No sir, There will be No living off the grid in Cape Coral, Florida

26 Feb 2014 5 Comments

by truthfarmer in Agenda 21, Consolidation, Control Tags: Cape Coral, code enforcement, off-grid living

This is a truly interesting story. I know nothing about her guilt or innocence regarding the crime alleged in the article. I post this because I find it astonishing that the city thinks that one person’s waste added to their sewer system is worth more than $1000 charge in a year, and that they would cap the sewer is astonishing to me. At best, it’s an indictment against property rights and personal choice insofar as living in any city may be concerned.

There’s a lot of food for thought here:

‘Pure evil’: City caps sewer of woman fighting to live ‘off the grid’

By Charlene Sakoda 19 hours ago Odd News

The fight of Cape Coral, Florida resident Robin Speronis to live “off the grid” has escalated with the city’s recent decision to cap her access to the sewer so she can no longer use it. It’s a move she calls, “pure evil.”

Robin Speronis (WFTX)

Since November 2013, WFTX Fox 4 has reported on Ms. Speronis’ ongoing battle with the city to live without most utilities. The self-sufficient woman has lived for more than a year-and-a-half using solar energy, a propane camping stove, rain water, and eating mainly non-perishable food. However, the day after the station’s first profile of her lifestyle Speronis’ home was tagged by the city code enforcement with a notice to vacate.

The notice to vacate posted on Robin Speronis’ home. (WFTX)

The story of her plight spread and many rallied around Speronis’ cause sending Cape Coral officials complaints in support of the woman. WFTX reported that the city clarified that, “…municipalities don’t have the power to evict,” and that the notice was placed because they, “…merely [wanted] access to the home to provide suggestion so Speronis can live off the grid in Cape Coral.” After that incident, Speronis told the station, “Cape Coral needs to be afraid of me, I’m not afraid of them.”

Robin Speronis with officers at her home. (WFTX)

In January attorney Todd Allen, who agreed to represent Speronis pro-bono, was served with a five-page amended violation notice that cited international property maintenance code and city ordinances. Allen said that the two sets of codes are not clear, “What is a private water system? That’s not defined in either code. But if one code accepts it, then they shouldn’t, the other shouldn’t negate the ability to have one.”

Todd Allen (WFTX)

Last week, Speronis appeared before Special Magistrate Harold S. Eskin and was found not guilty of violating city codes requiring a proper electrical and sewer system. Though, Speronis was found guilty of violating a code requiring an approved water supply. Eskin ordered that she hook-up to the cityutilities. In response Speronis told WFTX and The News-Press, “That doesn’t make common sense. So why would I do that? Why would I hook, hook up to the city water and then not use it?”

Robin Speronis’ rain water collection barrels. (WFTX)

Also discussed at the special hearing was the fact that Speronis had been using the sewer system for the past year yet not paying for the service amassing a past due bill in the thousands. After her testimony admitting that she had used the service without paying for it, the city decided to cap the sewer line. Connie Barron, Cape Coral spokesperson told The News-Press, “She also gave clear indications she does not intend to pay for this service but intends to continue to use the system. We really had no choice but to cap the sewer.”

Speronis’ time living on the grid hasn’t gone so well for her either. As reported by the Cape Coral Daily Breeze , in June 2011, she plead no content to larceny, and was sentenced to 10 years of state probation and ordered to pay $32,000 in restitution. In January 2012, she had her real estate license revoked following a second complaint that she had not returned a $3,500 deposit following a failed condo sale.

(Lee County Sheriff’s Office)

The magistrates order takes effect on March 28 however Speronis says that her attorney can stay the decision during the appeal process. Speronis seems to stands firm on her decision to live off the grid and said that she had a way to do without the sewer system in a sanitary fashion.

Corruption in Science? You’re Kidding!

25 Feb 2014 1 Comment

by truthfarmer in Consolidation, Control, Disease, FDA, Food Destruction Agency, food safety, GMO's, Uncategorized, USDA

As anyone who follows the approval of FDA and USDA “science” knows, we no longer have much at all in the way of actual science. Instead we have black balling of those who don’t tote the corporate line, and science based studies that have nothing to do with legitimate science and the scientific method we are supposed to learn in school.

The following interview by Democracy Now! has clearly exposed the issue. Check it out:

GRAS Being Challenged

25 Feb 2014 Leave a comment

by truthfarmer in Consolidation, Control, Disease, Food Destruction Agency, food safety

Most of the time, I find Food Safety News to be off target and terrified of real food and personal choice in nourishment. The following article is an exception, but probably because it doesn’t actually have anything to do with Food Safety News and their fear mongering owner Bill Marler. At any rate, the article clearly demonstrates how corrupt FDA processes are, and hopefully the lawsuit will actually change an aspect of that corruption.

Lawsuit Brought Against FDA Regarding Food Additives

By Lydia Zuraw | February 21, 2014

After settling a dispute about final rule deadlines for the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) earlier this week, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) has filed another lawsuit against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration – this time over food additives.

The suit seeks to vacate FDA’s 1997 proposed rule on substances generally recognized as safe (GRAS). The rule replaces the traditional petitioning process for a manufacturer seeking GRAS status for an additive with a “procedure whereby any person may notify FDA of a determination that a particular use of a substance is GRAS.”

CFS wants the agency to return to the traditional process by which manufacturers formally petition FDA to approve a new food additive as GRAS based on published studies.

FDA’s website acknowledges that the agency began accepting GRAS notices in 1998 even though the procedure was not yet final (and has yet to be finalized) and states that “the agency is evaluating whether each submitted notice provides a sufficient basis for a GRAS determination and whether information in the notice or otherwise available to FDA raises issues that lead the agency to question whether use of the substance is GRAS.”

But CFS claims that “FDA no longer conducts its own detailed analysis to evaluate the data” and “no longer affirms whether or not a substance’s use is GRAS at all.”

A 2010 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on the subject passed similar judgment by stating, “Currently, companies may determine a substance is GRAS without FDA’s approval or knowledge.”

CFS is particularly concerned that this notification process has allowed for potentially hazardous additives to enter the food supply. Three examples named in the lawsuit are a potential human carcinogen called Volatile Oil of Mustard, an indigestible compound called Olestra that can cause adverse reactions, and a fungus-based meat substitute mycoprotein (also know as Quorn) that can cause dangerous allergic reactions.

“It has been 15 years since FDA handed authority to determine GRAS status over to the corporations it is meant to regulate,” said Andrew Kimbrell, CFS executive director. “FDA has an obligation to provide the regulatory scrutiny the public deserves.”

US Wastes Billions of Dollars of Food

25 Feb 2014 1 Comment

by truthfarmer in Consolidation, Control, farm loss, food, food shortage, Morningland Dairy, USDA Tags: drought, food shortages, food waste, propane impacts

The USDA has done a report on the amount of food wastage in the US. Interestingly, this is at a time right before food prices are going to sky rocket. One thing that has apparently not been addressed in this report is the regulatory and insurance side of the profligate waste we appear to have.

Morningland Dairy was forced to waste about $250,000 dollars of cheese that hadn’t made one person sick in over 30 years. Fast food restaurants throw out huge amounts of food at close and are prohibited from allowing people to getting it even out of the dumpster. People who want to feed the homeless are routinely fined, punished or prevented from doing so because they don’t have permits and licenses that prove they prepare food in a permitted and licensed kitchen.

It could be readily argued that a vast amount of our food is garbage anyway, and therefore going where it should go, but truly not having enough to eat is about to become a reality for a larger percentage of our population than in anytime in recent memory.

There is a massive drought in California, there are 25% of greenhouses that heat with propane that have either shut down or significantly scaled back, the vast majority of chicken houses heat with propane and most of those growers finished what they had and held off on losing everything due to either being unable to afford or in some cases even acquire the propane to heat with. Brazil, the highest global producer of beef and a major exporter of food in many categories is in a drought where rationing of water is occurring in 142 cities. And don’t forget that South Dakota lost around 100,000 cattle and we have cattle populations in the US at 1951 levels.

While we’re throwing all of this away, or being forced to throw it away, we’re looking at massive rises in food costs. Time to learn how to preserve whatever excess we have.

Here’s an article about the USDA wastage report:

Americans trash about 1/3 of their food, worth $161bn – USDA

Published time: February 25, 2014 08:56

Get short URL

AFP Photo / Spencer Platt

About 30 percent of the 430 billion pounds of food produced in the United States is wasted, an incredible statistic, especially given the lack of landfill space, not to mention the global menace of world hunger.

The shocking statistic gives a new meaning to the term ‘junk food,’ as Americans are sending 133 billion lbs (60 billion kg) of food to the garbage dump each year. To put it another way, 141 trillion calories annually – or 1,249 calories per capita daily – went uneaten in the United States, according to a report by the US Department of Agriculture.

The top three food groups in terms of the amount of total food loss cost are ranked as follows: meat, poultry, and fish (30 percent); vegetables (19 percent); and dairy products (17 percent). Retail food waste, for example, in grocery stores and restaurants, accounted for 10 percent (43 billion lbs), while consumer losses amounted to 21 percent (90 billion pounds) of the available food supply.

The issue of food loss is becoming a serious topic not just in the United States, but across the world as countries struggle with mounting levels of garbage, while food scarcity among an exploding world population demands a new way of thinking about eating habits.

In 2010, the average American spent $4,016 on food (both for at-home and away-from-home consumption) out of an average disposable income of $36,016, the report, titled ‘The Estimated Amount, Value and Calories of Postharvest Food Losses at the Retail and Consumer Levels in the United States’, noted.

Meanwhile, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than one-third of US adults (35.7 percent) are obese, which is perhaps the best argument that Americans can offset a large part of the food waste problem by simply eating less. The estimated annual medical cost of obesity in the US was $147 billion in 2008; the costs of providing medical assistance for individuals who are obese were $1,429 higher than those of normal weight, thereby placing an enormous strain on healthcare costs.

At the same time, the problem of global food scarcity is gaining the attention of world leaders.

“The United Nations predicts that the world population will reach 9.3 billion by 2050, and this will require a 70 percent increase in food production, net of crops used for biofuels. Currently…the number of food-insecure people reached 802 million in 2012,” the report stated.

The USDA warned that developed countries like the United States – where 49 million people lived in food-insecure households out of a total population of over 305 million – should not take their current level of food security for granted.

“Although most of this population growth will occur in developing countries, developed countries like the United States also face issues of hunger and food insecurity,” it said.

In an effort to attract attention to the problem of food waste, the USDA and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) last year kicked off the US Food Waste Challenge. The United Nations’ Environment Program’s (UNEP) World Environment Day’s central theme was also food waste.

AFP Photo / Spencer Platt

The report acknowledged that tackling the problem is no easy challenge given the many diverse places where food is distributed, consumed and disposed of.

There are an estimated 119 million households, over a half a million dining establishments, including fast-food outlets, and numerous other locations where people gather to eat, such as schools, institutions, and prisons across the United States, it said.

Eco-hazardous habits

A largely ignored problem associated with our intensely urbanized lifestyles is how to get rid of our food waste in a way that does not inflict long-term damage on the environment. Discarding uneaten food into plastic garbage bags and burying them in landfills only exacerbates the problem.

According to statistics by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), food waste accounted for 34 million tons of some 250 million tons of municipal solid waste in the United States in 2010, with a price tag of about $1.3 billion.

After recycling a number of materials, like metals, plastic and paper, food waste came out on top in terms of what is overloading our garbage dumps, with 21 percent of the total, according to the EPA.

The most worrying problem with landfilling food waste is that it generates methane gas as it decomposes anaerobically. Methane is 21 times more powerful in accelerating global warming than carbon dioxide, according to the EPA as cited in the USDA report.

Landfills account for 34 percent of all human-related methane emissions in the United States
The report pointed to a growing human footprint on the planet as a good reason for nations to start addressing this issue.

The report offered some suggestions on addressing the issue, including expanding on community composting programs, of which there are around 3,510 such initiatives in the US that allow neighborhood residents to leave food scraps and yard trimmings at the curb for a special collection.

At the same time, companies will work to offset food waste if “it is economically justifiable, that is, if the benefits outweigh the costs.”

The report suggested the potential advantages of building “consumer goodwill” for business, using by way of example “a sandwich shop donates uneaten yet wholesome food to a community feeding organization at the end of each day.”

GMO Labeling Co-Opt

21 Feb 2014 1 Comment

by truthfarmer in Agenda 21, Consolidation, Conspiracy, Control, food, food safety, GMO's Tags: corporate agriculture, GMO coalition, GMO's safe, safe affordable food

As expected, the promoters of GMO food are now beginning a broad push on the federal level to pre-empt the ability of consumers to know that they are eating stuff that was never part of creation and is more like sprinkling pesticide and herbicides on nearly everything you eat than ingesting food.

With nearly everything in our country, you can look at the corporations behind any social movement and figure out whether it is of the people, or of the corporations. People tend to want personal choice and informed consent, and corporations look at people as revenue generators and something to be exploited.

At this point in our nation’s history, it looks to me like the only thing we can do to try to provide for ourselves and our families is to grow as much of our own food as possible, and what we cannot produce we need to get from others who are growing their own food as well. We will never be able to fight Monsanto, Farm Bureau, Dupont, Bayer, Cargill, ADM, Bunge, Tyson, IBP and the banking structure in the legislature. They can give way more in the realm of political donations than we can, so the only justice we can seek must come from each other.

Here is the article from their “Coalition for Safe Affordable Food” website. Please read down to the bottom and view all their members. It’s illuminating:

Broad-Based Coalition Launched to Advocate for Congressional Action on a Federal GMO Labeling Solution
Legislation Needed to Protect Consumers by Eliminating Confusion and Advancing Food Safety

(Washington, D.C.) American farmers and representatives from a diverse group of almost thirty industry and non-governmental organizations today announced the formation of the Coalition for Safe Affordable Food (www.CFSAF.org) and urged Congress to quickly seek a federal solution that would establish standards for the safety and labeling of food and beverage products made with genetically modified ingredients (GMOs).

“American families deserve safe, abundant and affordable food,” said Martin Barbre, President of the National Corn Growers. “And America’s farmers rely on this proven technology to protect crops from insects, weeds and drought, enabling us to deliver on that promise and to do so through sustainable means. A federal solution on GMO labeling will bolster consumer confidence in the safety of American food by reaffirming the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) role as the nation’s foremost authority on the use and labeling of foods containing genetically modified ingredients.”

A federal GMO labeling solution is needed that will protect consumers and ensure the safety of food ingredients made through the use of modern agricultural biotechnology:

• Eliminate Confusion: Remove the confusion and uncertainty of a 50 state patchwork of GMO safety and labeling laws and affirm the FDA as the nation’s authority for the use and labeling of genetically modified food ingredients.

• Advance Food Safety: Require the FDA to conduct a safety review of all new GMO traits before they are introduced into commerce. FDA will be empowered to mandate the labeling of GMO food ingredients if the agency determines there is a health, safety or nutrition issue with an ingredient derived from a GMO.

• Inform Consumers: The FDA will establish federal standards for companies that want to voluntarily label their product for the absence-of or presence-of GMO food ingredients so that consumers clearly understand their choices in the marketplace.

• Provide Consistency: The FDA will define the term “natural” for its use on food and beverage products so that food and beverage companies and consumers have a consistent legal framework that will guide food labels and inform consumer choice.

“Foods made with genetically modified ingredients (GMOs) are safe and have a number of important benefits for people and our planet,” said Pamela G. Bailey, president and CEO of the Grocery Manufacturers Association. “Our nation’s food safety and labeling laws should not be set by political campaigns or state and local legislatures, but by the FDA, the nation’s foremost food safety agency.

“GMO technology has fostered a revolution in American agriculture that has benefitted consumers in the United States and around the world. And with global population expected to grow from seven to nine billion by 2050, we will need 70% more food production to keep pace. A federal GMO labeling solution will provide a framework for the safe and continued use of technology that is essential to the future of our planet.”

Facts About GMOs (www.FactsAboutGMOs.org )
• Many of the most influential regulatory agencies and organizations that study the safety of the food supply, including the U.S. Food & Drug Administration, the American Medical Association, the World Health Organization, Health Canada, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the National Academy of Sciences, have found genetically modified food ingredients (GMOs) are safe and there are no negative health effects associated with their use.

• GM technology adds desirable traits from nature, without introducing anything unnatural or using chemicals, so that food is more plentiful.

• GM technology is not new. In fact, it has been around for the past 20 years, and today, 70-80% of the foods we eat in the United States, both at home and away from home, contain ingredients that have been genetically modified.

• Ingredients grown using GM technology require fewer pesticides, less water and keep production costs down. In fact, GM technology helps reduce the price of crops used for food, such as corn, soybeans and sugar beets by as much as 15-30%.

• One in eight people among the world’s growing population of seven billion do not have enough to eat, and safe and effective methods of food production, like crops produced through GM technology, can help us feed the hungry and malnourished in developing nations around the world.
###

The Coalition for Safe Affordable Food is dedicated to providing policy makers, media, consumers and all stakeholders with the facts about ingredients grown through GM technology. We are also an advocate for common sense policy solutions that will only further enhance the safety of the GM crops and protect the vital role they play in today’s modern global food supply chain. The coalition is comprised of American farmers and representatives from a diverse group of industry and non-governmental organizations.

Coalition Members

1. AACC International/ American Phytopathological Society
2. American Bakers Association
3. American Beverage Association
4. American Farm Bureau Federation
5. American Feed Industry Association
6. American Frozen Food Institute
7. American Seed Trade Association
8. American Soybean Association
9. American Sugarbeet Growers Association
10. Biotechnology Industry Organization
11. Corn Refiners Association
12. Council for Responsible Nutrition
13. Flavor & Extract Manufacturers Association
14. Global Cold Chain Alliance
15. Grocery Manufacturers Association
16. International Dairy Foods Association
17. International Franchise Association
18. National Association of Manufacturers
19. National Association of Wheat Growers
20. National Confectioners Association
21. National Corn Growers Association
22. National Council of Farmer Cooperatives
23. National Grain & Feed Association
24. National Fisheries Institute
25. National Oilseed Processors Association
26. National Restaurant Association
27. National Turkey Federation
28. North American Millers Association
29. Pet Food Institute
30. Snack Food Association
31. U.S. Beet Sugar Association

Contact: Claire Parker
Coalition for Safe Affordable Food Press Office
703-888-9395
press@cfsaf.org

NAIS Operates Under Aliases

16 Feb 2014 1 Comment

by truthfarmer in Agenda 21, Consolidation, Control, NAIS/ADT Tags: Animal ID, NAIS, Washington Animal Tracks

Former state vet touts traceability system
http://www.capitalpress.com/article/20140210/ARTICLE/140219993/

Retired Washington State Department of Agriculture Veterinarian Leonard Eldridge says some gaps in credible, accurate information still need to be filled to develop animal traceability. The department is building its new Animal Tracks searchable database. Eldridge stressed the need for the system to be electronic, which would be easily and quickly searchable. SPOKANE — The Washington Department of Agriculture is developing an animal traceability system to easily search cattle records in the event of a disease outbreak.

Retired state veterinarian Leonard Eldridge stressed the need to fill information gaps during the Spokane Ag Expo and Pacific Northwest Farm Forum.

He sees high risks in feeder and slaughter cattle practices outside the state and cattle trading from one producer to another without notifying the department or third-party verification.

Eldridge said the state realized it needed a better traceability system after bovine spongiform encephalitis was discovered in a cow in December 2003. That cow was found to have been exposed in Canada, he said, but his department could not find all cows that ate the same feed there.

“There are exemptions for female dairy cattle to be traded in the state without telling the Department of Agriculture, and I think that was a big issue,” Eldridge said. “It’s still a gap today we need to fix. We need to go to the whole industry and say, ‘Tell us how to do this.’”

WSDA animal disease traceability program manager David Hecimovich said Washington agriculture director Bud Hover is removing the exemption. The department will announce the rule change in February or March, which could be official by mid-summer, Hecimovich said.

The department has established three animal health investigators.

Eldridge estimates establishing the state’s new “Animal Tracks” program costs $440,000 each year for two years. State legislators approved $881,000 for the department to begin building the system last year.

The traceability system would include information on documents showing animal movement, change of ownership, brand information and disease and test records.

“You could search for any one of these pieces and the rest of the information comes up,” Eldridge said. “That’s what we said we needed.”

The department provides monthly updates on the status of implementing the system.

The future cost of maintaining the program is uncertain. Eldridge stressed the need for communication with the entire industry about the best methods to protect the industry and keep costs low. Committee feedback called for a stable source of funding each year, with costs shared by taxpayers and all aspects of the industry, he said.

Eldridge believes the system needs to be electronic. Paper records are time-consuming and difficult to search through quickly, he said. One-time data entry is faster, eliminates a lot of work and reduce the possibility of error.

State departments are likely to lead the development of electronic databases, Eldridge said, and USDA will likely eventually follow suit.

Online
http://agr.wa.gov/foodanimal/animalid/adtproject.aspx

Death by Regulation

05 Feb 2014 1 Comment

by truthfarmer in Agenda 21, Consolidation, Control, Enforcement, FDA, food safety, Right to Contract

I couldn’t possibly agree more with the author of the following article. He did a good job in going back through recent history and finding points that clearly show the insanity in which we now find ourselves regarding regulation of the simplest entrepreneurial effort.

The other day, Forbe’s, whom I take umbrage with over their continued support for GMO shill Henry Miller, did a good piece on the 1000 new businesses that sprang up in California due to the state allowing home food businesses to have a go at it without choking them to death with regulatory controls.

Less regulation is good for children and other living things…Unless of course it is lack of regulation over actual poisons like 24D.

My personal thoughts on this matter are that the regulatory system is effectively choking the spark of life out of us. It’s like replacing our inherent drive to create with the “Dao of Poo” summed up as, “Why bother?”

At any rate, here is the promised article. Hats off to the author, John Aziz!

What’s the point of regulating lemonade stands?

Shutting down lemonade stands costs kids important entrepreneurial experience

By John Aziz | February 4, 2014

Yeah, it’s tough out there kid. (Jim Weber/ZUMA Press/Corbis)

Over the last 30 years, it seems like it has gotten a little tougher for kids to start that most Norman Rockwell of ventures, the lemonade stand.

Back in the 1980s and 1990s there were a few instances of local governments shutting kids’ stands down for various reasons, although officials typically bowed to public pressure and allowed them to reopen.

In 1983, 6-year-old Ali Thorn’s lemonade stand in Belleair, Fla., was closed down after police received an anonymous complaint that her sign did not comply with city ordinances, but was quickly allowed to reopen.

In 1988, 9-year-old Max Schilling’s seven-foot high lemonade stand in Watchung, N.J., was shuttered after city officials claimed it was a permanent structure that sat too close to the street and threatened to fine him $500 a day. After a brief legal fight, Schilling’s stand was allowed to reopen.

In 1993, 12-year-old Sarah Knott and 13-year-old Margaret Johnson’s stand in Charleston, S.C., was shut down by police officers because they didn’t have a peddler’s license. However, after a public outcry, the city apologized to the girls and allowed them to continue.

More recently, though, local enforcement of lemonade stands seems to have grown stricter, or at least, more noticeable. The libertarian Freedom Center of Missouri has produced a map to show the locations of these incidents.

In 2010, 7-year-old Julie Murphy’s lemonade stand in Portland, Ore., was shuttered because she did not have a temporary restaurant permit, a license that carries a $120 fee, although that decision was later reversed with a Multnomah County chairman admitting that food inspectors may have overstepped their bounds, saying, “A 7-year-old selling lemonade isn’t the same as a grown-up selling burritos out of a cart.”

In 2011, in Midway, Ga., a lemonade stand run by Kasity Dixon, 14, Tiffany Cassin, 12, and Skylar Roberts, 10 was shuttered because they didn’t have a business license, a peddler’s permit, or a food permit, all of which would have cost them $50 a day to obtain for temporary use or $180 for the year. Despite national media attention and complaints from residents, the city wouldn’t back down.

And also in 2011, Caitlin and Abigail Mills’ girl scout cookie stand in Hazelwood, Mo., was closed for violating an ordinance banning the sale of items from a residential property. The girls’ family attempted to sue the city, but the case appears to have been dropped.

Let’s not overstate it, though. Lemonade stand-shutdowns are not reaching epidemic-like levels, and no one is going to cart off little Suzie to jail for selling cookies outside her house. That said, there is something absurd about shutting down lemonade stands, even if it’s still relatively rare.

The main risk of a tougher approach to children running food stands — and especially demanding that kids comply with costly licensing and strict city zoning laws — is that children will lose out on the entrepreneurial experience of running their first business, serving customers, and making money. If we want to have an entrepreneurial culture, where people innovate and take risks to build businesses, there has to be a certain amount of freedom and space for the young to learn these skills.

While navigating bureaucracy is definitely a useful entrepreneurial skill, expecting kids or their parents to fork out hundreds of dollars for a license to run their first business is punitive and anti-entrepreneurial. And every hour and dollar spent on inspecting or shutting down children’s lemonade stands on technicalities is an hour and dollar not spent on inspecting food safety in actual restaurants, food processing facilities, and stores — places where a lapse in food safety could expose hundreds or thousands of people to illness.

And while city zoning laws are useful for keeping heavy industry away from homes, selling lemonade or girl scout cookies is really a residential activity. Many of the world’s most famous businesses — Amazon, Apple, Disney, Google, Hewlett Packard — were started in garages. An entrepreneurial culture requires the freedom to start a business at home. If we stop businesses and businesspeople from developing, we lose the benefits that come down the road, like job creation and innovation (not that little Suzie’s lemonade stand will likely grow to rival Tropicana, but you get the point…).

The sooner cities and counties realize this, and stop wasting resources going after the entrepreneurs of tomorrow, the better.

###

National….No, International ID—What is “the mark”?

31 Jan 2014 1 Comment

by truthfarmer in Agenda 21, Consolidation, Conspiracy, Control, Privacy, Radio Tags: 1666, 666, aleph, International ID, National ID, Real Id, the mark, vav

In Missouri we passed a law “prohibiting” Real ID. It didn’t have any enforcement clause in it, so when the State broke the law, there was a lot of theater and a sacrificial lamb resignation and General Assembly hearings. Then the lawmakers changed the law and actually allow for it via digital photographs. I don’t think they meant to do that, but that is what they did. You can have a driver or non-driver ID without a digital photo on it, but the DOR requires that the issuing bureau take a digital photo and upload it into the database. So there is no religious or moral objection allowed.

All these ID’s are being sent to a company called Morpho Trust which then sends it on to its owner, Saffron, over in Europe. Saffron then contracts with the World Bank and the IMF to share all of this biometric identification, and voila! You can’t travel without it, and soon, you won’t be able to buy or sell without it. (Think BitCoin is great?…consider it a bit more, please.)

Let’s see….you can’t get a job without it, you can’t get a bank account without it, you can’t travel without it; it IS the MEASURE of a man, which is the number, and hey, the average Christian believes that you will have to literally bow down and worship a statue in order to take the “mark of the beast”. Nevermind that “worship” is co-equal to “obey”. Read Romans 13 in context and with the rest of scripture in mind. If the common teaching on that chapter is applied, everything government does is ok including killing innocents as in the Holocaust.

Listen, I don’t preach much, but I am telling you today, we all serve someone. The issue at its core is that we are looking for someone to provide for our needs. Our choice is in whom that provider is. In the Hebrew, 1666 is equal to aleph vav vav vav. 666 is vav vav vav. Aleph is Father/Provider/Strength. Vav is Man/Hook/Nail. Think about it, please. The measure of a man, that ties you to a provider….And you don’t have a choice on the face of it. If you don’t drive, don’t work, don’t have a bank account, it is very difficult to live and pay bills.

Ha Satan does not come out in the open and say, “Hey, worship/obey me!” he works through deception and he hides so that he can not be found out.

Please listen to the show I am posting below. Think deeply about this issue. Check scripture, and even if you aren’t a believer, think about the privacy and control implications of this Real ID program.

Here’s the copy of the radio show coming up. Please listen:

If America implemented a National Identification and the mainstream media didn’t cover it, would it still matter? What if we told you that’s already happening?

For the first time in the nation’s history, a National ID law will take effect this year, and it will have a major impact on your life.

That’s the subject of this week’s edition of Off The Grid Radio, in which Jim Harper of the Cato Institute tells us everything we need to know about the law – what it means, why we should be concerned, and how it could be used and abused in the future. Eventually, you won’t be able to fly without one.

The ID is being rolled out through a law known as the Real ID Act, and it is turning ordinary driver’s licenses into National IDs that are unlike anything we’ve seen.

That picture you get at the DMV? It’s now being stored in a database that is accessed by the federal government, and in an instant it can be matched to, say, a picture of you taken at a toll booth or in a post office. In some states, you can’t even smile for a picture – because doing so would confuse the computer.

Sadly, this isn’t fiction.

Harper tells us:

How the government can track you using a National ID.
How other countries have abused National IDs
Why the Founders would have opposed a National ID.
How the law’s text allows the DHS secretary to require IDs for entry pretty much anywhere.

If you care about freedom and privacy, you don’t want to miss this week’s episode!

Click here to listen to this week’s interview.

Want to share Off the Grid Radio with your friends and family? Each week’s episode is now on CD! Go to your favorite episode and order your copy today.

Michigan: Killing More Small Farms

26 Jan 2014 6 Comments

by truthfarmer in Consolidation, Control, farm loss, food Tags: community farms, food scarcity, inflation, Michigan, No more farm animas, residential zoning, small farms

No more farm animals in residential neighborhoods, Michigan agriculture committee advises

By Rosemary Parker | rparker3@mlive.com
Follow on Twitter
on January 20, 2014 at 5:56 AM, updated January 22, 2014 at 2:52 PM

MATTAWAN, MI — A Mattawan family’s farm may be safe, but changes under consideration by the Michigan Agriculture Commission could strip future small farmers of protection under Michigan’s Right to Farm act, according to an “action alert” sent Jan. 7 by the Michigan Small Farm Council.

Kelly VanderKley’s turkeys walk around in their pen on Friday, July 26, 2013 at her small farm in Mattawan. File photo

The group’s mission “is to protect and extend the rights of urban, suburban, and rural small-scale farming operations throughout the state,” according to its website.

Those rights are threatened by proposed changes to Michigan’s Generally Acceptable Agricultural Practices (GAAMPs) currently under review by “first bring(ing) operations as small as a single animal under the control of the Site Selection GAAMPs,” the alert warns, “and then using (a new category) to exclude those operations from Right to Farm protection in residential areas.”

Kelly VanderKley and her husband, David Hunter, sought Right to Farm protection for their Antwerp Township hobby farm last year when neighbors complained about their animals and manure on the 4.8 acre of land. The farm underwent strict scrutiny by the state inspector to assure practices were in compliance with all applicable environmental requirements, VanderKley said, and were judged to be in compliance with current standards.

The Michigan Right to Farm Act provides nuisance protection for farms and farm operations which are in conformance with GAAMPs. Right to Farm was originally designed to protect commercial agriculture operations from being pushed out by changes in local zoning or land uses that conflict with common agriculture practices. GAAMPs are reviewed annually by scientific committees of various experts, revised and updated as necessary, according to a recent news release from the Michigan Department of Agriculture announcing this year’s deadline for public comment is Wednesday, Jan. 22.

The proposed revisions worrying the Michigan Small Farm Council are tweaks to the GAAMPs for Site Selection and Odor Control for Livestock Production Facilities.

The Site Selection GAAMPs have never applied to most small farmers, the council alert explained, because “Livestock Production Facilities” have been defined as having 50 animal units or more, far greater than the number of animals held by most small farms in Michigan.

“In the proposed changes, MDARD defines a new term, Livestock Facility, as one with any number of animals – including a single animal,” a step, the alert warns, that “for the first time brings small farm operations under the control of the Site Selection GAAMPs. And then in a second step, MDARD creates a new class of sites – Category 4 sites – that are not ever acceptable sites for Livestock Facilities.”

Category 4 sites are defined as those exclusively zoned for residential use.

Those changes could be the kiss of death for enterprises such as backyard chicken flocks, or small acreage hobby farms such as VanderKley’s that keep a few animals on suburban acreage, said Michigan Small Farm Council member Randy Buchler, of Shady Grove Farm in the Upper Peninsula community of Gwinn.

“It would exclude a whole bunch of people who are seeking Right to Farm protection… and strip the small farmers of their right to be protected by a state law.”

A circuit court judge ruled in Buchler’s favor when he cited Right to Farm to protect his own farm’s existence on residential property in Marquette County, the largest county in the state, he said.

“What they are trying to do is to take away Right to Farm protection from people trying to be self sufficient but not able to do agriculture on any level according their local zoning.

“The way it looks to us,” Buchler said, “this would allow local ordinances to trump state law.”

Mitigating conflict

“The GAAMPs look at nuisance risk and are intended to help mitigate conflict,” said Jennifer Holton, spokesperson for the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development.

“The committee recognizes that when you add in animals into those densely populated areas, it increases nuisance risk as well as the potential for conflict,” Holton said. “This proposal recognizes that there is a continuum – there are places ideally situated for livestock, and there are places in the state where livestock should not be located. ”

“The proposal also recognizes size and scale in a new way – there are places where large livestock facilities can be located – and the new category recognizing that small scale livestock (4-H, a couple of horses, etc.) can fit well in other places.”

Public Comment

People are invited to submit their thoughts on the site selection or any other GAAMPs by mail or email, or to attend the GAAMPs public input meeting at 9 a.m. Jan. 22, 2014, in Room A at the State Secondary Complex – General Office Building, 7150 Harris Drive, Dimondale.

Written comments may be submitted to the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s Environmental Stewardship Division, P.O. Box 30017, Lansing, MI 48909, postmarked no later than Jan. 22, 2014.

E-mail should be directed to WilcoxR2@michigan.gov, and must arrive by p.m. on Jan. 22, 2014.

MDARD will forward all comments received by the due date to the respective GAAMPs Task Force chairpersons for consideration. The GAAMPs Task Force Chairpersons then present proposed GAAMPs to the Michigan Commission of Agriculture and Rural Development for final adoption.

Public comments are accepted and considered at scheduled commission meetings before final versions of the GAAMPs are approved.

For a copy of any of the GAAMPs, including the proposed revisions, click here or contact MDARD’s Environmental Stewardship Division at 517-284-5619, or toll free at 877-632-1783.

Public comment will be taken on all eight GAAMPs, though there are proposed changes only in the GAAMPs for Manure Management and Utilization, Pesticide Utilization and Pest Control, the Care of Farm Animals, Site Selection and Odor Control for New and Expanding Livestock Production Facilities, and Irrigation Water Use.

Currently, there are no proposed changes in the GAAMPs for: Nutrient Utilization, Farm Markets, and Cranberry Production.

Another Problem with Massive Amounts of Government Data

23 Jan 2014 Leave a comment

by truthfarmer in Animal Welfare, Consolidation, Control, Enforcement, farm loss, Privacy Tags: animal rights activists, data collection, destruction of property, epa privacy concerns

While I want to make clear that I do not like CAFO’s, I also want to make it even more clear that I do not at all appreciate terrorism, theft, destruction of property and harassment. Also, as some of you have heard me speak about, I have been involved in attempting to get information on Morningland Dairy from my own state’s agency for over four months. None of that information could possibly be deemed to be used to terrorize anyone with. Simple transparency in governmental actions is the desire behind the request for my FOIA on Morningland….More about that tomorrow.

What I want to share with you is the result of the EPA showing exceptional and dangerous favoritism to animal rights activists. Please read this article and share it with anyone you think may have an interest in protecting privacy.

January 14, 2014 6:30 PM

The EPA’s Privacy Problem
Farmers and ranchers sue after the EPA releases confidential information to environmental groups.

Text

Comments

107

The fire at San Joaquin Valley’s Harris Farms burst out suddenly and rapidly, consuming 14 trailer trucks in the dawn of January 8, 2012. Wreaking more than $2 million in damage, it constituted one of the biggest acts of agro-terrorism in American history.

An anonymous news release issued by the Animal Liberation Front, a radical animal-rights group, explained that unnamed activists had placed containers of kerosene and digital timers beneath the trucks, linking them with kerosene-soaked rope to carry the fire down the row, “a tactic adapted from Home Alone 2.” The statement concludes threateningly: “until next time.” The perpetrators remain uncaught.

Two years later, farmers and ranchers in 29 states worry they’ll be similarly attacked; last year, the Environmental Protection Agency released to environmental groups extensive personal information about 80,000 to 100,000 agricultural operations.

The data released included names of owners, addresses, global-positioning-system coordinates, phone numbers, e-mail addresses, and, in some instances, notes on medical conditions and inheritances. Though environmental groups had requested information about “concentrated animal feeding operations” — “CAFOs” in the bureaucratic lingo, and “feedlots” in the vernacular — some of the information released clumped in data about crop farms, too.

Farm groups say the EPA violated farmers’ and ranchers’ privacy, increasing their risk of agro-terrorism as well as harassment or litigation from animal-rights and environmental activists. The EPA has admitted to having improperly released farmers’ data on two occasions, and has twice attempted to claw back those records.

The American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Pork Producers Council are now suing the EPA to prevent it from releasing even more information. Though it hasn’t been much covered, the case has significant implications regarding privacy. It also raises questions about whether the EPA acted politically, cooperating with environmental groups to help them achieve long-term regulatory goals.

“This is really important to farmers and ranchers because this is not just a place of business — this is where they live, this is where their children play,” says Danielle Quist, senior counsel for public policy at the American Farm Bureau Federation. “We are not opposed to transparency in agriculture. In fact we are a huge supporter of transparency. But that’s not what we’re talking about with this lawsuit. All citizens in this country deserve the protection of their private home information. Our farmers and ranchers deserve that same protection.”

Agro-terrorism is a primary concern, say agricultural groups, but there are others: Because the information released is so comprehensive, some worry that it may be used by activist trespassers or scoured over by class-action litigators who could profit from suing feedlots for any shortcomings.

Ashley McDonald, environmental counsel for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, tells National Review Online that “we’ve actually heard from folks that, yes, there has been some suspicious activity that they think might be tied to [the EPA] release.” And Grace Boatright, legislative director for the National Grange, says it has been “pretty disconcerting for families to have their private information accessed by groups that have made it pretty clear they don’t agree with all their current business practices.”

Yet environmental groups say the data collected and released by the EPA is standard for other industries and that farmers and ranchers shouldn’t be treated exceptionally.

“Sometimes the owner or the operator of the facility lives at the facility, so I think that’s given rise to some questions about personal privacy,” says Eve C. Gartner, staff attorney at Earthjustice’s Northeast office. “But it does seem to me like a very difficult question: If someone chooses to locate their home at an industrial facility, does that automatically mean that everything about that facility becomes private?”

Animal-rights activists claim the feedlots systemically abuse animals. PETA, for instance, cites everything from manure smells that cause cows “chronic respiratory problems, making breathing painful” to “a highly unnatural diet” that causes “chronic digestive pain — imagine your worst case of gastritis that never goes away.”

Environmental groups say feedlots increase emissions, cause pollution, and contaminate drinking water. Jon Devine, the senior attorney at the water program of the Natural Resources Defense Council, recently wrote that such operations “generate nasty waste” because “animal manure contains bacteria, viruses and other pathogens, as well as organic compounds, heavy metals, antibiotics, pesticides, and hormones.”

Farm groups dispute these claims, questioning the environmental effect and highlighting improved humane practices with respect to feedlot animals.

Regardless, environmental and animal-rights groups have long sought more federal control of CAFOs, pushing for two specific policy goals: requiring the government to collect extensive data about feedlots, and requiring feedlots to be regulated and permitted under the Clean Water Act.

In the last decade, the EPA has mounted a largely unsuccessful effort to increase permitting requirements for feedlots. But environmental groups were able to work out a settlement with the agency in 2010, compelling it to begin collecting CAFO data.

Truth Farmer