Lt Governor and Several Representatives ask DNR to Extend Comment Period

Many regular listeners of  The Power Hour are aware of this new “Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Plan” being enacted in nearly every state in the nation. Here in Missouri, we have received from very positive action from some of our elected representatives. Following is a press release about this action and the pdf of the letter sent to the Director of the Missouri DNR by Lt Governor Peter Kinder and other reps:

                                            July 3, 2014

              

Lt. Gov. Kinder, Legislative Leaders
seek more time on DNR water plan

Letter to director cites need for more public hearings
JEFFERSON CITY – Lt. Governor Peter Kinder today delivered a letter to Sara Parker Pauley, director of the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, seeking an extension of 60-day public comment period regarding Missouri’s Nonpoint Source Management Plan. The comment period is slated to end Tuesday, July 8.
The letter, which also was signed by Sens. Kurt Schaefer, R-Columbia, and Tom Dempsey, R-St. Charles, and Rep. Timothy Jones, R-Eureka, cited concerns about “the potential impact of this plan on agriculture, private property rights and land use in our state.” They asked that the DNR extend the comment period 30 days and conduct additional public hearings around the state.
The Nonpoint Source Management Plan is the state’s attempt to address nonpoint sources of water pollution and align its water management with new, more stringent federal EPA regulations.
The letter from Kinder and the legislative leaders said “it is incumbent on the DNR to ensure Missourians understand the potential impact of these changes while allowing those affected to fully comment on the plan.”
Lt. Governor Kinder issued the following statement on the issue:
“Few people are aware of this shift in management practices proposed by the DNR. The potential impact on private property rights, land use and agriculture are profound. We want to make sure Missouri doesn’t cede to bureaucrats in Washington control over how we manage our resources.”
###

 

Letter to dnr director Pauley.

Norway Study on Glyphosate and Missouri’s Amendment 1- “Right to Farm”

If anyone wants one more reason to have GMO food labeled, a very solid study out of Norway shows Round Up accumulation in treated crops to be excessive when ready for consumption.

Should Amendment 1 pass in Missouri, Monsanto’s home state, there will be even more uncontrolled GMO proliferation and spraying of Round Up and 2-4d. Amendment 1 masquerades as a protection against animal rights activists, but it will provide for complete factory farming in the State with no ability to constrain it left to the citizens.

Here are a few questions about Amendment 1:

•If it is to halt the animal rights agenda, then why hasn’t the legislature simply passed legislation to prohibit the most extreme of their activities?

•If it is to protect agriCULTURE as opposed to agriINDUSTRY, then why was the original wording specifically tailored to protect “modern technology”?

•Since we, and all other states, already have statute that prevents nuisance suits against existing farms and ranches, why do we need to change our Constitution? Do we have to protect our right to use an indoor flush toilet in the Constitution as well? Isn’t enumerating every single right of man a little beyond the pale?

•Additionally, who is going to define the terms farm, farmer, rancher, ranching, farming? Regulators, courts and lawyers…Do we trust them?

If you think protecting Monsanto, one of the proponents of Amendment 1, should be part of Missouri’s Constitution, then you should vote for this proposed amendment.

Read this study if you are still of the mindset that Round Up is a good thing. Think about telling your grandchildren that you voted to have them sterilized by the food supply because you thought eating herbicides was good business.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308814613019201

As with everything political, you have got to look at the interests of those who are the major supporters of a proposed action. Cargill, Monsanto, Missouri Corn and Soy Growers, and the biggest proponent for destructive free trade agreements, Missouri Farm Bureau, are the major supporters of Amendment 1. Many members of Farm Bureau are the best people you may ever meet! Farm Bureau even does some things that are actually positive for real farmers. Amendment 1 is just NOT one of those positive actions.

Strong Arming El Salvador for 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:

US pressures El Salvador to buy Monsanto’s GMO seeds

 

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.

 

“Sustainable” Food Shed for Military and Federal Government Support

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.

 

 

 

No More Artisan Cheese for Americans

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.

Game Changer: FDA Rules No Wooden Boards in Cheese Aging

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).

 

Right to Farm Proposed Constitutional Amendment

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.

 

BLM Wrecks Infrastructure at Bunkerville

This makes me wonder who is going to pay for fixing what the BLM has wrecked. I know that none of those who damaged  things they don’t own will do the right thing, but will the administration that pays them to stomp on America? I know…”The meatball says ‘NO!”‘ Once upon a time, this kind of behavior would have resulted in hanging.

I want the BLM to pay. I guess it’s good to want things.

Feds accused of leaving trail of wreckage after Nevada ranch standoff

 

The federal agency that backed down over the weekend in a tense standoff with a Nevada rancher is being accused of leaving a trail of wreckage behind.

Fox News toured the damage — allegedly caused by the Bureau of Land Management — which included holes in water tanks and destroyed water lines and fences. According to family friends, the bureau’s hired “cowboys” also killed two prize bulls.

“They had total control of this land for one week, and look at the destruction they did in one week,” said Corey Houston, friend of rancher Cliven Bundy and his family. “So why would you trust somebody like that? And how does that show that they’re a better steward?”

The BLM and other law enforcement officials backed down on Saturday in their effort to seize Bundy’s cattle, after hundreds of protesters, some armed, arrived to show support for the Bundy family. In the end, BLM officials left the scene amid concerns about safety, and no shots were fired.

The dispute between the feds and the Bundy family has been going on for years; they say he owes more than $1.1 million in unpaid grazing fees — and long ago revoked his grazing rights over concern for a federally protected tortoise. They sent officials to round up his livestock following a pair of federal court orders last year giving the U.S. government the authority to impound the cattle.

The feds, though, are being accused of taking the court orders way too far.

On a Friday night conference call, BLM officials told reporters that “illegal structures” on Bundy’s ranch — water tanks, water lines and corrals — had to be removed to “restore” the land to its natural state and prevent the rancher from restarting his illegal cattle operation.

However, the court order used to justify the operation appears only to give the agency the authority to “seize and impound” Bundy’s cattle.

“Nowhere in the court order that I saw does it say that they can destroy infrastructure, destroy corrals, tanks … desert environment, shoot cattle,” Houston said.

Bundy’s friends say the BLM wranglers told them the bulls were shot because they were dangerous and could gore their horses. One bull was shot five times.

But Houston said the pen holding the bull wasn’t even bent. “It’s not like the bull was smashing this pen and trying tackle people or anything,” he said. “The pen is sitting here. It hasn’t moved. No damage whatsoever. Where was the danger with that bull?”

Plus he said BLM vehicles appear to have crushed a tortoise burrow near the damaged water tank. “How’s that conservation?” he asked.

The BLM has not yet responded to a request for comment on these allegations.

Bundy has refused to pay the grazing fees or remove his cattle, and doesn’t even acknowledge the federal government’s authority to assess or collect damages.

The bureau has said if Bundy wasn’t willing to pay, then they would sell his cattle.

However, there was a problem with that plan — few in Nevada would touch Bundy’s cattle for fear of being blacklisted.

“The sale yards are very nervous about taking what in the past has been basically stolen cattle from the federal government,” Nevada Agriculture Commissioner Ramona Morrison said.

Documents show the BLM paid a Utah cattle wrangler $966,000 to collect Bundy’s cattle and a Utah auctioneer to sell them. However, Utah Gov. Gary Herbert refused to let Bundy cattle cross state lines, saying in a letter: “As Governor of Utah, I urgently request that a herd of cattle seized by the Bureau of Land Management from Mr. Cliven Bundy of Bunkerville, Nevada, not be sent to Utah. There are serious concerns about human safety and animal health and well-being, if these animals are shipped to and sold in Utah.”

That letter was sent three days before the BLM round-up, which is why the cattle were still being held Saturday in temporary pens just a few miles from Bundy’s ranch. Morrison says BLM was sitting on cattle because it had no way to get rid of them — setting up a potential tragedy as orphaned calves were not getting any milk and feed costs were about to skyrocket.

The showdown is far from over. The BLM says it will “continue to work to resolve the matter administratively and judicially,” though Bundy still doesn’t recognize federal authority over the federal lands that he continues to use in violation of a court order. The federal judge who issued that decision says Bundy’s claims “are without merit.”

That order from October 2013 says Bundy owes $200 per day per head for every day he fails to move his cattle. That amounts to roughly $640 million in damages owed to the federal government for illegally grazing his cattle.

William La Jeunesse joined FOX News Channel (FNC) in March 1998 and currently serves as a Los Angeles-based correspondent.

 

Feeding Hogs Swine Is Likely Culprit in Hog Deaths

Feed Is Suspect in Spread of Deadly Pig Virus

March 30, 2014 7:28 p.m. ET

Porcine plasma has been a mainstay of piglet diets in the U.S. since the 1990s. It helps protect young pigs from disease and helps them switch from milk to a grain-heavy diet. Shown, a sow and her healthy piglets on a Missouri farm last year. Associated Press

My Comments on following article:

 Despite the nearly 100% traceability achieved in hogs via ADT (which is NAIS done a little differently, or the National Animal Identification System after name change) the hog industry is STILL experiencing a massive disease problem. The entire sell behind NAIS was that traceability would stop disease. Ha! We all know that tags or chips can’t stop disease, and this PED epidemic shows that solidly.

 However, there are some pretty serious issues brought to light by the PED epidemic. First of all, it should be obvious to anyone that the forced cannibalism that is largely responsible for Mad Cow (BSE) is a bad idea for all species. Secondly, the consolidation in agriculture, especially hogs and chickens, is a serious concern. The fewer producers of food, the easier it is to run into natural or created shortages.

 Anyway, kudos to the reporter for doing a good job on the feed issue that looks to be responsible for 7 million pig deaths in about one year….Truthfarmer

Scientists and regulators investigating the mysterious spread of a deadly virus plaguing the U.S. pork industry are stepping up their scrutiny of what the nation’s hog herd eats.

With a dearth of solid leads, investigators are exploring whether something in pig feed could be a conduit for porcine epidemic diarrhea virus, which has spread to 27 states and killed millions of young pigs since it was first identified in the U.S. last April. One focus of the inquiry: porcine plasma, a widely used feed ingredient made from the blood of slaughtered hogs and fed to piglets.

Scientists say the virus, one of the most devastating diseases to afflict U.S. livestock in years, is fatal only to young pigs, and poses no threat to human health or food safety. But it has rapidly increased costs for major hog-farm operators, such as Smithfield Foods Inc. and Maschoffs LLC, as prices for replacement pigs have soared to new highs.

The disease threatens to curb U.S. pork supplies in coming months and raise costs for big meat processors, such as Hormel Foods Corp. and Hillshire Brands Co. , as well as retailers and consumers, analysts say.

The number of new confirmed cases of the virus has accelerated recently, confounding farmers and veterinarians, who have ramped up their already stringent “biosecurity” measures since last spring. Those precautions include more aggressively disinfecting trucks and workers’ boots and clothing when they enter and leave farms and barns.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the Agriculture Department and pork-industry officials are examining a range of feed ingredients and manufacturing processes as well as other possible pathways for the virus, like contaminated air or dust particles carried from farm to farm.

Though the evidence is inconclusive, some researchers say that porcine plasma could be spreading the virus from adult pigs that show few symptoms, or that some plasma may have been contaminated in transit.

The ingredient has been a mainstay of piglet diets in the U.S. since the 1990s, after scientists discovered it provided antibodies to protect young pigs from disease and helped them switch from feeding from their mother to the grain-heavy diet common on livestock farms.

Studying feed is hard because manufacturers mix and process feed differently. Associated Press

Last month, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency disclosed that it had found plasma contaminated with the virus, after multiple hog farms in Ontario that were hit by PED, and another farm on Prince Edward Island with a suspected case, all reported that they bought feed from the same vendor, Ontario-based Grand Valley Fortifiers.

The Canadian agency said that the virus was present in plasma that originated in the U.S. and was obtained at the company that manufactured Grand Valley’s feed, which the agency has declined to identify. It said the plasma contained virus “capable of causing disease in pigs.”

Earlier this month, however, the agency said laboratory tests in which it fed Grand Valley’s feed pellets to piglets failed to demonstrate that the feed, which contained plasma and many other ingredients, could cause infection.

Still, Grand Valley recalled its products containing plasma and no longer uses the ingredient, said Chief Executive Ian Ross. “While we don’t have conclusive evidence that our feed infected any pigs, it is clear that live virus was present in the plasma in some of our products,” he said. “We’re not willing to play Russian roulette with clients, hoping we never get a bad batch [of plasma] in the future.”

The U.S. Agriculture Department and the FDA, which have been investigating potential pathways for the virus’s spread, said they haven’t been able to link feed samples to a known case of the disease. The FDA has been studying the manufacturing process at the U.S. facility that supplied plasma for the Grand Valley feed, and is seeking “to learn more” about the conditions the raw material is subjected to, said agency spokeswoman Siobhan DeLancey.

Scientists say studying animal feed is difficult because feed manufacturers mix and process their feed differently.

Porcine plasma is one of more than 40 ingredients in typical piglet feed. “Many people think that feed is the most likely suspect,” said Greg Stevenson, a veterinary pathologist at Iowa State University who has studied the virus. “But practically speaking, we have no proof.”

Suspicions already have roiled the half-dozen companies that manufacture plasma in the U.S. and Canada; some farmers have stopped feeding the ingredient to their pigs, out of caution.

Sunterra Farms, of Acme, Alberta, recently stopped feeding plasma to the 300,000 pigs it raises each year in the U.S. and Canada. “There are a lot of people making this decision,” said Ben Woolley, vice president.

“People are turning away from the products,” said John Bowlsby, a vice president of Minnesota-based Hemotech LLC, a U.S. plasma supplier whose business has suffered. “We’re trying to weather the storm on this.”

Smithfield Foods, a unit of China’s WH Group Ltd. and the largest hog farmer and pork processor in the world, declined to comment on plasma. Maschoffs, North America’s largest family-owned pork producer, said that without firmer epidemiological evidence linking plasma to the virus it continues to use the ingredient in piglet diets while working with suppliers to ensure its safety.

The North American Spray Dried Blood and Plasma Protein Producers, which represents plasma makers, said porcine blood products that are properly sourced, collected and processed are safe and don’t contribute to the spread of the virus. Louis Russell, the group’s chairman, said that feed ingredients like plasma could be contaminated after processing, during transportation or mixing.

Porcine plasma is made from blood captured in chilled vats at slaughterhouses. It is treated with an anticoagulant and spun in a centrifuge to separate the plasma from blood cells, then transported in insulated trucks to processing plants. The plasma is shot through a spray nozzle into a heated chamber to evaporate excess water, leaving a powder that is run through stainless-steel dryers, bagged and shipped to feed companies.

Plasma makers say they collect blood only from healthy animals in federally inspected slaughter plants. But because the virus has only a mild effect on fully grown hogs, infected animals might not be identified at slaughter, said Liz Wagstrom, chief veterinarian for the National Pork Producers Council, a trade group.

Mr. Russell, who is also CEO of American Protein Corp., of Ankeny, Iowa, one of the world’s largest plasma producers, said the industry is conducting research to “validate” the safety of the product. “We understand the significance of this disease,” he said. “We’re working closely with other groups to understand how we can contribute to solving the problems of the disease.”

Write to Jesse Newman at jesse.newman@wsj.com and Kelsey Gee at kelsey.gee@wsj.com

Missouri Cattle Growers Need to Pay More for Check Off, Right?

Here’s an important legislative action alert from Missouri Rural Crisis:

STOP THE CORPORATE AG BEEF TAX!
Please Call Key Reps & Senators TODAY!
Tell Them to Vote NO on SB 591 & HB 1496!
Missouri’s Beef Producers Are Already Paying Enough into this Program!
Corporate, industrial ag supporters LOVE the Beef Check-Off Tax.  Since the 1980’s, farmers have been forced to pay into the mandatory federal Check-Off program that funds organizations that have consistently supported industrial agriculture and vertical integration of the livestock industry, while opposing policies that are good for Missouri’s cattle producers like Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) and fair-market competition.  And, now they want more!  

RIGHT NOW, the Missouri legislature is attempting to pass a bill that would allow the Missouri Beef Council to collect another $.50 per head Beef Check-Off Tax from Missouri cattle producers. This would amount to over $1 million a year.  House Bill 1496 & Senate Bill 591 would repeal a MO law that prohibits the state from collecting any fees in addition to the fees collected by the federal government under the current beef check-off program.  These additional and unnecessary taxes would be imposed on Missouri cattle producers every time they sell a cow or calf.

If SB 591 or HB 1496 passes, the Beef Council could simply impose this $.50 tax on producers or they could hold a referendum of a small minority of producers that could impose this new tax on every cattle producer in the state.

Currently, the vast majority of the existing check-off dollars paid by cattle producers ends up in the coffers of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA).  Over 80% of the NCBA’s funding comes from the beef check-off.  And, unfortunately, the NCBA consistently supports positions that are anti-farmer and anti-consumer.  The NCBA’s positions include opposing Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) and theenforcement of anti-trust laws, and supporting packer ownership of livestockand giving fast-track trade authority to the president.  Missouri beef producers do not need to pay any more Beef Check-Off taxes!

Please Call & Email Senators and Representatives Below—Please Tell Them the FACTS:
  • This is a mandatory tax on Missouri cattle producers.
  • A $.50 tax on every head of cattle sold in MO would mean over $1 million per year that producers could be spending in their local, rural economies or on their farming operations.
  • Missouri cattle producers are already paying over $2 million per year in the mandated federal Beef Check-Off program.  We don’t need any more unaccountable beef check-off programs and taxes.
  • Mandatory check-off programs are government programs, NOT producer programs. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that mandatory check-off programs are “government speech”.
  • If producers believe it’s in their best interest to increase the amount they pay into the check-off program, a point-of-sale VOLUNTARY check-off could be implemented at any time without this legislation.  This would be a market-based solution, not a government mandate and tax.
  • Legislators should not go on record as supporting this unpopular beef tax.

Oppose the Beef Tax Bills—Senate Bill 591 & House Bill 1496.

Please Call & Email These Key Representatives
Tell Them to VOTE NO on Senate Bill 591!

Rep. Sandy Crawford:      (573) 751-1167      Email Rep. Crawford HERE
Rep. Tony Dugger:             (573) 751-2205      Email Rep. Dugger HERE
Rep. Sue Entlicher:             (573) 751-1347      Email Rep. Entlicher HERE
Rep. Delus Johnson:          (573) 751-3666      Email Rep. Johnson HERE
Eric Burlison:                       (573) 751-0136      Email Rep. Burlison HERE

Please Call & Email These Key Senators
Tell Them to VOTE NO on House Bill 1496!

Senator Doug Libla:           (573) 751-4843      Email Senator Libla HERE
Senator David Pearce:      (573) 751-2272      Email Senator Pearce HERE
Senator Mike Parson:       (573) 751-8793      Email Senator Parson
Senator Jason Holsman:   (573) 751-6607      Email Senator Holsman HERE
Senator Rob Schaaf:          (573) 751-2183      Email Senator Schaaf HERE

And please call YOUR Representative & Senator by calling the capitol switchboard at (573) 751-2000, or you can visit the House website HERE and theSenate website HERE.

Thank YOU! and please let us know if you get any feedback!
Missouri Rural Crisis Center
(573) 449-1336

 

GMO Labeling Initiative in Colorado

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.”

Previous Older Entries Next Newer Entries