Alvin Schlangen, who has been under duress for quite a long while from the Minnesota Department of Agriculture won a full aquittal today from a jury trial! The MDA has just rec’d another $600,000 reward from the FDA to implement more intensive food safety controls, and you can be sure they will use that funding to try to sway people into believing the FDA tripe that no one should ever consume raw milk for any reason, at any time, under any circumstances at all. But for today, we can celebrate the fact that the MDA was dealt a blow and food freedom won a major victory that will hopefully embolden and bless many who are moving to the truth that real food is good, and good for you!

Here is a pretty fair article on the victory:

By: STEVE KARNOWSKI,Associated Press, Associated Press

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — “A Minnesota man charged with violating the state’s restrictions on raw milk sales was acquitted Thursday in what he and his supporters called a victory for consumer freedom.

Alvin Schlangen, an organic egg producer from central Minnesota, was charged with three misdemeanor counts of distributing unpasteurized milk, operating without a food handler’s license and handling adulterated food. Minnesota law prohibits raw milk sales except directly to consumers on the farm when it’s produced.

The three-man, three-woman jury deliberated for about 4 ½ hours before returning not guilty verdicts on all three counts in Hennepin County District Court.

“This is a huge victory for food freedom,” said Schlangen’s attorney, Nathan Hansen, who told the jury in closing arguments Wednesday that Schlangen did nothing illegal…..(read the rest here)

Okay, considering they have crossed cows with humans, goats with spiders, pigs with mice, and all the plants that have been genetically engineered, I guess one should have no surprise when one comes across guidance docs for releasing genetically engineered insects. Nonetheless, it did upset me a tic. It seems to me that it would be much easier to control larger life forms that have been genetically mutated through this Island of Dr. Moreau paradigm we find ourselves in. So, here is an article regarding the guidance for releasing GMO insects in India. Yipee.

Let me know what you think about this, please.

Randy Cook of Norm Economics wrote this great little piece on the issue of the new Farm Bill that is currently being bandied about Congress. Please read it. He does a fantastic job of breaking this down into a nutshell, and I for one would be much happier if all this top down control were negated:

680 E. 5 Point Hwy. Charlotte, Mich. (48813) 517-543-0111
http://www.normeconomics.org
NORMeconomics@att.net
NO NEW FARM BILL IS BETTER!
HERE’S WHY:
Calling the 2012 Ag legislation a “farm bill” is like calling a
campaign promise “the truth.” Only 15.4% of the money to be expended
by this legislation has anything to do with farm price or income
“supports.” That portion is the actual “farm bill.” Do your principles allow
you to live peaceably with 15.4% “truth?” Mine don’t. I prefer a somewhat
larger “truth” content in the actions of my government. But let’s not
quibble over titles. Let’s talk about what this “farm bill” does and doesn’t
do.
“Price and income support programs” do not support farm prices
or incomes. Crop insurance programs certainly support insurance
company incomes and price supports may contribute to bank incomes
and farm credit company incomes, but when it comes to farm incomes
and profitability, the “farm bill” tells farmers that the loan rate on a
bushel of corn is $1.95 and on a bushel of wheat it’s $2.94. Even our
rigged commodity markets know that’s too low to make a profit growing
corn or wheat; especially if you try growing them in a greenhouse. The
reason for these particular loan rate numbers is that they minimize
government inventories of these necessary staples. In other words, our
policy is to hold no strategic surplus against short harvests. Stupid
policy brought to you by the “farm bill.” So, should we work to fix this
policy? Ron White’s observation is, “You can’t fix stupid.”
You can call actual “farm bill” spending many different names but
you can’t call it “subsidy.” Farmers have been subsidizing our
economy for 60 years resulting in the forced elimination of small farm
operators, despite “farm bill” spending. Small farmer elimination is the
actual intentional policy we pursue in our nation. In order to implement
top-down, centralized control of the economy the small farmer MUST be
eliminated. Even the Bolsheviks discovered that truth; their result being
an economic collapse 70 years later. We’ve only been at it for 60 years,
and in a much “nicer” way. Every “farm bill” we enact keeps their result
in our crosshairs, regardless of Federal Reserve “quantitative easing,”
“free trade” agreements, economic development “grants” or deficit
spending.
Failing to pass a “new farm bill” would mean the provisions of the
1949 Agriculture Act would prevail. Although that statute was a
corruption of the policies that brought us to victory in WWII and avoided
an expected depression afterward, it would still be an improvement over
what farmers have experienced and what our nation has had to endure
since 1952. It dealt with the things a “real farm bill” must handle: the
connection between production, price and National Income as evidenced
in the domestic purchasing power of our money and our industrial
capacity and employment.
At the risk of getting too far afield, our financial system depends on
our physical economy. When our physical economy is crippled, as today,
our financial system cannot function properly. The cause of our physical
economic disability comes straight off our farms where, during
prosperous periods, 70% of the annual raw materials needed to create
our standard of living are produced. Finance cannot fix our problems
because it deals with debt creation not wealth creation. Debts can only
be paid by creating new wealth and properly pricing it to assure that the
exchanges necessary to process, distribute and consume that wealth do
not require debt. That is “sustainability.” Does anyone else savor the
irony of lobbying for federal grants to support sustainability?
A REAL farm bill would result in moving toward national solvency
by paying farmers the proper, legal price for their marketed production.
USDA calculates and publishes those prices every month. The Secretary
of Agriculture still has the legal obligation to regulate the markets so that
farmers receive not government checks, but legal prices in the
marketplace. (7 U.S.C. 602) The current “farm bill,” even with its
conservation program spending, does nothing to assure the continued
ability of the actual stewards to conserve soil, air, water or community.
That result will come only from profitable farmers and ranchers
producing the highest quality, freshest, most nutritive items we can
desire, along with each of us earning the necessary income to pay
properly for what we consume.
A REAL farm bill would move our national policy in that direction.
Toward equity of exchange and away from exploitation; toward higher
quality local foods and away from processed industrial production
shipped thousands of miles for “convenience.” Any farm legislation such
as “food safety,” “animal traceability,” “free trade” agreements or “farm
bills” must favor labor over capital, health over convenience, solvency
over debt, man over money. This “farm bill” doesn’t see such things even
in its rear view mirror.
What? No new farm bill? I feel better already.
Randy Cook
9/11/12

My relatives in California are telling me that there are ads running “like crazy” on both sides of the GMO labeling proposition that is soon to be up for popular vote in California.

As many of you may know, Vermont’s labeling law requires enactment only if another state passes a law requiring labeling of these franken-food products. In my possibly not so humble opinion, if they can patent it, it isn’t “substantially the same as” normal non-genetically engineered seed. When you splice different species into the genetic sequences, that’s a pretty substantial difference. Again, if they can patent it and profit off those patents, then it must be different enough to distinguish it from naturally occurring organisms.

At any rate, you should take a good look at those who are against the people of this country knowing what is in their food, and you can also learn more about the CA battle by reading this article here:

A shopper walks down an aisle in a newly opened Walmart Neighborhood Market in Chicago. (photo: Jim Young/Reuters)

A List of Food Companies That Hide GMOs

By Cate Woodruff, Reader Supported News

22 August 12

“nknown to most Americans, many US food companies, which manage to keep their GMO ingredients under wraps, are joining forces to beat back Proposition 37, a bill which will require simple labels on food identifying genetically engineered products and ingredients. The ballot initiative from Right to Know will be presented to voters in California’s November election.

Agribusiness and biotech companies Monsanto, Dupont, Cargill, Dow, Bayer, BASF and others have put up nearly $25 million to defeat the GMO labeling initiative.

Big Ag companies have a vested interest in GMO seeds, and the pesticides and herbicides they use in tandem. GMO cotton, soy, sugar beets and corn, which are manipulated to make sweeteners and fats along with other additives like high-fructose corn syrup and soy lecithin, are in ready-made food, snacks, condiments, juice, soda and cereal. Many companies pushing these products into the marketplace prefer to hold profits high and keep consumers in the dark. Labeling these products would affect close to 80% of processed, non-organic food in the US.

Sunny Delight, Kellogg’s, Bumble Bee Foods, Bimbo Bakeries, Campbell Soup, Land O’Lakes, Hormel Foods, Dole Packaged Foods, Del Monte Foods and Ocean Spray Cranberries, to name a few, have all joined the anti-labeling coalition to defeat Prop. 37, as well as little-known companies like Knouse Foods, who makes applesauce and apple juice under the Musselman’s, Lucky Leaf, Apple Time, Lincoln and Speas Farm brand names”….rest here

The article below gives a nice overview of what is happening in Wyoming on the Food Freedom front. What I would like to draw everyone’s attention to is the last bit of the article:

“The changes are in response to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s revisions to the food code, which provides the latest scientific information on food safety.”

I’ve ranted about the Food Code, and how horrific it is because every adopted version automatically adopts all updates by inference. The Food Code is not law, not regulation, but FDA initiatives and guidelines. The States, counties and municipalities adopt this wallowing behemoth and sign a blank check for future impositions on their citizens. It’s not law, it’s soft law gone wild.

Here’s the article to get an idea of what the Food Code brings into being with no elected official oversight:

Trusting God will save the farm

Mountain Grove, Missouri (CNN) — Thunder clapped and rain fell just before Bionce, Sassy and the rest of Mark Argall’s prize-winning dairy herd went up for auction.

Had the storm come a few weeks earlier, and if the drought had eased, it might have saved the cows — some of which were named with a bit of poetic license (“You can spell names however you want,” he said) for pop-culture divas and celebrities.

As it was, however, Argall’s pasture was so dry that his cattle had nothing to eat, and the farmer was losing $75 a day just trying to feed them.

When I was doing my radio show on Liberty News Radio, I had the opportunity to have Pat Trask on for an hour long interview. This was right after the Geertsen Seeds ruling that was supposed to require a full enviornmental impact study to be done before GMO (Round Up Ready) Alfalfa was allowed to planted en masse. I can’t go into all the ins and outs of how that ended up being pushed by the wayside right now, but suffice to say, the USDA did what they do best and approved a dangerous and destructive product despite the ruling. The following article will give you some insight into this issue. If possible, please support this suit….

Organic farmers are among the plaintiffs suing Monsanto. (photo: Annie Corrigan/WFIU)

Farmers Fight Monsanto’s Threats and Intimidation

By Dave Gutknecht, Co-operative News

21 August 12

major lawsuit against Monsanto was denied in at the district court and has been appealed. On July 5, 2012, seventy-five family farmers, seed businesses, and agricultural organizations representing over 300,000 individuals and 4,500 farms filed a brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., asking the appellate court to reverse a lower court’s decision from February dismissing their protective legal action against agricultural giant Monsanto’s patents on genetically engineered seed.

The plaintiffs brought the pre-emptive case against Monsanto in March 2011 in the Southern District of New York (Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association et al. v Monsanto) and specifically seek to defend themselves from nearly two dozen of Monsanto’s most aggressively asserted patents on GMO seed. They were forced to act pre-emptively to protect themselves from Monsanto’s abusive lawsuits, fearing that if GMO seed contaminates their property despite their efforts to prevent such contamination, Monsanto will sue them for patent infringement.

Lead plaintiff in the suit (and the main source for this report) is the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association (www.osgata.org), a not-for-profit agricultural organization made up of organic farmers, seed growers, seed businesses and supporters. OSGATA is committed to developing and protecting organic seed and its growers in order to ensure the organic community has access to excellent quality organic seed – seed that is free of contaminants and adapted to the diverse needs of local organic agriculture….read the rest here.

Read more: http://www.sbsun.com/sports/ci_21169780/tables-turned-humane-society?refresh=no#%23ixzz22nUjiV1D#ixzz22raNO4Q3

In the saga of the Shropshire sheep, charges have been levied against the owner and Michael Schmidt. Here is the press release:

Farmers Could Face 14 years on Alleged Conspiracy

Canadian Officials Raid Farms After Farmer Proposes Compromise on Assessing Disease in Rare Breed Sheep

Ontario, CA–August 6, 2012— (GlobeNewswire)  On August 2 2012 the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) raided the farms of Ontario farmer Michael Schmidt and Montana Jones in connection with the disappearance of Jones’ herd of genetically rare Shropshire sheep.  CFIA brought 20 officers and multiple police cars to conduct the 7:00am raid on the Schmidt’s farm.  During the 8-hour raid, officers confiscated all electronic recording devices from the home and farm, including computers, cell phones and cameras.  Schmidt and Jones both faces possible conspiracy charges that could result in up to 14 years in prison.

In March of this year, a group calling themselves the “Farmers Peace Corps” claimed responsibility for the disappearance of the sheep that were destined for slaughter due to a connection with the disease Scrapie.  While Scrapie is not transmissible to humans and causes no threat to people, it is seen by the CFIA as a threat to other sheep.  In June, the Shropshire sheep were found and immediately destroyed by CFIA.  They all tested negative for the disease.  CFIA is refusing Jones the appropriate compensation for her sheep.

The raid on Schmidt’s Glencolton Farm and Jones’ farm, and possible charges against them both, come in conjunction with an announcement Schmidt made on behalf of Farmers Peace Corp.  In the statement, Schmidt stated, “The actions of the CFIA remind me of the history of my native Germany, where genetic cleansing became a tragic and horrible national policy.”

During a follow-up meeting with CFIA investigators, Schmidt asked them to examine their current policy of mass eradication.  “I told them we need to find an exemption to the killing program, like they have in England,” says Schmidt.  “However, rather than constructive dialogue we get this response: police with guns, a raid and these potential criminal charges. The destruction of these rare healthy sheep and this raid are not about Scrapie.  They want to show who calls the shots here.”

Information about farm raids: FarmFoodFreedom.org Further information about Glencolton Farm thebovine.wordpress.com

Jill Richardson wrote a great article about just two of the very serious issues with the version of the Farm Bill under consideration right now. I have copied it below and encourage anyone who is interested at all in having a decent food supply to read it.

Also of note, Congress is considering drought relief legislation that they are indicating will be approached as a single issue in a single bill. Keep your eyes on that process because whenever there is something they believe they must address quickly it is always a bit dangerous for the rest of us.
Here is the excerpt from Richardson’s article:

fter a series of court defeats over the past few years, Monsanto and friends are trying to use Congress to make an end-run around the courts and current law. Lawsuits brought by opponents of genetically engineered (GE) crops resulted in the temporary removal of two products – Roundup Ready Alfalfa and Roundup Ready Sugarbeets – from the market. If the biotechnology industry and the legislators they support have their way, future GE crops will not suffer the same fate.

Genetically engineered crops are plants that have had genes from other species inserted into their DNA. “Roundup Ready”crops like alfalfa and sugarbeets fall in a class of GE crops called “herbicide tolerant” crops, which are engineered to survive exposure to Monsanto’s bestselling herbicide Roundup. Farmers spray their entire fields with Roundup, killing only the weeds. Monsanto profits by selling both the seeds and increased quantities of Roundup herbicide.

The “Big 6” pesticide and genetic engineering corporations – BASF, Bayer, Dupont, Dow, Syngenta, and Monsanto – have made millions while providing everyone else with questionable benefits and enormous risks. The riskiness of genetically engineered crops comes in part from their ability to cross-pollinate crops in other fields, spreading their genes far and wide. Once a new genetically engineered crop is introduced, the genie is out of the bottle, and those genes are in our food supply for good. Therefore, it’s in everyone’s interest (except for the biotech companies that stand to profit) to thoroughly examine any new crop before allowing it on the market…..(full article here)