FrankenPhood Fights Hawaii GMO Constraints

In the continual battle for the right to not be invaded with bacterial or viral plants, those of us wishing to keep nature as close to undefiled as possible are gaining a larger percentage of the population and being defeated by the global govicorp entirely too often. Hawaii is dealing with this more than most now. Here’s an article about it:

Biotech Companies Fight Against Hawaiian Anti-GMO Law

The battle rages on between the deep pockets of agribusiness and the resilience and growing numbers of those against the genetic alteration of our food. In a desperate attempt to stop the spread of anti-GMO laws in Hawaii, DuPont, Syngenta and Agrigenetics, Inc. have filed a lawsuit against Kauai’s ordinance restricting GMO use.

The law in place since last November on the island of Kauai requires disclosure of pesticides and GMO varieties, and also maintains GMO and pesticide-free ‘buffer zones’ surrounding homes, hospitals and schools. Seems more than reasonable, right? Not according to the three biotech giants, who have filed suit in Honolulu district court, claiming that the law is ‘unconstitutional.’

Not only do DuPont, Syngenta and Agrigenetics want to repeal this law, they are also seeking an injunction which would permanently prohibit its enforcement.

Syngenta spokesperson Paul Minehart said, “the ordinance is invalid. It arbitrarily targets our industry with burdensome and baseless restrictions on farming operations by attempting to regulate activities over which counties in Hawaii have no jurisdiction. These activities are already regulated by governmental agencies under state and federal laws.”

However, just because GMOs are federally approved does not make placing restrictions on them “baseless.” The Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT) points to multiple studies that have associated GMOs with major health issues including immune system problems, changes in organ systems including the digestive system, infertility, insulin regulation complications and antibiotic resistance.

On this new lawsuit by the three biotech companies, Kauai County Councilman Gary Hooser, one of the council members who introduced the anti-GMO law, commented, “they chose to use their money and legal power to bully us in the courts. These companies do not want our county to set a precedent that other communities are going to follow.”

Indeed, Kauai’s example is being followed. A month after the Kauai bill became a law, a law on Hawaii’s Big Island was enacted prohibiting any new GMOs to be grown. Maui has a similar legislation to Kauai’s currently making its way through the courts. Additionally, almost half of all US states have some form of GMO labeling legislation in the works.

gmoDuPont, Syngenta and Agrigenetics, Inc. are afraid that losing their grip on Kauai will mean losing their grip on many other locations. Part of the lawsuit states that Kauai provides, “the invaluable opportunity to triple or quadruple the pace of development of GM crops.” This is exactly what health-conscious consumers hope to stop.

The GMO manufacturers are scared. They may continue feeding money into similar lawsuits, but eventually they will have to concede to the fact that the tides are shifting against them, and realize that more and more Americans want nothing to do with GMOs.

-The Alternative Daily

Tasmania Remains GMO Free!

Maybe I’ll move to Tasmania.

Tasmania Extends Ban on GM Crops Indefinitely

In a victory for the GMO Free movement in Australia the Tasmanian Government announced Thursday that it has extended the state’s ban on genetically modified crops and animals indefinitely.

Tasmania, the only state in Australia that has a blanket ban on GM crops, has been GMO free since 2001, however the moratorium was set to end in November 2014.

Following a very clear consultation process with local farming and environmental groups, the Tasmanian government decided to announce Thursday that it would continue to protect Tasmania’s clean and green brand by extending the ban indefinitely.

Deputy Premier Bryan Green told ABC that making the ban indefinite will protect the state’s GMO-free brand.

Federal Senator Lin Thorp, who has led the push against GM in Tasmania and was a member of the state government that introduced the moratorium in 2001, said that Tasmania, as an island, can use its isolation and clean environment to “overcome the tyranny of distance and the difficulties of the size of our ventures” by producing GM-free food “that people are prepared to pay a premium for”.

The state’s agriculture industry bodies were also mostly united in their support for maintaining the moratorium. Tasmania’s honey growers even threatened to cease crop pollination services if the ban ended because GM contamination would have destroyed their lucrative European and Asian markets.

Most Tasmanian farmers have not taken an ideological position on GMOs. They have simply judged that GMO Free products give them a huge advantage, a view that is being supported by more and more farmers worldwide.

Tasmania’s Unique GMO policy:  

  • Prohibits use of gene technology in commercial agriculture, horticulture, forestry, fisheries, bioremediation and pets;
  • Does not apply to gene technology use in contained research and medical or non-agricultural industrial use where there is no risk of release to the environment;
  • Allows specific authorisation of some types of research if risks of escape of GM organisms to the environment is low enough;
  • Prohibits import of viable GM organisms which could establish in the environment (eg GM canola seed);
  • Does not prohibit import of non-viable materials derived from GMOs (eg feed containing GM soya bean meal);
  • Continues the eradication program at former trial sites at which residual GM canola occurs;  and,
  • Supports continued Tasmanian participation in national GMO and food safety regulation systems.

A Must Read Book: “One Second After”

Okay, I know this is a little late for the release of this book. I put off reading it largely because it has a foreward by Newt Gingrich. I’m sorry, but I really don’t think very highly of him as I actually recall many of his serious, and in my mind criminal, financial snafus. Nonetheless, this book is an incredible book. If anyone needs a kick in the rear to motivate them to prepare for any kind of disruption in our services, this book will provide the clarity to get at least some action out of any thinking human being.

Buy This Book!!!

“One Second After” is actually the best EMP scenario fictional book I have encountered, and there are a fair amount of them out there. While there are some far fetched aspects to this book, it is far from loaded with them. Also, it isn’t loaded with continuity and grammatical errors that plague many ebooks, so it reads very well. The story is clear and yet poignant. Most importantly, it drives home how fragile our lives are because of our policies on agriculture and our centralization of production and distribution.

As horrific as an EMP would be, the fact that we could weather any tragedy better if we had myriads of diversified small farms all across the country stands out clearly in this book. We could mostly live without a great many of our modern conveniences, although sanitation via running water and refrigeration are things that I definitely wouldn’t want to do without…and they also help tremendously with keeping people healthy and prevent quick spoilage of food.

The issues brought into sharp relief in this book are things that we could largely alleviate by preparing ourselves and encouraging our neighbors and communities to prepare as well. Food will never be less expensive than it is now. Dry canning will preserve flours and grains as well as pasta for a very long time. Up to 20 years is the reported shelf life on dry canned grain stuffs. You can’t just grow all your own grains without seeds and knowledge of how to do it either….so buy seed and learn what you can.

Small greenhouses and garden plots everywhere would provide sustenance for many. Growing edible landscapes instead of purely ornamental yard plants could stave off starvation. Windowsill gardening and sprouting grains with a good reserve of back stock could be the difference between life and death. Knowing your neighbors and developing community exchanges for food and other necessities is an absolute must. Not just in case of an EMP, but any breakdown in our hyper-dependent system.

Bottom line is that I challenge the most resistant to prepping person in this country to read this book and defend their desire to not be bothered by the fact that our system is so dependent upon transportation, communication and constant electricity and computer interfaces. Mess with any one of these critical components and the whole thing is jeopardized. “One Second After” drives that home.

By the way, I have zero financial interest in promoting this book. I simply want people to live and see how tremendously fragile our system is.

 

Digesting Regulations–I’m a Pet Store…or a Dealer, or a Breeder, or Not, or What???!!!

USDA’s APHIS, the same illustrious service that brought us the NAIS which morphed into the ADT, has blessed us all with the distinction of being regulated as a pet store if we aren’t already regulated as licensed breeders. The way the regulations read is confusing at absolute best. The number of breeding females is an aggregate number of all animals covered under the Animal Welfare Act of 1966. That’s virtually every thing that is warm blooded and referred to as a “pet” or used for exhibition. Dogs, cats, farm animals sometimes, rabbits, etc. They say you can have four or less breeding females and not be licensed, but if you sell them online then you are a retail pet store. They also give you the capacity to earn up to $500 gross annually and be exempted from being either a pet store or a breeder.

Now there are exceptions that are astonishing. For one, if the animals are sold as breeding animals, then you are exempt. So every dog could be sold as breeding stock with hybrid vigor and they would be exempt. Or if the animal is a working animal, you’re ok as well. So you could sell poodles as watch dogs and be exempt. But if they are pets, you are not exempt. Basically, if they want to they can deem anyone selling any of the covered animals as under their regulatory authority.

I try really hard not to curse, but after reading the final rule (which you can read here if you have the stamina) I find that I have to quote my husband, I don’t know whether to shit or go blind.

Thankfully there is a lawsuit that has been filed. I hope there is an injunction against the USDA on this insanity. You can read about it below:

Dog and Cat Clubs Tell Uncle Sam to Scat
           (CN) – The U.S. Department of Agriculture illegally and arbitrarily is requiring “tens of thousands of dog and cat breeders” to get licenses and submit to unannounced inspections and the costs of complying with “new structural and sanitation standards,” dozens of dog and cat clubs claim in court.

     Forty dog clubs – and two cat clubs – led by the Associated Dog Clubs of New York State, sued the USDA in District of Columbia Federal Court.
More cats than dogs are kept as pets in the United States, according to the Humane Society: 95.6 million cats and 83.3 million dogs.
Forty-seven percent of U.S. households have at least one dog, and 46 percent have at least one cat, according to the Humane Society.
Why 40 of the 42 plaintiff clubs are dog breeders, and only two represent cats, is a poser. Possibly it’s because dogs and dog owners are clubbier than cats and cat people.
Whatever the reason, the clubs challenge “The Retail Pet Store Rule,” 9 CFR Parts 1-3, which took effect on Nov. 18. The regulation was promulgated under the Animal Welfare Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2131 et seq.
The rule originally was aimed at large breeders who sell over the Internet, but was expanded to include all breeders, including “small-scale breeders,” i.e., the members of the plaintiff clubs, “without any support for doing do,” according to the complaint.
According to the dog clubs’ lawsuit: “The Rule radically changes, without justification, 47 years of USDA’s regulatory oversight of retail pet stores. Specifically, the Rule redefines ‘retail pet store’ to potentially require tens of thousands of dog and cat breeders throughout the United States, including members of plaintiffs, to obtain licenses, to subject their residences to unannounced, on-site inspections, to incur substantial costs to comply with new structural and sanitation standards, to risk the health and lives of their dogs and cats from exposure to the deadly Parvovirus, Panleukopenia, and other diseases, and to place their personal safety at risk by opening their residences to strangers.”
The clubs claim that when Congress passed the Animal Welfare Act in 1966, it “specifically exempted retail pet stores” from the Act’s licensing and inspection requirements.
“Although Congress has amended the AWA several times since its passage, Congress has not changed or narrowed the AWA’s exemption of retail pet stores,” the complaint states. “By promulgating a regulation instead of seeking a statutory solution in Congress, the USDA has circumvented congressional intent. Moreover, the Rule’s redefinition of ‘retail pet store’ is inconsistent with the required record that was developed to justify the Rule.”
The USDA estimated that the rule would affect 2,600 to 4,640 breeders, the dog clubs say – an estimate that is way off base.
“In fact, as was noted in the comments, the Rule potentially affects tens of thousands of breeders, including the almost 19,000 members of the 42 plaintiffs, located in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Significantly, the clubs and registries comprised by plaintiffs represent less than 1 percent of the dog and cat clubs and registries in the United States, yet the cumulative number of plaintiff members alone is four times the maximum number of breeders that APHIS [the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service] estimated would be potentially affected.”
The dog clubs want the rule declared invalid and enjoined as arbitrary and capricious, inconsistent with the AWA, exceeding the jurisdiction of the USDA, and a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act.
The clubs are represented by Philip Hecht.
The Humane Society criticized the lawsuit in a statement, and said it plans to “intervene in the lawsuit and join the government in defending the common-sense regulation.”
The Humane Society said that the rule was enacted to crack down on “large-scale puppy mills.” The statement said that the rule “closed the regulatory loophole” that let puppy mills sells abused dogs online without oversight.
The Humane Society statement did not address the dog clubs’ objection that the rule indiscriminately affects back-yard breeders.
Here are the plaintiffs: Associated Dog Clubs of New York State, Inc; Australian Shepherd Club of America; American Dog Breeders Association, Inc.; Virginia Federation of Dog Clubs and Breeders; California Federation of Dog Clubs; Albany Kennel Club, Inc.; Albany Obedience Club, Inc.; Allpurrs Cattery; American Fox Terrier Club; American Pomeranian Club; American Russell Terrier Club; Belgian Sheepdog Club of America; Cat Fanciers Legislative Group; Charlottesville-Albemarle Kennel Club; Chattanooga Kennel Club;; Chihuahua Club of America; Cleveland Collie Club; Colonial Newfoundland Club; Columbia Poodle Club of Oregon and Southwest Washington; Dachshund Club of Greater Buffalo; Dachshund Fanciers of Central Virginia; Eagle Rock Kennel Club, Inc.; Erie Canal Schipperke Club; Goldendoodle Association of North America;; Huron Valley Australian Shepherd Association; International Bengal Cat Society; International Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club; Kennel Club of Palm Springs; Miniature Australian Shepherd Club of America; Minuteman Samoyed Club, Inc.; Mississippi Canine Coalition, Inc.; Northland Newfoundland Club; Potomac Bassett Hound Club; Saratoga (NY) Kennel Club, Inc.; Schenectady Dog Training Club; Shawangunk Kennel Club, Inc.; Shetland Sheepdog Club of Western New York; Society for the Perpetuation of Desert Bred Salukis; Syracuse Obedience Training Club; Tri Valley Shetland Sheepdog Club of Northwest Los Angeles; Weimaraner Club of the Washington DC Area; and the Working Australian Shepherd Club of Upstate New York.

South Dakota Raw Milk Regulations

You can have raw milk for sale IF you jump through incredible hoops….

Black Hills Milk pulls plug on raw milk sales

120813-nws-milk

December 07, 2013 5:00 am  •  Scott Feldman Journal staff

Days after the South Dakota Department of Agriculture announced it would begin implementing new regulations for raw milk producers, a Belle Fourche dairy decided it will no longer sell the product.

Dawn Habeck, co-owner of Black Hills Milk, said the new regulations would make it too difficult to keep selling raw milk to their customers, who were among the opponents of the state’s new regulations.

The new regulations take effect Wednesday. One sets the maximum coliform level for milk at 10 parts per milliliter. Habeck said that standard is virtually impossible for raw milk producers to meet.

“The coliform level increases every minute after the milk comes from the cow’s udder,” she said. “The coliform level only drops after it’s pasteurized. So the rule basically makes it impossible to sell raw milk.”

Coliform is a naturally occurring bacteria in raw milk that can be beneficial, said Gena Parkhurst, secretary for the Black Hills chapter of Dakota Rural Action. She said that maximum allowable levels of coliform vary widely between states.

Parkhurst said she was saddened, but not entirely surprised, that Black Hills Milk decided to get out of the raw milk business after the new regulations were approved.

“The rules are burdensome, confusing and basically anti-business,” she said. “We’re supposed to be the most business-friendly state, so why is the department being so hard on raw milk producers?”

Katie Konda, policy analyst for the Department of Agriculture, said the regulations were created to establish a basic standard of safety.

To come up with these regulations, the department looked at 13 states that allow raw milk sales. Nine of those states had a maximum coliform level of 10 parts per milliliter, so that’s what South Dakota adopted, Konda said.

Those states are California, Washington, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Pennsylvania, Maine and New Hampshire, she said.

“It’s not an unattainable level. Other individuals in those states have meet these requirements,” Konda said.

Just looking at one piece of information from several states is not a fair way to create a law because each of those states vary greatly in other ways, Parkhurst said.

For example, California and Maine allow the sale of raw milk in retail stores, while Washington does not require pathogen testing, which South Dakota will require, she said.

Customers can get still get raw milk if they buy an undivided share of a cow and have Habeck become its caretaker. She can still legally provide the cow’s raw milk to a shareholder.

The Black Hills Milk Store in Spearfish will remain open and continue to sell meats and locally produced vegetables and eggs, Habeck said.

The market also will sell Burbach Milk from Nebraska, which is pasteurized but not homogenized, Habeck said.

 

 

Saving Them Through Killing Them…

This goes right along with the article I posted on ivory a few days back. While it should be obvious to those who have a passing acquaintance with me that I am not animal fighting, the issues exposed in the following article represent the actual normal MO of the animal rights and HSUS groups in this country. To take others property and destroy it without due process is unconscionable, and that is exactly what happened here. All in the name of saving animals, they kill them, and they didn’t go into the food chain either. Waste. Profligate waste. To be clear, it really hacks me off.

AG King’s animal instincts

He’s a defender of horses, but his task force slaughtered chickens

THE COLUMN

It took more than three years and a private citizen’s lawsuit before state Attorney General Gary King released hundreds of emails that he wrote or received.

All of them involved King’s aptly named animal cruelty task force. It killed thousands of chickens on ranches across New Mexico and reveled in publicity that the raids received.

As attorney general, King is supposed to champion requests from the public for government records. But when it came to releasing his own emails, he was as stubborn as any politician.

King’s reluctance was understandable if you knew anything about the brutal pack of raiders who operated as the Attorney General’s Animal Cruelty Task Force.

An Albuquerque woman named Marcy Britton filed a public records request for King’s emails way back in June 2009. She said she was convinced that King’s task force was trampling constitutional rights and running roughshod over ranches owned mostly by Hispanics.

King’s raiders slaughtered roosters, hens and chicks under the claim that they were stopping cockfighting rings that had injected the birds with steroids.

“Truth is, they killed more chickens than cockfighting ever did,” said Ronnie Barron, president of the New Mexico Game Fowl Association.

Now father and son ranchers in San Juan County are suing King and his task force in federal court. The ranchers say King’s organization — using police officers, sheriff’s deputies, a helicopter and plenty of intimidation — needlessly killed 730 of their chickens and smashed a thousand eggs in a raid four years ago.

King, a Democrat who is running for governor, declined to discuss that case because the lawsuit is ongoing.

Court records list the leader of King’s animal cruelty task force as Heather Ferguson, who had no law enforcement training.

In one email to King, Ferguson was effusive about the attention she and King’s raiders were receiving. “Over 300 roosters have been seized, and coverage should be on all 3 stations tonight starting at 5,” she wrote.

In his own court affidavit, King said he was unaware of Ferguson’s role in orchestrating raids, even though she was the public face of his task force.

Ferguson was director of cruelty campaigns for Animal Protection of New Mexico, a political ally of King’s.

Though King is silent about the chicken raids, he is outspoken regarding his newest cause involving animals. He is aligned with Animal Protection of New Mexico in trying to stop horse-slaughter plants from reopening in America. A federal judge’s order authorizing the businesses was appealed by King and other opponents.

King said horse slaughter was cruel and that it could contaminate food supplies because horses often are drugged. But what about the thousands of feral horses that roam the arid West, looking for food and water? These horses have received no drugs.

John Boyd, the lawyer who sued King in the email case, also represents the Yakama tribe, which supports horse slaughter plants as a sensible means of population control.

“Certainly the attorney general has not put any evidence into the record to substantiate claims of horse meat entering the (American) food chain,” Boyd said.

He said the Yakama reservation had seen declines in deer, antelope and elk as the number of wild horses swelled to between 12,000 and 15,000. Boyd says these feral horses live in pain.

“They starve to death. They die of thirst. It’s not the picture of wild horses that people like to imagine, manes flowing in the wind,” he said.

As for the email case, Boyd will ask a state judge for summary judgment against King after a different case before the state Supreme Court is decided. That case is to determine if public officials who withhold emails are subject to fines.

For King, the email lawsuit will keep alive his raiders’ destruction of chickens and eggs, even as he fights lawful businesses from slaughtering horses for food.

Going After Supplements….Again

Seems Durbin just won’t be satisfied until everyone has to get their “nutrition” from his cronies:

The Dangerous Durbin Anti-Supplement Bill

October 30, 2013

dick durbin anti supplement billThe FDA can count on mainstream media to mislead the public. Let’s get the truth out and stop this bill. Action Alert!

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL)’s bill, S.1425, is meant to “improve the safety of dietary supplements by [requiring] manufacturers of dietary supplements to register dietary supplements with the Food and Drug Administration and to amend labeling requirements with respect to dietary supplements.” Sounds innocuous, doesn’t it? But as we reported in August, this is nothing but a smokescreen—a naked power grab for the FDA and an attempt to regulate safe dietary supplements as if they were dangerous FDA-approved prescription drugs.

A recent article in Newsday quotes “a top agency official” (probably FDA’s Division of Dietary Supplement Programs director Dan Fabricant, who is quoted extensively in the article) as saying that 70% of supplement companies have violated FDA’s manufacturing rules over the last five years—with the clear implication that such manufacturing violations somehow puts the American public at risk. There is no mention of the nature, context, or seriousness of these alleged violations, and no link to any official reports or documentation.

The article declares that the number of adverse events caused by supplements “outstrips” those triggered by prescriptions drugs. This is totally false. The Newsday article’s author, Delthia Ricks, tells us that approximately “6,300 people nationwide complained about adverse reactions to dietary supplements between 2008 and 2012, according to FDA statistics. But the actual number may be more than eight times higher, some experts say, because most people don’t believe health products can make them sick.” This “eight times higher” claim has no basis in fact, and no documented source. Even if it were true, this number is far less than for prescription drugs.

The 6,300 figure averages to 1,575 per year, which is extremely low considering that 157 million Americans—half the US population—take supplements. This is in comparison to 526,527 adverse events for prescription drugs, 275,421 of which had “serious outcomes,” including death.

Why would we want to let the agency regulate supplements as if they were drugs when the drugs they approve cause over 400 times the adverse events than supplements do? When the Government Accountability Office (GAO) looked at the number of adverse events for supplements at the request of Senator Durbin, it was unable to uncover anything alarming, as we reported back in March.

On the contrary, the GAO report showed that FDA-approved drugs caused 80% of Poison Control fatalities. More than 100,000 calls to Poison Control Centers, 56,000 emergency room visits, 2,600 hospitalizations, and nearly 500 deaths each year are attributed to acetaminophen (Tylenol) alone!

The Newsday article goes on to describe, in detail, the FDA’s authority to regulate the vitamin supplement industry, noting the agency’s inspection of supplement company facilities, and its ability to issue product warnings, recalls, and seizures and levy steep fines against companies that run afoul of FDA regulation. Inexplicably, the article then quotes Dan Fabricant as saying, “There is little the FDA can do to exercise more power over supplement safety without an act of Congress,” and concludes that FDA has “limited power” to regulate supplements. In what universe does that statement make sense?

The only way it makes sense is if mainstream media pieces like this Newsday article are viewed as propaganda: a concerted alliance between the media, the FDA, and legislators like Sen. Durbin to weaken the public’s determination to keep dietary supplements freely available. Lest this sound too conspiratorial, we need to remember that drug advertising is what keeps much of print media alive in these days of online competition.

The theme of adverse events is very much echoed in Durbin’s legislation. His bill requires that the FDA, together with the Institute of Medicine (IOM), compile a list of dietary ingredients (supplements) that might lead to adverse events, or are otherwise deemed risky in some way—based on completely arbitrary or nonexistent standards. Given the FDA’s profound bias against supplements, and the skewed, anti-science recommendations of the IOM’s vitamin D report, these are hardly trustworthy sources of guidance!

By the way, speaking of IOM and adverse events, why does the IOM absolutely refuse to study adverse events from vaccinations? In this case it holds that adverse events are meaningless because not studied, but then refuses to study them.

Returning to supplements, the FDA already has complete authority to keep them safe—it’s just a matter of enforcement, as the FDA’s Fabricant himself said when he worked for the Natural Products Association: “The barriers to enforcement are simple: [FDA] money, manpower, and will.” (You’ll note he doesn’t say “more regulation”!) He also made the distinction between the “legal, safe and healthy dietary supplement industry” and “the seedy, fly-by-night, unsafe world of illegal steroids,” and called on FDA, DEA, and other appropriate agencies to work together to enforce the laws that already exist. Most of the violations cited in the Newsday article are examples of bad manufacturing practices, which are already illegal and subject to FDA enforcement action. All the FDA has to do is enforce existing rules.

Another element in Durbin’s legislation is a greater restriction of health claims: he has said his bill is designed to stop “mislabeling products and making health claims that have no scientific basis.” This is more nonsense.

The vast majority of supplement health claims have plenty of scientific basis—just not the random-controlled trials (RCT) that Durbin and the FDA want. And there’s a very good reason for this: most natural products companies cannot afford to spend up to a billion dollars on RCTs, because in most cases that natural product can’t be patented, so the companies could never hope to make back their investment. In addition, many supplements should be taken with co-factors and so should not be studied in isolation like a drug.

Durbin knows all this. The demand for RCTs is just a backdoor way to get rid of most supplements entirely.

In the past, Dan Fabricant did not support greater restrictions of health claims. In response to IOM’s recommendation that dietary supplement health claims should be subject to the same scrutiny as pharmaceuticals, Fabricant said, “Trying to see foods through the same lens as isolated pharmaceuticals is impractical from a policy standpoint.” He also noted that many widely used general claims about how nutrients work, such as “calcium builds strong bones,” can’t be subjected to the same clinical evaluation as pharmaceutical drugs.

In other words, the FDA’s Fabricant said exactly what we’ve been claiming all along—that supplements are safe and the FDA needs no expanded powers—before he changed employers!

Action Alert! Please write to your senators immediately and tell them to stop Sen. Durbin’s frontal attack on your right to use supplements dead in its tracks! We don’t need this new legislation—all we need is for existing laws to be fully enforced. We need our access to nutritional supplements to be protected. Please write your senators today!

ADT-NAIS….Alive and Well Masquerading As Different Programs

From Darol Dickinson of Ohio….just as received:

EYE WITNESS REPORT  October 29, Sugar Creek, Ohio
 ANIMAL DISEASE TRACEABILITY final USDA rules for livestock moving interstate.

The Ohio State Veterinarian, Tony M. Forshey, officiated an ADT rule — cattle requirements overview meeting with producers on Oct 29.  This was one of about a dozen in Ohio and similar to a few hundred held in most states.

My appreciation of Dr. Forshey was increased as I watched him carefully articulate the maze of complicated and difficult federal rules for state veterinarians and animal producers.  The tight rope he had to walk being forced to enforce federal rules and yet having “state rights” to tweak certain parts of the rule making process — his assistant called it “ability to relax” federal ADT rules.

If the Affordable Care Act is confusing, the facial expressions of Ohio farmers attending told the story. One major veal producer, RC Farms, said “I am not going to do it!” No reply was offered by Dr. Forshey as to the enforcements, fines or penalties for future non-compliance. (I sensed he did not want to go there in this crowd.)

New ADT changes and procedures defined include:

~ There are federal rules of ADT that are enforced federally and there are ways a state veterinarian can increase enforcements or “relax” these rules. Although the feds have a solid rule process, states can and may or may not relax or add to these rules. The state veterinarian has that authority.
~ The federal written rule leaves a clever option –“Other movements as approved.” Of which the layman will find out what these “other movements” are in years to come.
~ More clamp-down enforcements affect cattle than all other animal species.
~ The new acronym for vet certificate or health certificate is ICVI, Interstate Certificate of Veterinary Inspection.  No other term will be used in the future.
~ At first blush approved animal ID methods seem broader than ever before which includes official back tags, NUES (free silver ear clips), USDA shield yellow plastic AIN, 840 pens, tattoos, brand inspections, normal ICVI, breed registration certificates and the new OSS (Owner-Shipper Statement federal form) which, believe it or not allows the owner-shipper to fill out the basic info of a ICVI, except does not require any health evaluation by a veterinarian. (attached)
~ The approval of a breed registration certificate is new. Most breed association certificates contain more information than the ICVI or any other USDA method of ID. The Texas Longhorn registration  certificate (attached) requires a color photo, OCV on females, a permanent hot iron herd holding brand and individual ID number brand, which is far more documentation than any USDA requirement.
~ A federal category called “commuter herds” is created to accommodate transient herds that cross tribes or herds in joining or different states.
~ New ADT rules recommend to USDA tag day old calves in the USA the same as required in Europe.
~ All auction facilities will be politically forced to become a USDA approved official “tag site.”
~ The 840 pen is required to attach to a premises ID site number.
~ The NUES clip does not require a premises ID.

With careful reading, the above do not include all the intricate demands of the new ADT. The same master minds of NAIS (most hated USDA program in history) are still Neil Hammerschmidt and John Wiemers controlling and expanding federal rule books.

To add layers of confusion to ADT consider Obama’s “57 states” all have state veterinarians who can apply their own personal “tweaking” to add and remove rules. Take the dozens of different federal flavors of rules, add the state veterinarian’s tweak factors, the tribes and the commuter compromise rules and you have a recipe to equal or excel the enforcement confusion of Obamacare.

The NAIS was about identification — that didn’t sell.  The new ADT includes the word disease, which all animal owners have a healthy respect for — disease prevention is important. However, with the new OSS federal form it takes the veterinarian out of the picture who was licensed to do a “health inspection.” Now, disease has proven to not be the central issue.

Australia was 6 years ahead of the USA with their National Livestock Identification Scheme (NLIS), which has become the night mare of all night mares for ranchers there. They are recording a 32% lost tag record.

Many thought NAIS and ADT was totally about adding government jobs, because all rules, regulations, paper piles, and enforcements cause the feds to hire more staff. They require more veterinarian inspections and fees — then when it appeared to make sense, here comes the OSS form that eliminated the veterinarian’s job.

Have no fear of simplicity or minimal paper/computer work. On the APHIS factsheet it says, “Additional traceability requirements for this group (cattle & bison) will be addressed in separate rulemaking in the future, allowing more time for APHIS to work closely with industry to ensure the requirements are effective and can be implemented.”

Hammerschmidt and Wiemers still have a paying job ever creating “additional requirements.”  Is there just a chance of, perhaps — “less requirements” in the future, to allow the American cattle producer to spend more time just simply making a living?

Caption DZ 0660: Tony M. Forshey, DVM, Ohio State Veterinarian, labors to explain the federal ADT rules as two of his support associates assist with the power point presentation.  Sugar Creek, Ohio Livestock Auction Barn, Oct 29, 2013.

Caption DZ 0663: Listeners at the ADT power point presentation, Sugar Creek Auction Arena, Sugar Creek, Ohio. RC Farms owner, Roy Yoder, Apple Creek, Ohio, on the left. Veterinarians, state staff and ranchers were in attendance.

Darol Dickinson, Eye Witness

Farm Bill Sham Continues

Every five years or so, we all have our food severely impacted by the ridiculous “Farm Bill”. This one has been put off for quite awhile, but now the House is working on it and say they are cutting the food stamp program to make it more fiscally responsible. It’s a sham. We should not muck up the “farm subsidy” program with the adjunct to the welfare programs of SNAP and “nutrition” programs. Getting 47 million people onto food stamps in this country took a lot of taxpayer money. Administrating those programs is an additional cost as well.

It is my contention that the Farm Bill has done just what the programmers plan for it to do. Destroy honest access to market and profitability for independent farmers and create a more deeply dependent society to put government into the place of the Almighty in the majority of people’s minds and hearts. Direct trade between farmers and consumers is the only way to restore integrity into the food system in this country. The Farm Bill will NEVER attempt to do that because it would enable people to freely exchange and profit from their labor and their products, and that just isn’t in the plan.

Anyway, I wanted to share this article with you, so perhaps you could see some of the theater behind the rhetoric.

farm subsidies

Critical Farm Bill Admission: Food Stamp Cuts Just A Means to Get to Conference

Category: Inside Congress

| November 4, 2013

Last week during the farm bill conference between the House and Senate, Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-OR)8% made a very troublesome remark:

The $40 billion figure [for House food stamp cuts] was a way to get us to conference.  It wasn’t a real figure.

This kind of admission is both disturbing and revealing.  It’s nothing new, however, that lawmakers produce legislation in conference committees that are more liberal and less conservative than the pieces of legislation they were putting together.

But were the Republican lawmakers touting the food stamp cuts in the food stamp only bill passed in September aware that they were participating in a ploy to just “get us to conference?”  Or did they genuinely believe those cuts – insufficient though they may be – would actually remain in a deal between the House and the Senate?

Many of the Republican House farm bill conferees put out press releases and statements expressing satisfaction with the cuts that would be made to the bloated food stamp program, saying that the legislation would help reduce fraud, waste, and abuse.

Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL)61% stated:

This bill will help reduce spending and allow food stamps to be used in the way they were intended to be used:  for those who need it most.  Today’s legislation would reform the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as the food stamp program, and save taxpayers almost $40 billion over the next decade.  SNAP does play an essential role in helping those in need, but the waste and abuse of this program originally designed to help the very poor has ballooned out-of-control.

In a press release entitled, “House Passes Remaining Portion of Farm Bill,” Rep. Kristi Noem (R-SD)60% stated:

This bill puts integrity back into the food stamp program to ensure that those who need assistance the most receive it. These reforms return work incentives to the program while curbing fraud, waste and abuse and refocusing benefits on families most in need. 

Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-TX)87% said:

H.R. 3102 includes some of the reforms Neugebauer proposed in H.R. 1510, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Improvement Act.  The bill passed today saves taxpayers $40 billion over ten years through a series of targeted reforms. 

“The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program provides critical assistance to families that have hit hard times,” Neugebauer said.  “But it was never meant to support one in every seven Americans.  These reforms won’t affect anyone who legitimately qualifies for assistance.  They will simply allow us to better target our assistance to eligible families.”

Rep. Steve King (R-IA)75% said:

It is critical we get the growth of this program under control by ensuring that benefits go to only those who are in need.

H.R. 3102 includes reforms totaling $40 billion in savings over the next decade, cracking down on the waste, fraud and abuse currently present in SNAP. 

Rep. Martha Roby (R-AL)58% stated:

The reforms included in the Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act will prevent waste, fraud, and abuse within the food stamp program and save taxpayers almost $40 billion. 

Now that lawmakers have rejoined the consideration of food stamp policy and farm policy, it’s almost certain that cuts to the food stamp program will be insufficient.

The Senate’s $4 billion cuts do not do nearly enough to eliminate the waste, fraud, and abuse in the system.

Even the $40 billion in House cuts is only tantamount to a 5% cut in a program that has doubled twice in the last decade.  From 2008 to 2010 alone, the number of able-bodied adults on food stamps doubled from 1.9 million to 3.9 million according to the Congressional Research Service; this was after the Obama Administration suspended the program’s work requirements.

To be clear, farm programs are in just as dire a need of reform – from the costly shallow-loss program to the sharp increase in the cost of crop insurance.

Conservatives have long argued that it is essential for food stamp programs and the farm bill programs to be considered separately if they are ever to be sufficiently reformed, so that taxpayers and consumers are no longer harmed.

Let’s see if lawmakers live up to their promises of reform or let taxpayers and consumers down yet again.

GMO Labeling Continues Losing Streak

The most telling thing in this article is the amount of money spent by out of state interests in the “NO” camp of GMO labeling. It’s one of those ridiculous things that, to me, illustrates just how corrupt and non-representative our political process has become. We are so free, we can’t even know for certain what is in our food. And what’s more, we can’t buy it from each other without the oversight of those who want to tell us that “Round Up Ready” corn, etc is not significantly different enough from regular old corn to warrant either testing or labeling. However, it is significantly different enough to allow a life form to be patented. They are out to take care of you alright. Like taking care of a sick chicken.

At any rate, here’s an article on the issue:

The initiative would have required labels on foods containing genetically engineered ingredients

SHARE 8445 CONNECT 385 TWEET 120 COMMENTEMAILMORE

Washington state voters on Tuesday rejected an initiative that would have required foods containing genetically engineered ingredients to be labeled.

The vote was 54.8% opposed to labeling and 45.2% in favor of it.

Had it passed, Initiative 522 would have made the state the first in the nation to require such labeling.

The initiative was the most expensive in state history, though it was largely fought by out-of-state interests.

The No on 522 campaign set a record for fundraising, bringing in $22 million in donations according to The Seattle Times. Just $550 came from Washington residents, according to the newspaper. The top five contributors were the Grocery Manufacturers Association, Monsanto, DuPont Pioneer, Dow AgroSciences and Bayer CropScience.

The largest donor to the pro-labeling campaign were California-based Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps and the Center for Food Safety in Washington, D.C. However the initiative garnered almost 30% of its funding from individuals in Washington state, the Times reported.

Food industry ads claimed that the initiative would raise food prices. Labels would mislead consumers into thinking that products that contain genetically engineered ingredients are “somehow different, unsafe or unhealthy,” said Brian Kennedy of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, a food industry group based in Washington, D.C.

The Yes on 522 campaigns emphasized consumers right to know what’s in their food.

The Washington initiative was part of an ongoing national fight by those opposed to genetically engineered crops to push for labeling. A similar,bruising $37 million battle in California in 2012 went against labeling advocates. The final vote was 51.4% opposed and 48.6% in favor.

“Sooner or later, one of these is going to pass. It’s only a matter of time. At some point the industry is going to get tired of pouring this kind of money into these campaigns,” said Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition at New York University.

She said she doesn’t believe there’s anything dangerous about genetically engineered foods but is concerned about corporate control of the food supply.

Genetically engineered crops have a gene from another plant inserted into them to give them some ability they didn’t have before.

There are two common genetic modifications. One is for herbicide tolerance: Plants are given a gene that protects them from harm when a farmer sprays them with herbicides to kill weeds. The other is a gene from a soil bacteria called Bacillus thuringiensis that allows plants to produce their own insecticide.

A huge proportion of commodity crops grown by U.S. farmers are genetically engineered: 97% of the nation’s sugar beets, 93% of the soybeans, 90% of the cotton and 90% of the feed corn for animals, according to the 2013 figures from the Department of Agriculture.

About 60% of the papaya grown in the United States, all in Hawaii, has been genetically engineered to allow it to withstand the ringspot virus, which virtually wiped out papaya production in the islands in the 1980s, according to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications.

Very small amounts of genetically engineered zucchini, yellow squash and sweet corn are also sold in the United States.

The Food and Drug Administration does not require foods containing genetically engineered ingredients to be labeled because it considers them “functionally equivalent” to conventionally grown crops.

Previous Older Entries Next Newer Entries