on is the ability to age our cheese on wood planks, an art that has been practiced in Europe for thousands of years,” Roelli says. Not allowing American cheesemakers to use this practice puts them “at a global disadvantage because the flavor produced by aging on wood can not be duplicated. This is a major game changer for the dairy industry in Wisconsin, and many other states.”
As if this weren’t all bad enough, the FDA has also “clarified” – I’m really beginning to dislike that word – that in accordance with FSMA, a cheesemaker importing cheese to the United States is subject to the same rules and inspection procedures as American cheesemakers.
Therefore, Cornell University’s Ralyea says, “It stands to reason that if an importer is using wood boards, the FDA would keep these cheeses from reaching our borders until the cheese maker is in compliance. The European Union authorizes and allows the use of wood boards. Further, the great majority of cheeses imported to this country are in fact aged on wooden boards and some are required to be aged on wood by their standard of identity (Comte, Beaufort and Reblochon, to name a few). Therefore, it will be interesting to see how these specific cheeses will be dealt with when it comes to importation into the United States.”
Ralyea continues: “While most everyone agrees that Listeria is a major concern to the dairy industry, it appears that some food safety agencies interpret the science to show that wood boards can be maintained in a sanitary fashion to allow for their use for cheese aging, while others (e.g., the US FDA) believe that a general ban of any wooden materials in food processing facilities is the better approach to assure food safety. At this point, it seems highly unlikely that any new research data or interpretations will change the FDA policies in place.”
In fact, many research papers do in fact conclude that wooden boards are safe. In 2013, the Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research published a paper on the subject, concluding: “Considering the beneficial effects of wood boards on cheese ripening and rind formation, the use of wood boards does not seem to present any danger of contamination by pathogenic bacteria as long as a thorough cleaning procedure is followed.” You can read the whole report on pages 8-9 by clicking on this link.
Interesting side note: Health Canada does not currently have any regulations prohibiting aging and ripening cheese on wood, so apparently if we want to eat most American or European artisan cheeses, we’ll need to drive across the border to do so.
So what’s next? The American Cheese Society has mobilized its Regulatory & Academic Committee to learn more about this issue, and to ensure its members’ interests are represented. The ACS promises to keep us apprised of developments. In the meantime, if you are a cheesemaker, and your operation is inspected and cited for the use of wooden surfaces, please contact the ACS office (720-328-2788 or info@cheesesociety.org).
08 Jun 2014 4 Comments
in Animal Welfare, Consolidation, Control, GMO's Tags: HJR 7 and 11, Missouri amendment, Right to Farm
If you will look through my posts from the last Missouri session in 2013, you will find an awful lot of info on the “Right to Farm” proposed amendment. Click here to read the most comprehensive piece I did on it. It WILL be on the ballot here in MO . The language was modified slightly, but we were not able to garner enough action to halt the thing from going through.
Here’s our “victory” on altering the language…instead of ensconcing “modern farming practices and technology” into the Missouri Constitution, it now reads like this:
| Section 35. That agriculture which provides food, energy, health benefits, and security is the foundation and stabilizing force of Missouri’s economy. To protect this vital sector of Missouri’s economy, the right of farmers and ranchers to engage in [modern] farming [technology] and ranching practices shall be forever guaranteed in this state, subject to duly authorized powers, if any, conferred by article VI of the Constitution of Missouri. |
It’s going to be a mess, folks. It will require court challenges and that “farmer” and “rancher” be defined by the State.
The fact is that we already have this right, and we don’t need them to define it, because if they define it, it will mess things up royally.
The intent of the language was- and remains to be- to protect GMO proliferation, biotech interests, and corporate vertically integrated factory farming. It is not intended to protect small diversified farming, and it won’t do so in the long run.
Ballotpedia has good info on this, you can click on this link and read it.
The proponents of the “Right to Farm” amendment say that the need for this change to our Constitution is the threat of animal rights activist groups and the constraints on animal agriculture they bring about. They also intimate that the only people opposed to the amendment are animal rights activists. Guess what? I am NOT an animal rights activist, and neither are a myriad of others who are opposed to this change in Missouri’s Constitution. So that is a patent falsehood.
We don’t need this amendment, and we certainly don’t need to change our Constitution because Farm Bureau wants to increase corporate ag’s stranglehold on small, diversified agricultural endeavors. What concerns me the most is that they will define “farmer” and “rancher” and “agriculture” as adjuncts to this legislation. When they do that, we will have GMO proliferation protected by Missouri’s Constitution and it may include biotech animal ag protections as well.
This amendment is dangerous and unnecessary. Please vote no on it, and let everyone else you know about the hidden dangers and the original intentions of those who pushed this amendment forward.
You must be logged in to post a comment.