Regulating Cow Farts- Methane Madness of the EPA

31 Mar 2014 8 Comments

by truthfarmer in Agenda 21, Animal Welfare, Dairy, farm loss Tags: , , ,

Years ago, the UN was funding studies with cattle wearing back packs that measured their flatulence to determine the amount of methane being pumped into the air by cattle. The idea was that cattle farts were creating global warming to some extent. Well, now the EPA is setting the stage to reduce methane emissions by cattle in the dairy sector in the US by 25%. Never mind that our overall cattle levels are at 1951 levels. Never mind that the number of dairy farms fell by 52,000 from 1997 to 2007. Evidently we need more destruction of those who would actually try to feed us good quality food that isn’t factory produced. Smaller diversified farming is better for the land, farmers, consumers and the economy. It’s also better for food security, distribution and civilization overall…But those who want us off the land and easily controlled want to regulate cow flatulence. Grr.


White House looks to regulate cow flatulence as part of climate agenda

As part of its plan to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, the Obama administration is targeting the dairy industry to reduce methane emissions in their operations.

This comes despite falling methane emission levels across the economy since 1990.

The White House has proposed cutting methane emissions from the dairy industry by 25 percent by 2020. Although U.S. agriculture only accounts for about 9 percent of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, it makes up a sizeable portion of methane emissions — which is a very potent greenhouse gas.

Some of these methane emissions come from cow flatulence, exhaling and belching — other livestock animals release methane as well.

“Cows emit a massive amount of methane through belching, with a lesser amount through flatulence,” according to How Stuff Works. “Statistics vary regarding how much methane the average dairy cow expels. Some experts say 100 liters to 200 liters a day… while others say it’s up to 500 liters… a day. In any case, that’s a lot of methane, an amount comparable to the pollution produced by a car in a day.”

“Of all domestic animal types, beef and dairy cattle were by far the largest emitters of [methane],” according to an EPA analysis charting greenhouse gas emissions in 2012. Cows and other animals produce methane through digestion, which ferments the food of animals.

“During digestion, microbes resident in an animal’s digestive system ferment food consumed by the animal,” the EPA notes. “This microbial fermentation process, referred to as enteric fermentation, produces [methane] as a byproduct, which can be exhaled or eructated by the animal.”

It’s not just the dairy industry that the Obama administration is clamping down on. The White House is looking to regulate methane emissions across the economy from agriculture to oil and gas operations — all this despite methane emissions falling 11 percent since 1990.

 

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/28/white-house-looks-to-regulate-cow-flatulence-as-part-of-climate-agenda/#ixzz2xYjr5aR7

Monsanto Protection Act is Now Law

31 Mar 2014 Leave a comment

by truthfarmer in Disease, farm loss, food, GMO's, USDA Tags:

If people remember, before Obama became President he said he would get GMO’s labeled…Ha! Instead, in the standard American corporate government method, he just gave the go ahead for massive expansion of GMO crops. While other nations are firmly constraining and refusing these aberrations, we get more of them here. Almost makes on want to move to a non-GMO country. Even China is refusing to accept shipments of this garbage.

More ‘Corporate Welfare’: Obama Signs ‘Monsanto Protection Act’ Into Law
Just signed provision prevents federal courts from stopping the planting of genetically engineered crops, despite health, environmental consequences

– Andrea Germanos, staff writer

“In this hidden backroom deal, Senator Mikulski turned her back on consumer, environmental, and farmer protection in favor of corporate welfare for biotech companies such as Monsanto,” said Andrew Kimbrell of the Center for Food Safety. (Photo: Peter Blanchard/flickr)
President Obama signed what has been dubbed the “Monsanto Protection Act” on Tuesday, legislation critics say amounts to “corporate welfare” for biotechnology corporations like Monsanto, and puts farmers and the environment in jeopardy.

Summing up the provision in H.R. 933: Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, Eric Darier, a senior campaigner on sustainable agriculture at Greenpeace International explains that it

will effectively bar US federal courts from being able to halt the sale or planting of genetically engineered (GE) crops even if they failed to be approved by the government’s own weak approval process and no matter what the health or environmental consequences might be.
The rider from H.R. 933 reads:

 

Doug Gurian-Sherman, a senior scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, writes that the rider presents a “threat to farmers and the environment,” and that while the rider’s language indicates that steps will be taken “…to mitigate or minimize potential adverse environmental effects…,” historical evidence shows that there are indeed risks. In 2006, for example,

unapproved GE rice owned by Bayer, probably originating from a small, short-term controlled field trial in Arkansas, was found to have contaminated the U.S. rice supply. That little incident resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars in lost rice exports and farmer lawsuits that continued for years. […]

A similar threat exists to the environment in the form of gene flow—the transfer of genes from one organism to another—from crops to wild cousins, or from poorly domesticated cultivated plants like forest trees or grasses grown for lumber, pulp, or biofuel.

In fact, gene flow of glyphosate herbicide-resistant creeping bentgrass has already occurred…twice. This also happened from temporary field trials that were conducted in Central Oregon and nearby Idaho specifically to prevent gene flow! USDA mandated an isolation zone of 900 feet around the trial, but gene flow occurred up to 13 miles from the Oregon site.
There could be “long-lasting and serious consequences” from the rider, writes Appetite for Profit author Michele Simon. “This list of pending petitions to USDA to approve genetically-engineered crops includes new versions of corn, soybean, canola, and cotton. Once these crops get planted, it will be too late to do much about it.”

The Center for Food Safety writes that it was Senator Barbara Mikulski, the Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee (D-MD), who allowed the legislation to move forward without hearings and without bringing it in front of the Agriculture or Judiciary Committees.

“In this hidden backroom deal, Senator Mikulski turned her back on consumer, environmental, and farmer protection in favor of corporate welfare for biotech companies such as Monsanto,” Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety, said in a statement.

This is the kind of deal biotechnology corporations have been hoping for, according to Food Democracy Now!, a group that has been campaigning against the GE rider. “Since losing a court case in 2010 to Center for Food Safety for the unlawful planting of GMO sugar beets, Monsanto and other biotech companies have been desperate to find a way around court mandated environmental impact statements required as a result of a U.S. district court’s ruling,” the group writes.

Gurian-Sherman writes that the rider has biotechnology corporations’ fingerprints all over it:

It was introduced anonymously, without accountability. But let me stick my neck out and say that it is highly likely that the biotech industry influenced the introduction and passing of this rider. Monsanto spends more money influencing our government than any other agriculture company. It spent millions, more than any other firm, to defeat the efforts in California to label engineered foods.
In her post titled “Monsanto Teams up with Congress to Shred the Constitution,” Simon adds that this is “such a big deal” because

The court system is often our last hope, with Congress, the White House, and regulatory agencies deep inside industry’s pocket. Several legal challenges have resulted in court decisions overturning USDA’s approval of new GMO crops, for example, sugar beets.
So the biotech industry, unable to make its case to a judge, figured why not just rewrite the Constitution instead…
Darier concludes that the ‘Monsanto Protection Act’ ultimately shows the power corporations wield at the expense of democracy:

This should also be a reminder to all of us across the world of the ability of some corporations like Monsanto to influence policymakers to adopt measures that are against sustainable agriculture, farmers, consumers and the environment. And let’s add now to this list: independent judicial review! A very sad day for democracy and the future of our food.
_____________________________

 

Your Tax Dollars at Work….Sigh

26 Mar 2014 Leave a comment

by truthfarmer in Uncategorized

This is just stupid. I don’t doubt it’s true, but it is still stupid.

Recently my youngest has been very concerned about IQ and what that means. I’ve stressed to her that it indicates only the capacity to learn, and doesn’t make one more intelligent or less intelligent than another. I may have to equivocate on that statement and state that there may be variance if one is employed by the government and approves grants for idiotic studies.

Sigh…And no, I am not aroused.

Feds Spending $53,282 to Study Sighs
‘Sighs also play an important role in triggering arousal’

BY: Elizabeth Harrington
March 26, 2014 11:50 am

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is paying a researcher over $53,000 to study sighs.

The new study, which began in January, will focus on the role that brain cells play in “sigh generation.”

“Periodic sigh generation is required to maintain normal blood gas levels, and the inability to generate sighs is related to serious respiratory conditions such as lung atelectasis,” the project’s grant said. “Sighs also play an important role in triggering arousal, and the loss of sighs has been related to an increased risk of SIDS [Sudden Infant Death Syndrome].”

Tatiana Dashevskiy, a senior researcher at Seattle Children’s Hospital, is leading the study, which is scheduled to last until 2016. The grant said the project is important because the origination of sighs is unknown.

“The role of sighs in maintaining blood gas levels and triggering arousal during hypoxia suggests that sighs may be produced when metabolic activity is altered with the purpose of coordinating and resetting the sparsely connected central respiratory networks,” the grant said. “Unfortunately, the mechanisms underlying sigh generation and periodicity remain unclear.”

“Specifically, we propose to examine neuron-glia interactions for novel signaling pathways that underlie sigh generation and periodicity,” it said. Glia are brain cells that support neurons, and are believed to play a pivotal role in breathing.

“The central respiratory network controls breathing and produces three distinct patterns of activity: eupnea [quiet breathing], gasping, and sighs,” the grant said.

The researchers said figuring out how sighs are produced will lead to a better understanding of the respiratory system.

“By creating a new model of the respiratory network, which incorporates the collected data, we will be able to mimic different neuromodulatory and metabolic states of the system and thus use this model to investigate new testable hypothesis,” it said.

The cost for the first year of the study is $53,282.

Cyber Tyrants Playbook: NSA and GCHQ

24 Mar 2014 Leave a comment

by truthfarmer in Conspiracy, Control, Privacy Tags: , , ,

This is incredibly documented. It is also incredibly long. It behooves all of us to be cognizant of the “intelligence” communities actions. Please be aware that these are your tax dollars at work. Busy disrupting, defaming and destroying people’s lives and credibility if they step outside of the ideological box desired.

On more than one occasion I have seen discussion forums taken down by trolls. Some of them may have been victims to the playbook set forth in the article below. Some of them may have been taken down by the propensity of people sitting in the security of their own home being vicious, nasty and vulgar safely ensconced in their online anonymity.

Personally, I view the internet as the equivalent of the information Colt 45. The ability to research and access information at rapid rates and to disseminate that information to whomever bothers to read it is the best tool for freedom and creativity that human has ever known. Of course you have to vet your sources and check on veracity. Rumors and falsehoods abound, but so does truth…if you care to find it. Also, I’ve known for more than a decade that government trolls the internet seeking whom they may devour. The fact that it is clearly and definitely documented by this Snowden release is just a bonus. It simply elevates the knowledge level, and lets people know what the governments are using legitimate and illegitimate taxation to achieve.

I notice that the two major entities in information and public perception control are not mentioned in the release. Look up Tavistock and the Aspen Institute. Doubtless, many are involved (in Aspen particularly) that have no idea of the group’s origins and reason for existence.

Due to the large amount of slides in this, I only included a few. Please do visit the site linked in the article title below…Read some comments, too!
How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations
By Glenn Greenwald Feb 2014, 6:25 PM EDT 1,156


A page from a GCHQ top secret document prepared by its secretive JTRIG unit
One of the many pressing stories that remains to be told from the Snowden archive is how western intelligence agencies are attempting to manipulate and control online discourse with extreme tactics of deception and reputation-destruction. It’s time to tell a chunk of that story, complete with the relevant documents.

Over the last several weeks, I worked with NBC News to publish a series of articles about “dirty trick” tactics used by GCHQ’s previously secret unit, JTRIG (Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group). These were based on four classified GCHQ documents presented to the NSA and the other three partners in the English-speaking “Five Eyes” alliance. Today, we at the Intercept are publishing another new JTRIG document, in full, entitled “The Art of Deception: Training for Online Covert Operations.”

By publishing these stories one by one, our NBC reporting highlighted some of the key, discrete revelations: the monitoring of YouTube and Blogger, the targeting of Anonymous with the very same DDoS attacks they accuse “hacktivists” of using, the use of “honey traps” (luring people into compromising situations using sex) and destructive viruses. But, here, I want to focus and elaborate on the overarching point revealed by all of these documents: namely, that these agencies are attempting to control, infiltrate, manipulate, and warp online discourse, and in doing so, are compromising the integrity of the internet itself.

Among the core self-identified purposes of JTRIG are two tactics: (1) to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to destroy the reputation of its targets; and (2) to use social sciences and other techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate outcomes it considers desirable. To see how extremist these programs are, just consider the tactics they boast of using to achieve those ends: “false flag operations” (posting material to the internet and falsely attributing it to someone else), fake victim blog posts (pretending to be a victim of the individual whose reputation they want to destroy), and posting “negative information” on various forums. Here is one illustrative list of tactics from the latest GCHQ document we’re publishing today:

 

Other tactics aimed at individuals are listed here, under the revealing title “discredit a target”:

 

Then there are the tactics used to destroy companies the agency targets:

 

GCHQ describes the purpose of JTRIG in starkly clear terms: “using online techniques to make something happen in the real or cyber world,” including “information ops (influence or disruption).”

 

Critically, the “targets” for this deceit and reputation-destruction extend far beyond the customary roster of normal spycraft: hostile nations and their leaders, military agencies, and intelligence services. In fact, the discussion of many of these techniques occurs in the context of using them in lieu of “traditional law enforcement” against people suspected (but not charged or convicted) of ordinary crimes or, more broadly still, “hacktivism”, meaning those who use online protest activity for political ends.

The title page of one of these documents reflects the agency’s own awareness that it is “pushing the boundaries” by using “cyber offensive” techniques against people who have nothing to do with terrorism or national security threats, and indeed, centrally involves law enforcement agents who investigate ordinary crimes:

No matter your views on Anonymous, “hacktivists” or garden-variety criminals, it is not difficult to see how dangerous it is to have secret government agencies being able to target any individuals they want – who have never been charged with, let alone convicted of, any crimes – with these sorts of online, deception-based tactics of reputation destruction and disruption. There is a strong argument to make, as Jay Leiderman demonstrated in the Guardian in the context of the Paypal 14 hacktivist persecution, that the “denial of service” tactics used by hacktivists result in (at most) trivial damage (far less than the cyber-warfare tactics favored by the US and UK) and are far more akin to the type of political protest protected by the First Amendment.

The broader point is that, far beyond hacktivists, these surveillance agencies have vested themselves with the power to deliberately ruin people’s reputations and disrupt their online political activity even though they’ve been charged with no crimes, and even though their actions have no conceivable connection to terrorism or even national security threats. As Anonymous expert Gabriella Coleman of McGill University told me, “targeting Anonymous and hacktivists amounts to targeting citizens for expressing their political beliefs, resulting in the stifling of legitimate dissent.” Pointing to this study she published, Professor Coleman vehemently contested the assertion that “there is anything terrorist/violent in their actions.”

Government plans to monitor and influence internet communications, and covertly infiltrate online communities in order to sow dissension and disseminate false information, have long been the source of speculation. Harvard Law Professor Cass Sunstein, a close Obama adviser and the White House’s former head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, wrote a controversial paper in 2008 proposing that the US government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-”independent” advocates to “cognitively infiltrate” online groups and websites, as well as other activist groups.

Sunstein also proposed sending covert agents into “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups” which spread what he views as false and damaging “conspiracy theories” about the government. Ironically, the very same Sunstein was recently named by Obama to serve as a member of the NSA review panel created by the White House, one that – while disputing key NSA claims – proceeded to propose many cosmetic reforms to the agency’s powers (most of which were ignored by the President who appointed them).

But these GCHQ documents are the first to prove that a major western government is using some of the most controversial techniques to disseminate deception online and harm the reputations of targets. Under the tactics they use, the state is deliberately spreading lies on the internet about whichever individuals it targets, including the use of what GCHQ itself calls “false flag operations” and emails to people’s families and friends. Who would possibly trust a government to exercise these powers at all, let alone do so in secret, with virtually no oversight, and outside of any cognizable legal framework?

Then there is the use of psychology and other social sciences to not only understand, but shape and control, how online activism and discourse unfolds. Today’s newly published document touts the work of GCHQ’s “Human Science Operations Cell,” devoted to “online human intelligence” and “strategic influence and disruption”:

 

 

Under the title “Online Covert Action”, the document details a variety of means to engage in “influence and info ops” as well as “disruption and computer net attack,” while dissecting how human beings can be manipulated using “leaders,” “trust,” “obedience” and “compliance”:

 

 

 

 
The documents lay out theories of how humans interact with one another, particularly online, and then attempt to identify ways to influence the outcomes – or “game” it:

 

 
We submitted numerous questions to GCHQ, including: (1) Does GCHQ in fact engage in “false flag operations” where material is posted to the Internet and falsely attributed to someone else?; (2) Does GCHQ engage in efforts to influence or manipulate political discourse online?; and (3) Does GCHQ’s mandate include targeting common criminals (such as boiler room operators), or only foreign threats?

As usual, they ignored those questions and opted instead to send their vague and nonresponsive boilerplate: “It is a longstanding policy that we do not comment on intelligence matters. Furthermore, all of GCHQ’s work is carried out in accordance with a strict legal and policy framework which ensures that our activities are authorised, necessary and proportionate, and that there is rigorous oversight, including from the Secretary of State, the Interception and Intelligence Services Commissioners and the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee. All our operational processes rigorously support this position.”

These agencies’ refusal to “comment on intelligence matters” – meaning: talk at all about anything and everything they do – is precisely why whistleblowing is so urgent, the journalism that supports it so clearly in the public interest, and the increasingly unhinged attacks by these agencies so easy to understand. Claims that government agencies are infiltrating online communities and engaging in “false flag operations” to discredit targets are often dismissed as conspiracy theories, but these documents leave no doubt they are doing precisely that.

Whatever else is true, no government should be able to engage in these tactics: what justification is there for having government agencies target people – who have been charged with no crime – for reputation-destruction, infiltrate online political communities, and develop techniques for manipulating online discourse? But to allow those actions with no public knowledge or accountability is particularly unjustifiable.

Documents referenced in this article:

The Art of Deception: Training for a New Generation of Online Covert Operations

Facebook and Monsanto: top shareholders are identical

23 Mar 2014 2 Comments

by truthfarmer in Uncategorized

If you’re a regular follower of my blog, you may know I quit Facebook on Constitution Day. I didn’t know the following info at the time, but I simply do not want to be assimilated. Rappoport has done some incredible work in exposing the control paradigm for a good long time now. I hope you benefit from this information.

GMO Labeling Initiative in Colorado

20 Mar 2014 Leave a comment

by truthfarmer in Consolidation, Control, food safety, GMO's Tags: , , ,

The following article actually goes beyond the scope of simply Colorado’s initiative. It’s a pretty good piece and shows the Grocery Industries opposition to any labeling effort. Frankly, if things have to be labeled that may have touched a peanut, it seems like no big deal to let people know that there are or may be GMO’s in foods.

GMO labeling effort in Colorado scores win in state Supreme Court

An effort to put a ballot initiative in front of Colorado voters regarding the labeling of genetically modified foods was allowed to proceed after the state Supreme Court dismissed a challenge by biotech and food industry outfits.

For Initiative #48 to make it on the November ballot, supporters must now gather 86,105 petition signatures and turn them into the state by early August, according to Right to Know Colorado GMO. The grassroots group, which is responsible for the initiative, is made up of local farmers, organic food retailers, consumer advocates, and citizens concerned with the “basic right to know what is in our food and what we are feeding our families.”

“We are pleased that the state Supreme Court ruled in favor of the GMO labeling ballot title, and we look forward to bringing a GMO labeling initiative before the voters of Colorado this fall,” said Larry Cooper of Right to Know.

In a filing with the state Supreme Court, the Rocky Mountain Food Industry Association’s Mary Lou Chapman challenged the ballot initiative for being misleading, according to Natural Products Insider. Chapman did not return NPI’s request for comment on the Court’s decision.

Initiative #48 would mandate that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) come with packaging that announces “Produced With Genetic Engineering” by July 1, 2016.

The only exceptions to the labeling rules would include food or drink made for animals, chewing gum, alcoholic beverages, medically-prescribed food, foods subject to labeling only for its modified processing aids or enzymes, food not packaged for retail sale that is either processed or served by a restaurant with the intention of immediate consumption, and “food consisting entirely of or from an animal that has not been genetically engineered even if the animal was fed with food that was produced through genetic engineering or any drug that was produced through genetic engineering.”

Distributors, manufacturers, and retailers that fail to properly label GMO food would be subject to the state’s misbranding statute and could face criminal prosecution, according to documents filed with the Colorado Supreme Court.

The Center for Food Safety says dozens of states are considering GMO labeling laws on some level, as there is no federal labeling standard. Polling suggests over 90 percent of Americans would prefer GMO ingredients in consumables to be labeled to some extent.

Recent ballot measures seeking a labeling mandate failed in California and Washington state, though not without major efforts by the most powerful biotech and industry players, such as Monsanto and the Grocery Manufacturers Association.

Supporters of GMOs say adverse effects of food products which come from the manipulation of an organism’s genetic material are unproven at this point.

Yet science is also inconclusive on whether genetically engineered products cannot cause long-termharm to human health. At least, that is the consensus held by the several dozen countries which have banned or severely restricted their use worldwide.

“While risk assessments are conducted as part of GE product approval, the data are generally supplied by the company seeking approval, and GE companies use their patent rights to exercise tight control over research on their products,” the Union of Concerned Scientists said about GMOs. “In short, there is a lot we don’t know about the risks of GE – which is no reason for panic, but a good reason for caution.”

According to the US Department of Agriculture, in 2013, GMO crops were planted on about 169 million acres of land in the US — or about half of all farmland from coast to coast.

The vast majority of conventional processed foods in the US are made with genetically modified ingredients. Around 93 percent of all soybean crops planted in the US last year involved genetically modified, herbicide-tolerant (HT) variants, the USDA has acknowledged, and HT corn and HT cotton constituted about 85 and 82 percent of total acreage, respectively.

“HT crops are able to tolerate certain highly effective herbicides, such as glyphosate, allowing adopters of these varieties to control pervasive weeds more effectively,”reads an excerpt from a recent USDA report.

As those weed-killers are dumped into more and more fields containing HT crops, however, USDA experts say it could have a major, as yet uncertain impact on the environment.

Alarms surrounding the potentially irrevocable damage that GMO crops pose to the environment have been echoed by many researchers in the face of industry studies that insist GMOs are safe for humans and other living organisms.

Nassim Taleb, professor of risk engineering at New York University and author of best-sellers ‘The Black Swan’ and ‘Fooled by Randomness,’ recently said that GMOs have a very real ability to cause “an irreversible termination of life at some scale, which could be the planet.” Taleb’s thesis basically stems from the fact that GMOs come from laboratory alterations rather than natural processes, and that humans cannot understand that with each modified seed, the potential for “total ecocide” increases.

“There is no comparison between the [bottom-up] tinkering of selective breeding and the top-down engineering of taking a gene from an organism and putting it into another,” Taleb and colleagues say in a draft of their research.

“The planet took about close to zero risks of ecocide in trillions of variations over 3 billion years, otherwise we would not have been here.”

EPA Wood Stove Regulations Would Cause Serious Harm

19 Mar 2014 1 Comment

by truthfarmer in Agenda 21, Control Tags: , ,

Another issue regarding the EPA’s proposed regulations that isn’t getting much attention is the problem with home insurance. Often, if wood is your primary heat source, insurance companies will not sell you insurance. That is the case NOW. If this regulation goes through, you can look for the insurance companies to refuse insurance on all homes that heat with wood, including those that use outdoor wood furnaces. Here is the article:

EPA goes after wood stoves

A wood stove regulation proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency is generating a heated response from rural residents.

Burning wood to heat a home is nothing new — it’s been going on for, oh, thousands of years. In Northwest Missouri and Northeast Kansas, many residents prefer wood because it’s an affordable, available and reliable source of fuel.

The EPA isn’t proposing to ban wood heat (good luck with that if they were) but would pass a strict regulation on stove manufacturers. “There’s not a stove in the United States that can pass the test right now — this is the death knell of any wood burning,” said Reg Kelly, who owns a stove manufacturing business in Mountain Grove, Mo.

Defenders say current stoves would not be affected. Still, the EPA’s proposal is over-reaching bureaucracy at its best that would add costs to new stoves and fail to address the problem it is supposed to correct.

Regulators fail to take into account wood stoves primarily are used in rural locales where air quality is a different issue than urban areas. It’s comparable to imposing regulations on septic systems because of environmental problems with a city sewer.

Of greater concern is the cost burden will fall disproportionately on low-income households. The proposal does not target suburban homes that use fireplaces for ambience on winter nights, but families including elderly and children who have one source of heat to fight off the cold.

The escalating price of propane fuel makes wood and alternative heating even more important. There are currently about 12 million wood stoves in operation in the United States and the number has grown in the past decade.

In remote locations, wood heat could be the only option. Natural gas doesn’t serve rural areas and electric service can prove unreliable. Power outages aren’t so rare even in our cities that residents don’t know the value of a back-up heat source.

Not to be overlooked are the environmental benefits — yes, benefits — of wood burning. Burning downed trees in a home stove clears up waste while cutting down on fossil fuel use.

Missouri is one of the first states to respond to the wood stove rule by proposing legislation to thwart its implementation. It’s a sign this regulation hits close to home and hearth in the Midland Empire.

Study Claims Raw Milk Doesn’t Help Lactose Intolerant

19 Mar 2014 Leave a comment

by truthfarmer in Dairy, raw milk

Just wanted to share this before it fell off my radar. I need to find the paper that was written on the study to ascertain what the actual parameters were, but from my experience, their conclusion is completely incorrect. We have two children with lactose intolerance. One fairly severe and the other less severe. The more severe could drink all the goat milk (raw) that he wanted with no issues, and about three glasses a day of raw cow milk before he had any troubles. He could drink one glass of store bought homogenized and pasteurized milk and be in agony. The other was the same on raw goat milk, and raw cow milk is no problem in any quantity, but store bought milk is a problem after one glass as well.

 

That’s our reality…then there are the “studies”. Here’s an article about the lack of help for lactose intolerant people with raw milk:

Study: Raw milk no help for lactose intolerance

A pilot study failed to show something many people believe – that drinking raw milk reduces the symptoms of lactose intolerance or malabsorption.

The condition is common worldwide, and can lead to bloating, abdominal pain and diarrhea. But the specific prevalence of lactose intolerance is not known, the researchers from Stanford University said.

“Recently, unpasteurized raw milk consumption has increased in popularity and emerged into a nationwide movement despite the acknowledgment of risks associated” with pathogens, the researchers wrote in the Annals of Family Medicine.

Late last year the American Academy of Pediatrics warned pregnant women and children not to drink raw milk and said it supports a nationwide ban on its sale because of the danger of bacterial illnesses. Still, raw milk sales are legal in 30 states.

Advocates say raw milk is delicious and provides health benefits, including protection against asthma and lactose intolerance. And when the animals are raised properly and the milk is treated carefully, they say, raw milk poses little danger to human health.

But the pilot study, conducted in 2010 with 16 people who identified themselves as lactose intolerant and suffering symptoms that were moderate to severe, did not show a benefit from raw milk. The participants, recruited from around Stanford, drank raw whole milk, pasteurized whole milk and soy milk – all vanilla flavored to prevent them from detecting which was which. They drank specified amounts over eight days and were tested at many points for lactose malabsorption.

The trial “provided no evidence that raw milk is better tolerated by adults positive for lactose malabsorption, either objectively or subjectively,” the researchers wrote.

It’s also conceivable that people need to adjust to raw milk and eight days was not enough, the researchers said. Additional work should be done to test that idea, they wrote.

Los Angeles Times

Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/2014/03/18/3348086/eating-disorders-are-not-just.html#storylink=cpy

 

Unregulated Direct Trade Bill Introduced in Missouri (HB2138)

13 Mar 2014 1 Comment

by truthfarmer in Uncategorized

At last, at long last, Missouri has a bill that will solidify in statute a right we actually already have, but which is being impeded by agencies who think they have the right to act as gods over people in this nation. Rep Mike Moon has introduced a Direct Trade bill and 17 reps co-sponsored in very short order! My thanks to Mike Moon for having the courage to finally get this bill into the process!!

The point of this bill is simply to empower people and provide the ability for people to benefit from locally grown and produced food. In reality, the ability eat is to have food in abundance is the only thing that allows us to be civil to each other. Most people are still going to want the anonymous, consolidated, centralized, corporate,  “food” supply. That’s fine, let them have their mega-chain goods! But for those of us who want to buy directly from the farmer, or sell directly to the consumer, it won’t be a potentially criminal act if this goes through.

I wish I had more time to pontificate about this, but alas, I do not.

Please call your representatives and encourage them to support HB2138 and get it through the process clean and quickly…Here is the text of the bill:

  262.293. 1. The residents of Missouri shall have the right to sell directly to a buyer or purchase directly from a seller any farm-direct goods produced within this state. The seller of farm-direct goods shall retain the right to choose whether or not such farm-direct goods and the sale thereof shall be subject to regulation by the state, any political subdivision of the state, or any state or local regulatory agency. Any seller of farm-direct goods not subject to such regulation shall, at the time of the direct sale, declare to the buyer via a sign, label on the package, or verbally that such farm-direct goods are not subject to regulation by the state, any political subdivision of the state, or any state or local regulatory agency. The buyer of farm-direct goods shall retain the responsibility to ensure the process of production of the farm-direct goods purchased meets the buyer’s approval.

            2. For purposes of this section, the following terms shall mean:

            (1) “Buyer”, a buyer of farm-direct goods for personal consumption who purchases directly from a seller;

            (2) “Farm-direct goods”, goods produced on a farm in this state by a seller and sold by such seller directly to a buyer;

            (3) “Seller”, a producer of farm-direct goods who sells such goods directly to a buyer.

            3. The state, any political subdivision of this state, and any state or local regulatory agency shall not interfere or otherwise attempt to regulate the sale and purchase of farm-direct goods not subject to regulation under this section.

            4. Nothing in this section shall be construed to provide any civil or criminal immunity from liability for an intentional act or an act of gross negligence by a seller or buyer under this section which constitute a violation of any civil or criminal laws of this state.

(Go to the General Assembly Homepage  and then you can punch in the bill number in the search box and bring it up and keep track of the legislation)

VA Bill Helps Protect Farmer’s Rights

13 Mar 2014 Leave a comment

by truthfarmer in Uncategorized

This is good news….For a change!

Virginia Adopts Bipartisan Law Protecting Farms, Property Rights

Property owners and farmers in Virginia are celebrating after another victory in the battle against what critics said was oppressive government schemes infringing on private-property rights under various pretexts. Known as the “Boneta Bill,” SB 51 was quietly signed last week by Democrat Gov. Terry McAuliffe following a public uprising over draconian regulations and harassment targeting family farmers — and Martha Boneta’s (shown) small farm in particular. In Virginia and nationwide, however, the battle continues.

Among other key elements, the new Virginia law reins in the power of state and local officials to violate the rights of property owners in agricultural areas. Farmers, for example, will generally no longer be required to have permits for a wide range of activities on their land: agritourism, food preparation, and more. The measure also protects farmers from incomprehensible mazes of red tape and regulation while allowing them to sell their products directly to consumers without bureaucratic permission in most cases.

While the measure is a good start, more still needs to be done to properly protect property rights in the state, supporters of the bill said. “Virginia’s SB 51 is a positive step in the right direction, freeing farm commerce and culture from some restrictive and needless red tape, thanks to Martha Boneta’s tireless efforts,” constitutional attorney Mark Fitzgibbons, who played a major role in the battle, told The New American. He was referring to the farmer whose struggle against local officials resulted in the new law.

Still, even with the victory, “more corrections are needed,” added Fitzgibbons, who helped organize “pitchfork rallies” on behalf of Boneta as local officials sought to trample her rights and fine her into oblivion. “The Virginia Code still gives too much subjective discretion to localities, which allows them to discriminate, and does not include penalties against counties that violate farmers’ rights.” Legislation to address some of those issues is already in the works.

The story behind the new law began on Martha Boneta’s little farm in Fauquier County, Virginia, which she purchased from the Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC). In addition to organic farming on the land, Boneta rescues animals and sells farm products she produces directly to local consumers. When she bought the farm from PEC, however, the organization slipped in a so-called “conservation easement” into the agreement purporting to severely limit her rights to the property.

In short order, county bureaucrats began doing what they so often do: threatening Boneta with fines and ordering her to obtain “permits” to do just about anything on her own property — even host private events. When the county obtained pictures of a private birthday party she hosted for a handful of young children taking place at her barn, Boneta was threatened with fines of $5,000 per day for each alleged “violation.” Soon, the PEC was even demanding to look into her private closet in search of more supposed “violations,” according to reports.

The whole drama quickly escalated and snowballed out of control. Eventually, the battle began making headlines nationwide as powerful officials and their allies harassed and viciously persecuted Boneta over every trivial “violation” they could concoct. Faced with thousands of dollars in expenses and the perpetual threat of more fines, Boneta finally had to shut down her little store. Her farm was in serious jeopardy.

As the ordeal began attracting statewide and even national attention, rallies ensued, and an outraged public demanded an end to the abuses. Watchdog.org’s Virginia Bureau also poured fuel on the fire by digging into the case and shining the spotlight on the nightmare Boneta was being forced to endure. With support from citizens across the state, numerous grassroots organizations, the Virginia Farm Bureau, and more, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle joined together to pass the legislation by a landslide.

“I want to thank Gov. McAuliffe, the members of the General Assembly, the Farm Bureau and all those who have rallied to the defense of family farmers,” Boneta said in a statement after the legislation was signed into law. “After all my family and I have been through, it is a blessing that the rights of farmers as entrepreneurs can be upheld.” Speaking to Watchdog.org, she added: “Now farmers can farm without fear or fees…. It gives hope to farmers and landholders in the fight for property rights.”

Democrat and Republican lawmakers alike also praised the bill and its being signed into law, saying the measure would protect the rights of farmers. “I’m very pleased to see that the governor signed SB 51,” Democrat State Sen. Chap Petersen was quoted as saying. “This will guarantee that farmers can continue to use their farms and sell their wares without unnecessary state interference.” GOP legislators also celebrated the bipartisan effort.

The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, one of myriad organizations that actively supported the legislation, also praised the measure and its enactment. “This will keep more of Virginia food dollars in state, and keep the most environmentally conscious stewards on the land,” Fund President Pete Kennedy said in a statement.

Despite the new law, which takes effect on July 1, the saga is far from finished. “This county government has been absolutely out of control,” said Tom DeWeese, president of the pro-property rights American Policy Center, a national organization that also backed the measure and others like it. “They have been trying to control these farms and businesses, so this bill was designed to help farmers to not have to have permits for every little thing.”

DeWeese said that organizations like the PEC and the “conservation easements” they market represent a major danger to property rights, not just in Virginia, but across America. “Organizations like this and these self-proclaimed stakeholders are in every single community,” he told The New American in a phone interview. “The regulations they are pushing are the same everywhere and we’re seeing this in every corner of the country. This all ties in, of course, to sustainable development and UN Agenda 21programs.”

However, while the assault on property rights continues, efforts to stop it are accelerating as well. “What we’re doing across the country is helping local communities and state legislators protect private-property rights in their jurisdictions,” DeWeese continued. “We have to define what property rights are, and then we have to fight for these rights and pass legislation with strong property-rights language. These efforts are already having an effect.”

DeWeese, whose organization has played a leading role in the national battle to protect Americans’ unalienable rights to control their property, also had some advice for activists across America working on the issue in their own communities. “This seems so vast, and the other side seems so powerful, so our people get confused and down and they don’t see a way around it,” he explained. “We have to focus, and the property-rights issue is the place to focus.”

Without being able to curtail property rights, the whole scheme crumbles. “They can’t implement sustainable development without infringing on property rights, so that’s where we can begin to chip away on this a little bit at a time,” DeWeese concluded. “They put it in place piece by piece, so we’re going to have to tear it down piece by piece.”

Indeed, across the country, as all levels of government continue waging a silent war on property rights, resistance and the public outcry is growing louder by the day. Just last week, the Oklahoma House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly for legislation that would protect property rights from federal and international machinations. Before that, Alabama became the first state to officially ban UN Agenda 21. Many state and local governments have also come out forcefully against the international scheme. Even the Republican National Committee came out strongly against the plot in the GOP platform.

Activists have been celebrating their recent victories, but few doubt that much work remains if private-property rights are to be properly protected from the accelerating attacks. The UN, for example, has been making increasingly outlandish demands, and the Obama administration remains an ardent supporter. At the state and local level, the assaults, often funded with taxpayer resources, are continuing as well. However, with enough effort and awareness, the American people can still emerge victorious from the battle.

Photo of Fauquier County, Virginia, farmer Martha Boneta: AP Images

Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, politics, and more. He can be reached atanewman@thenewamerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU.

Previous Older Entries Next Newer Entries