Home   ||   FA/RM Blog   ||   Goals   ||   Individual Rights   ||   Activism   ||   Contact FA/RM

Archive Contents Saturday, January 31, 2009 ·"People Should Not Be Allowed to Eat Eggs" (Monica) Friday, January 30, 2009 ·The Real JunkFoodScience (Monica) ·Activism Opportunity for Honestly Labeled Almonds (Monica) Wednesday, January 21, 2009 ·NAIS Presentation from Liberty Ark Coalition (Monica) Tuesday, January 20, 2009 ·More Reasons to Cut Farm Subsidies (Monica) Monday, January 19, 2009 ·The Bankruptcy of Ethanol (Monica) Saturday, January 17, 2009 ·Range Magazine Article on NAIS (Monica) ·ACTION ALERT on NAIS: USDA is Moving Fast! (Monica) Monday, January 12, 2009 ·A Vision of Laissez-Faire Corn Production (Monica) ·Freedom to Farm -- in Your Backyard (Monica) Sunday, January 11, 2009 ·Defending Capitalism vs. Defending the Status Quo (Monica) Saturday, January 10, 2009 ·Thoughts on the Morality of Meat Eating (Monica) Wednesday, January 7, 2009 ·Activism Opportunity for Manna Storehouse (Monica) Tuesday, January 6, 2009 ·Uncle Sam Wants YOUr ... Raisins! (Monica) Monday, January 5, 2009 ·Linda Faillace Discusses NAIS (Monica) Sunday, January 4, 2009 ·Raw Milk Knuckleheads and the Constitution (Monica) Saturday, January 3, 2009 ·What's Wrong With Tom Vilsack? (Monica) ·Subsidies for Billionaires -- and Congresspeople Too! (Monica) Thursday, January 1, 2009 ·Honey Laundering and Food Labeling (Monica) Bloggers Monica Hughes Guy Adamson Diana Hsieh Blog Links RSS Feed RSS by E-Mail Blogroll Archives December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009

Saturday, January 31, 2009 "People Should Not Be Allowed to Eat Eggs" By Monica @ 11:39 AM Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? It's not a huge step from a government saying "eggs are unwise" to "eggs should be banned." Yet this is the absurd reality of part of the British government's socialized healthcare program to fight what it views as unhealthy behaviors, according to an article by Paul Hsieh entitled "Universal Healthcare and the Waistline Police." Get a load of this: Other countries with universal healthcare are already restricting individual freedoms in the name of controlling health costs. For example, the British government has banned some television ads for eggs on the grounds that they were promoting an unhealthy lifestyle. (my emphasis in italics added) Believe it or not, even more terrible ideas have been proposed in the United States. What is worse is that the egg advice makes no sense whatsoever in the context of evolution or even in the context of good science. Many people now recognize that as far as diet is concerned, the government has made a good many wrong answers into almost inflexible dogma. Once public policy becomes set, reversing it becomes incredibly difficult. I worry very much about an increasing nanny state with respect to our food. When the animal rights activists and environmentalists team up with nutritionists who have fallen down the "fat is evil" rabbit-hole, it's pretty clear that next they'll be coming after our steak. Even if this particular view was scientific it would be politically wrong from the standpoint of the proper purpose of government which is the protection of individual rights -- as Dr. Hsieh's article makes completely clear. But far too often, the proposed "public health" policies would actually be -- and have turned out to be -- a complete disaster to public health. Here is a good example. We don't need any more such wrongheaded ideas made into nutritional dogma through government policy that take literally decades to overturn, with millions of needless early deaths as the result. Dr. Hsieh's article defending our right to eat as we choose, without advice or force from a government nanny, did not sit well with some members of the public -- particularly this commenter in the Ithaca Journal: Health care column off mark Where did the doctor who derided the nanny state go to medical school, and does he see patients ("Waistline police may come with universal health care," Jan. 12)? A doctor's training emphasizes the first responsibility is to do no harm. Paul Hsieh blasts medical and societal activism to promote health, instead leaving people to make choices based on free will rather than common sense and proven facts. A nanny state would totally outlaw tobacco, a known killer for 50 years. I have more sympathy for the opium growers in Afghanistan with limited choices than for tobacco growers and Philip Morris in America, who could have stopped killing us in the 1950's. Raising prices cuts down smoking, and taxing junk pop will cut down on obesity. Rampant capitalism may stop this, despite near universal advice from nutritionists, epidemiologists, and sensible doctors, who know the relation between obesity and heart disease, diabetes, hypertension and the excess morbidity and mortality. Steps taken by doctors and an enlightened society should outweigh freewill and company profits. I'm not a bean counter, but I'll bet the health costs for obesity, COPD, diabetes and other self-inflicted pathology costs more than the taxes on company profits of pop makers and tobacco companies pay our governments. He stated that if one were only harming oneself, it is OK. No serious, chronic illness ever affects only the patient. It impacts family, friends and the health costs. Get real, doctor. Accept controls, either self-imposed or enforced. Jud Kilgore Ithaca (my emphasis in italics added) This comment sends chills down my spine. First, there's little evidence that in the context of a nutrient dense diet that smoking poses any serious health hazard at all. This is discussed here with regard to the Masai warriors and in Weston A Price's work Nutrition and Physical Degeneration on his chapter discussing the Gaelics in the Outer Hebrides. Their houses were absolutely filled with smoke loaded with dioxins. I do some medical needs assessment on COPD so I happen to know a bit about the disease. Only about 15%-20% of smokers get COPD, and I don't have any hard evidence yet, but I strongly suspect that onset of the disease is probably multifactorial and linked to nutritional status. I believe that's why we see COPD rates continuing to rise with poorer and poorer vitamin D status, although smoking rates have been declining for decades. I think a strong case could be made that smoking is actually not problematic in the context of a nutrient dense diet -- the very nutrients that do-gooders like Jud Kilgore likely want to eliminate from our diet in the name of "public health" and "the common good." The acceptance of the idea of forced control of others for "their own good" and the second-handed and blind acceptance of the advice of "doctors and an enlightened society" should strike fear into the heart of any individual who thinks even remotely independently. It is downright Orwellian. There is always more to learn, and that one major problem with public policy. Public policy is based on consensus. Science is not done by consensus! Diana Hsieh, PhD candidate in philosophy, stated in a section of a personal email (reproduced with her permission): What I find so interesting about it -- and I've seen this elsewhere -- is the open defense of the nanny state. Defenders of universal health care don't seem deny his central claim -- that universal health care would create a nanny state on steroids. Instead, they argue that such a nanny state is necessary and proper. That's a sad indicator of our cultural decline -- but at least the choice between freedom and statism is more clear than ever. In short, I'm optimistic that freedom to choose the food we like, as well our freedom to choose healthcare, will prevail over statism. However, I hope that such comments as Jud Kilgore's make it abundantly clear that a veritable army of arrogant and ignorant "do-gooders" -- definitely increasing in their numbers in the past 50 or so years -- could wreak absolute havoc on not only freedom, but the health of the American people if they are allowed to force their views on everyone else through law. And far too often their views are not thoughtful or objective but average fodder for non-thinkers, also known as "conventional wisdom," "proven facts," and "common sense." Given our societal trends, I definitely don't think freedom is going to prevail by sitting back on our fannies and hoping for the best. Everyone concerned about their health and the future of food should ask themselves a critical question: "If you think it's good that the government is banning trans fats and taxing sugary drinks, do you accept the premise that it's also appropriate for them to take your hamburger, raw milk, and fois gras away in the name of "public health"?" Do you really trust self-appointed government dictators to make such decisions for you, or to make such decisions objectively? I certainly don't. On that note, what are you doing to up your game with regard to making sure you remain free to eat what you want? Labels: Government Idiocy, Individual Rights, Meat Myths, Modern Ignorance, Nutritional Guidelines E-mail Monica    PermaLink    2 Comments   Friday, January 30, 2009 The Real JunkFoodScience By Monica @ 10:18 PM A silly article about raw milk has been recently published in Clinical Infectious Diseases that ends with a completely inappropriate threat to medical professionals: "...physicians, veterinarians, and dairy farmers who promote, or even condone, the human consumption of unpasteurized milk and dairy products may be at risk for subsequent legal action." Every few years Clin Infect Dis publishes an article like this. I think such articles and news pieces will become more frequent as raw milk becomes more popular. The acknowledgments to this particular article thank none other than John Sheehan, BSc, Jd and FDA head of safety for milk and eggs and a raw milk foe, "for valuable discussions on the subject during the preparation of the manuscript." I don't believe crediting a government regulatory agent is necessarily proof of ignorance or corruption. I am sure there are many honest people who work for regulatory agencies and I don't believe every piece of research produced or funded by government is evidence of corruption. However, the Weston A Price Foundation has already, point by point, rebutted Sheehan's Powerpoint slides on raw milk in a 71 page PDF file. It's quite a read and anyone interested in the whole "controversy" around raw milk should take a look. Oftentimes bias it is not evident in news media pieces or peer-reviewed articles. This is the case with the current Clin Infect Dis article. It appears to be well-written and most of the points are likely true in the context of grain-fed confinement cows. But the authors of the article make several mistakes, so that the article winds up reading more a like a political position paper than an honest evaluation of the science. Let's go through the major points. First, they don't really understand the microbial ecology of a milk product in the context of grass feeding. For instance, Listeria monocytogenes is relatively fragile in the face of other protective factors in unpasteurized milk such as lactoferrin and beneficial coliforms that outcompete pathogens. These factors are destroyed by pasteurization and sometimes allow remaining L. monocytogenes to take off. This is why the FDA has considered making ultrapasteurization mandatory. Heat resistant strains have evolved and regular pasteurization is no longer good enough. Almost all organic milk on the retail market is now ultrapasteurized. Second, the authors are mired in the reductionistic pseudoscience of nutrition that ignores the effect of pasteurization on the function of various proteins in the milk (lactase, phosphatase, immunoglobulins). Good science is timeless, and these authors haven't gone to older papers demonstrating the benefits. Many people anecdotally report reductions in asthma, allergies, and lactose intolerance on raw milk vs. pasteurized milk. Actually, it's not even so much that the mainstream doesn't recognize the existence of these proteins. They do, because the pasteurization test is a negative phosphatase test. Instead, they simply claim that these proteins aren't necessary and don't add any value to the consumer, nutritive or otherwise. This is paternalism on steroids. No mention is made of the difference in grass-fed milk and grain-fed milk with respect to vitamin content, particularly a vitamin first discovered by Weston Price in the thirties, now believed to be vitamin K2 M-4. Price showed that K2 M-4 was dependent on the method of feeding and was highest in the dairy produced from cows on rapidly growing spring grass. This is widely known among those knowledgeable about pastured methods of raising animals but it still relatively unacknowledged or unknown in medical and government circles (though not unknown in the medical literature at this point). The authors also ignore the significant difference between milk from Holsteins used for all pasteurized grocery store milk and milk from other older breeds usually used for raw milk. The latter has higher butterfat content, and thus, fat-soluble vitamins. "Milk is milk and it all comes from cows" is the FDA's position. That's demonstrably wrong. Finally, they ignore that while there may be more outbreaks from raw milk, such outbreaks are small and easily identifiable, unlike food-borne illness outbreaks from pasteurized milk. They also don't discuss the relative risks of various foods, and give the impression that raw milk on a per serving basis is more dangerous than pasteurized milk. I don't believe we really know what the relative risks are, but my understanding is that they are about the same on a per serving basis. The WAP Foundation presents some interesting numbers on this in their two rebuttals, linked above and below. The Weston A. Price Foundation has recently released a rebuttal to the recent Clin Infect Dis article. Unfortunately, people like Sandy Szwarc at JunkFoodScience obviously haven't seen the rebuttal. Ms. Szwarc's piece is simply a point by point regurgitation of the Clin Infect Dis article. This is curious because from what I can see of her blog she usually looks for an opposing view and does not buy into hysteria. I think this speaks to the power of conventional wisdom in creating a bias in a person's mind. "Sound science" is not a conspiracy, Ms. Szwarc says. Most science often isn't a conspiracy, but that's really irrelevant to evaluating whether the science is actually sound and unpoliticized. The "science" used by the mainstream researchers to justify their biased thoughts about many aspects of our food is not sound. It is based on faulty assumptions that have since been disproven either in the medical literature or by simple logic and/or it is too reductionistic. Most seriously, it is almost always performed outside the context of evolutionary biology or even the history of food science in the past century. Most nutritional science simply does not operate within an evolutionary framework. It's bad science. Ms. Szwarc's readers deserve a more critical analysis than the one she says she is providing in her blog header. In the most recent Clin Infect Dis article, the authors state that raw milk consumers "unconsciously process information in a biased manner." They encourage public health officials and physicians to speak with one unified voice against raw milk, repeating the message over and over clearly until the consumer gets it. In other words, the raw milk consumers are knuckleheads nearly unreachable by reason, while the conventional view is based in reason and science. As I've indicated above, the situation is more complex than the authors would like health professionals to believe. At the very least, the authors and health experts ought to be recommending that people source raw milk and heat it, or that the dairy industry ought to at least convert to grass-feeding to increase fat-soluble vitamin content so critical for development of children and continuing robust health into adulthood. WAPF responds: The authors suggest that unlike consumers with strongly held opinions, "experts" with strongly held opinions do not selectively seek out information supportive of their views or process it in a biased fashion, yet they themselves choose to discuss the ability of pasteurization to kill pathogens without acknowledging the ability of grass-feeding to prevent contamination; they themselves choose to discuss illnesses attributed to raw milk without admitting that more illnesses have been attributed to pasteurized milk; they themselves choose to discuss modern assays with little to no destruction of vitamins without accounting for older feeding studies showing dramatic reduction in their biological activity; and they themselves choose to conclude by threatening experts who do not select information and unconsciously process it exactly as they do with the heavy hand of the law. There is a word for this kind of double standard and it is called hypocrisy. Indeed. Just say no to bad science. Labels: "Safety", De-regulation, Government Idiocy, Individual Rights, Modern Ignorance, Nutritional Guidelines, Pastured, Raw Milk, Vitamin K2 E-mail Monica    PermaLink    2 Comments   Activism Opportunity for Honestly Labeled Almonds By Monica @ 9:30 PM I've previously blogged on the USDA's support of fraudulent labeling of almonds here. A lawsuit is now being filed by farmers against the USDA because of this action requiring "raw" almonds to be pasteurized or treated with propylene oxide. I'm very happy to see concerned parties suing the USDA and standing up for their rights to keep meddlesome government agencies out of their business. You can help. From the Weston A. Price Foundation: A lawsuit filed in the Washington, D.C. federal district court late last year, which would throw out the USDA’s raw almond pasteurization mandate, is moving ahead. Enacted in the name of food safety, the USDA rule requires treatment with a toxic gas (propylene oxide) or steam heat for all raw almonds produced by American growers and sold commercially to domestic consumers. Eighteen California almond farmers and wholesale nut handlers are the formal legal parties suing the USDA to overturn the rule. Their businesses and farming practices have been ruined by the rule, they charge. The Cornucopia Institute, a family farmer watchdog group, is helping coordinate the legal strategy. It’s an expensive process and Cornucopia is working to help raise money for legal costs associated with repealing the almond treatment mandate. In late December, the USDA moved to dismiss the court challenge on procedural grounds. It’s a move that Cornucopia lawyers anticipated and they expect will be rejected. The case is growing in importance as federal regulators weigh a number of other onerous food safety treatment plans for the nation’s fresh vegetables, fruit and nuts. If allowed to stand as a precedent, the USDA and the FDA will be further encouraged to apply similar treatment schemes to many fresh foods. ... Cornucopia is asking those interested in protecting access to truly raw and fresh foods to support the almond farmers and handlers with their lawsuit. Online donations can be made at www.cornucopia.org (please note that the donation is in support of the almond lawsuit). Updates and news on the almond issue can also be found under The Authentic Almond Project on Cornucopia’s web page. - Mark Kastel, The Cornucopia Institute Labels: Activism Opportunities, De-regulation, Government Idiocy, Labeling E-mail Monica    PermaLink    2 Comments   Wednesday, January 21, 2009 NAIS Presentation from Liberty Ark Coalition By Monica @ 8:07 AM The Liberty Ark Coalition has constructed a short video on the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). This video is slightly more informative than the one I embedded before in this post. I encourage everyone interested in fighting NAIS to view the video to the end, which includes some education and activism opportunities. I'll be keeping everyone up to date with what is going on with NAIS, and issuing reminders about the March deadline for comment from time to time. It's urgent that we stop this intrusive government program. Labels: NAIS, Why the USDA is Not Your Friend E-mail Monica    PermaLink    0 Comments   Tuesday, January 20, 2009 More Reasons to Cut Farm Subsidies By Monica @ 8:02 PM As if we didn't have enough reasons already. But here is a good article from the Cato Institute on some of the perhaps unintended effects of farm subsidies. I've already discussed some of the effects. Here are some more: » Farm subsidies damage the economy. In most industries, market prices balance supply and demand and encourage efficient production. But Congress short-circuits market mechanisms in agriculture. Farm programs cause overproduction, the overuse of marginal farmland, land price inflation and excess borrowing by farm businesses. » Farm programs are prone to fraud and scandal. The Government Accountability Office found that improper farm payments amount to as much as $500 million each year. Since 2000, the government has paid $1.3 billion in subsidies to people who own "farmland" that is not even used for farming. The government also frequently distributes disaster payments to farmers who don't need them and often didn't even ask for them. » Farm subsidies are a serious hurdle to progress on global trade agreements that could help productive U.S. exporters. Agricultural trade barriers also damage U.S. security and global stability because they hinder the ability of poor countries to achieve stronger economic growth. » Farm programs damage the environment. Subsidy programs and trade barriers draw marginal farmland into production and encourage the overuse of fertilizers. Lands that might otherwise be used for parks, forests or wetlands get locked into farm use. Florida sugar cane cultivation, for example, causes substantial damage to the Everglades, yet it thrives only because of import protections. » Some farm programs raise food prices and hurt consumers directly. Federal controls on the dairy industry raise milk prices to consumers. Controls on the sugar industry raise U.S. sugar prices to about twice the world level, pushing up consumer costs for breakfast cereals, chocolate and other food products. » If farm subsidies ended, U.S. agriculture would continue to thrive. Farms would adjust, planting different crops and diversifying their sources of income. A stronger and more innovative agriculture industry would emerge, as occurred in New Zealand after it repealed all its farm subsidies in 1984. Labels: Subsidies, Trade, Why the USDA is Not Your Friend E-mail Monica    PermaLink    0 Comments   Monday, January 19, 2009 The Bankruptcy of Ethanol By Monica @ 3:49 PM From Forbes: VeraSun Energy Corp., the nation's second largest ethanol producer, is putting seven of its biorefineries up for auction as part of a bankruptcy court financing agreement. VeraSun needs up to $12.3 million in additional funds to maintain its work force and plants in Ord and Central City in Nebraska; Albert City and Dyersville in Iowa, Woodbury, Mich., Hankinson, N.D., and Janesville, Minn., through April 30, according to a filing approved Thursday by a federal bankruptcy court in Delaware. ... The Sioux Falls, S.D.-based company owns 16 biorefineries with the total capacity to produce 1.4 billion gallons of ethanol annually, or about 13 percent of the country's total capacity. But only four - Charles City, Fort Dodge and Hartley in Iowa and Aurora in South Dakota - remain operational, with the rest idled until market conditions improve. Corn ethanol is an industry that the government is pouring billions into yearly. And all this government money isn't preventing VeraSun from going bankrupt. When you are making a product that takes more energy to create than you get out of it (thus, actually exacerbating the "problem" of CO2) it is not rocket science to figure out that it's not sustainable. The ethanol subsidy should have been eliminated in the most recent farm bill, not just cut ten percent. This is what Obama's pick for secretary of agriculture, Tom Vilsack, wants to spend your money on. Vilsack comes from a state of Corn (Iowa), is a friend of Big Corn and Monsanto, and has so far only said that corn ethanol is a bridge to cellulosic ethanol. That's his big admission, if you can call it one, that corn ethanol isn't working. Earth to Tom, earth to Tom! Corn ethanol is not a bridge to anywhere, and it's an outrage that even one public penny is being spent on this industry. I suppose VeraSun will be asking for a bailout next, claiming like GM has that if only they could have just a teensy tiny little bit of that government bailout crack, that they will straighten their act out tomorrow. Need I say more? Labels: corn, Ethanol, Government Idiocy, Rants and Whines, Subsidies, Why the USDA is Not Your Friend E-mail Monica    PermaLink    4 Comments   Saturday, January 17, 2009 Range Magazine Article on NAIS By Monica @ 10:57 PM Range Magazine recently published an article entitled "NAIS STINKS!" It's a very informative article for those who want to learn more about NAIS. I've been asked to spread this article around, but I don't want to reproduce the entire thing because it's all worth reading. Here's an excerpt: A few years ago, Darol attended a USDA-sponsored "listening session." A federal employee explained a new program: the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). Darol was shocked to learn that the ranch would have to be registered with a new seven-digit identification number in a new government database. He learned that each of his animals would have to have a new identification device bearing a new 15-digit identification number, loaded into another new government database. And he learned that every time one of his animals was moved off the property, the event would have to be reported and recorded in the government database within 24 hours. "Well, that just left a horrible taste in my mouth," Darol says. "The way it was presented, we had no choice. It was a done deal. We would be forced to sign up." The USDA spokesman talked about how foot-and-mouth disease would wipe out an entire herd in a matter of hours, and how dangerous anthrax is, and, of course, he talked about the dreaded mad cow disease. This new USDA program would make it possible for the government to trace back any diseased animal to its source within 48 hours, the groups was told. Darol knew something was not right. "It did not pass the basic hubcap sniff test," he says. He contacted a specialist at Texas A&M, Uvalde, Texas, who confirmed that there had not been a case of foot-and-mouth disease in the United States since 1929. He also learned that anthrax is no longer a problem because ranchers can vaccinate against it for 80 cents a head. Mad cow disease is not a problem because it is not contagious, and the new system would do nothing to stop the disease even if a case were discovered. Does NAIS sound fishy to you yet? It should. Just like RealID, tracking all animals (or people for that matter) with chips and tags isn't really going to do anything to protect us from terrorism or disease. Instead of strengthening the disease monitoring systems already in place (like allowing independent access to USDA test kits for mad cow) the USDA wants a national animal surveillance program. Go read the whole thing. Then go comment on USDA's proposed NAIS rules. Labels: NAIS, Why the USDA is Not Your Friend E-mail Monica    PermaLink    0 Comments   ACTION ALERT on NAIS: USDA is Moving Fast! By Monica @ 8:43 PM If you haven't read about NAIS yet, please do so now. The USDA is moving fast on NAIS -- and so should we. About a month ago, R-CALF sued the USDA when it attempted to make NAIS mandatory for interstate commerce. Now, we have some inkling as to why the USDA has so easily canceled that memo that would have made premises ID mandatory for interstate commerce. They have a much bigger trick up their sleeve. A commenter, Mary Zanoni, in this yahoogroup, Colorado Against NAIS, informs us: On Tuesday, January 13, 2009, the USDA published in the Federal Register a proposed rule that would make two elements of NAIS -- NAIS Premises ID and NAIS individual animal ID -- effectively mandatory in USDA animal disease programs. This rule, if it goes into effect, would be an enormous step toward creating a fully mandatory NAIS for all U.S. livestock. The proposed rule directly affects cattle, bison, sheep, goats, and swine. However, it will also bring a full NAIS closer for all species. Therefore, all owners of horses, poultry, and other species should also submit comments and urge their livestock/farming organizations to submit comments. The comment period is scheduled to close on March 16, 2009. Commenting on this proposed rule is extremely important. Not only all animal owners, but also consumers of local/organic/grassfed foods, and everyone concerned with preserving a place for family farms in a world increasingly dominated by Industrial Agriculture, is urged to comment. I agree. Ranting against industrial agriculture sounds anti-business but unfortunately, most large producers simply don't oppose NAIS. That's the unfortunate fact. Here is a good example of such support. Although NAIS is now a USDA program, it was invented by large producers to get better access to export markets due to traceability requirements. (I believe Cargill was the company that presented USDA with this program idea in the first place.) Now the USDA wants to force it on everyone, even if they don't ship materials internationally or even interstate. Large producers don't care because they know it will be a more burdensome cost for smaller producers that will pay in greater proportion for the program since their every animal will be tagged, while whole lots of animals in industrial agriculture can just be moved under one tag. Mary continues: In regard to advancing NAIS, the four most important aspects of the USDA/APHIS Jan. 13, 2009 rule are: 1. As of the effective date of the final rule, the NAIS Premises ID Number (PIN) would be the only form of PIN allowed for certain official uses. (Note on timing -- the comment period is open until March 16, 2009. Then USDA reviews the comments and at some point can issue a final rule. That date of issuance would be the effective date for the mandatory assignments of the NAIS Premises IDs. However, a large number of unfavorable comments might result in the postponement, or even retraction or cancellation, of the rule.) 2. Although the system announced in this proposed rule supposedly permits the continued use of the National Uniform Eartagging System (traditionally, metal tags) and a "premises-based numbering system," in fact, these systems would be used in the same way as NAIS Animal Identification Numbers. The older forms of eartags and individual IDs would all be connected into the NAIS Premises ID database through the Animal Identification Number Management System ("AINMS," the USDA system that keeps track of what individual animal identification number is assigned to what farm or ranch). In other words, under the system of this proposed rule, anytime a farmer/rancher has metal tags applied to livestock (such as for TB or brucellosis testing), the farm/ranch will be placed into the NAIS Premises ID system and the numbers on the tags will be tied to the farm/ranch through the USDA's AINMS system. 3. Some requirements are being added for official eartags and these new requirements might make it very difficult or even impossible to obtain metal tags instead of the NAIS tags. The additional requirements include a "U.S. shield" printed on each tag, and tags must be "tamper-resistant and have a high retention rate in the animal." The APHIS Administrator must approve all tags. The NAIS tags now available already meet these standards. It is not clear that metal tags have ever been judged by these standards, so it is possible that the APHIS Administrator could fail to approve metal and other non-NAIS tags. Also, tag manufacturers will have a clear self-interest in abandoning production of cheap metal tags in favor of expensive NAIS RFID tags, so non-NAIS forms of tags may quickly become extinct. 4. The addition of a definition of the AINMS to the animal-disease program rules in the Code of Federal Regulations is huge. Previously the AINMS has only been defined in the non-rule NAIS informational documents (Draft Strategic Plan, User Guide, Business Plan, etc.) so it did not have any defined legal status. Now this proposed rule adds a definition of the AINMS and also provides that eventually the AINMS will be used to tie all types of "official" tags -- not just the NAIS 15-digit tags -- to a NAIS registered premises. The proposed rule accomplishes essentially a mandatory system for the first 2 elements of NAIS -- NAIS premises ID and NAIS individual animal ID. The only difference from the original NAIS plan is that now the metal tags and other traditional forms of individual ID have become additional forms of numbering/tagging that are used as part of NAIS. Note that even if your state has passed a law to keep NAIS "voluntary," that will not necessarily save you from this rule. The Federal Register notice specifically states: "All State and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this rule will be preempted." (p. 1638.) However, if you are working to pass a state law limiting NAIS in the present legislative session, keep working -- such a law could still be very important. It shows the opposition of animal owners and consumers to NAIS, which may help get the rule postponed or rescinded. In addition, the question of whether this rule would pre-empt contrary state laws in all circumstances may someday be open to legal challenge. Your best defense against government takeover of your food is to go comment on the proposed rule right now. There are only a handful of comments there. (Mine is not there yet but it will be.) I cannot urge strongly enough how important this is. How long would citizens be able to remain independent with a government-controlled food supply? If the government can control the food, it can control the population. Just tonight I was at a meeting in which it was revealed that Monsanto is proposing a program to the government to track all vegetables. Folks, I am not kidding. Industries invent these programs to protect themselves, because the enormous scale and centralization of modern production means food-borne illness outbreaks are huge when they end up happening (just look at the recent peanut butter outbreak). It's not a global conspiracy for takeover of our food, I don't think. The problem is that these programs then become required of everyone when they are proposed to government, not just the groups for whom it might make some sense. When I get milk from my local farm (or vegetables or whatever) it makes ZERO sense to track these items with RFID chips. I know where these products came from. "Treaceability" is a nice idea for industrial agriculture, but for local farm-to-consumer sales it is just an added, costly regulatory burden that puts my local producer out of business and makes me more reliant on a government-controlled supermarket. (This has been going on for nearly a century now will predictable results.) No, thank you. The USDA has said all along that NAIS will be voluntary. Now they are reneging. How can we possibly believe the USDA when it now assures farmers that this information will be kept private and used only for disease programs? Given the increased communication between the alphabet soup agencies that we have seen under the Bush administration under "Homeland Security" we could easily expect that such premises IDs could be handed over to the EPA for them to collect their taxes on cows because they release methane. This will destroy not just small, local, sustainable or organic agriculture -- yes, that will go first, just as it has been going for the past 40 or so years. But eventually it could be all of agriculture decades down the road when the government decides it needs to "depopulate" not just farm animals, but humans, too, in order to "save the planet". It's not a conspiracy theory. The USDA or EPA, I'm sure, doesn't plan on eliminating any humans right now and most government employees would be horrified at the thought. But eventually, we've seen the incredible control that is concentrated in the hands of government agencies if citizens don't stand up for their rights. The Founders of this country would be absolutely horrified at the United States today. Given the USDA and EPA statements on the taxation of agriculture to prevent global warming, I'm not encouraged about NAIS's potential uses. Right now they claim it's about disease control of TB, brucellosis, etc. I'm skeptical, since the USDA has actively blocked independent testing for mad cow. Whatever the true intentions of NAIS right now, this recent action proves, yet again, that the USDA has no intention that NAIS be voluntary at the federal level. Their intention for state mandates hasn't worked, and since the disease control programs the USDA already has in place are mandatory, converting THESE programs to mandate NAIS premises registration effectively makes the program mandatory. I urge everyone to sumbit comments on this sneak introduction of NAIS onto producers and consumers via the Federal Rulemaking Portal. The proposed rules may be read in full here in the Federal Register. Clearly state that your comment refers to Docket # APHIS-2007-0096. Our very sustenance is in peril. If you eat any meat whatsoever, this affects you, but if you eat locally sourced meat it affects you even more. Please comment before March 19. Thank you. Labels: EPA Tyranny, NAIS, Why the USDA is Not Your Friend E-mail Monica    PermaLink    1 Comments   Monday, January 12, 2009 A Vision of Laissez-Faire Corn Production By Monica @ 10:16 PM Kendall Justiano of The Crucible and Column has written an excellent piece on the distortions in the market caused by corn subsidies and sugar tariffs. I'll direct you to the entire post because it deserves to be read in entirety. He provides a vision of one sector of agriculture without subsidies, at least as it relates to corn. Kendall also discusses the nature of government interference in agriculture and how it differs from other industries -- and thus, makes reference to Archer Daniels Midland at the end of his post. ADM makes corn sweetener and lobbies to keep sugar price supports and tariffs in place (because sugar might replace corn sweetener in products if operating in a free market, as Kendall shows). ADM is a huge recipient of government welfare programs, which John Stossel has written about and which Dr. Eades has also commented on several times in various posts. I'll leave you with this priceless little exchange between Stossel and the chairman of Archer Daniels Midland: (Stossel) I foolishly thought I could get him to admit he was a rich guy milking the system. I thought he’d at least act embarrassed about it. Fuggeddaboutit. He was unfazed. John Stossel: Mother Jones [magazine] pictured you as a pig. You’re a pig feeding at the welfare trough. Dwayne Andreas: Why should I care? John Stossel: It doesn’t bother you? Dwayne Andreas: Not a bit. Disgusting. Orren Boyle in the flesh, folks. Labels: Agricultural Adjustment, corn, Individual Rights, Subsidies, Trade E-mail Monica    PermaLink    1 Comments   Freedom to Farm -- in Your Backyard By Monica @ 7:05 PM I've been increasingly concerned about our food supply with the thought of an economic meltdown. There are others I have spoken to who feel similarly. Some have even written about such matters: When things rumble and bump in our economy, due to natural causes or government-made ones, shortages like our gas situation are going to occur. Big bumps, big problems. In my more paranoid moments, I wonder what will happen if the economy goes boom! I shouldn't take it for granted that I'll be able to find gasoline. Or insulin. How hard will that be to find in an emergency, with the government "helping" with price ceilings and regulations that will shackle the very people who make it and the people who need it. It's very scary to contemplate showing up at the pharmacy and facing an insulin shortage. Because you just expect it to be there, just like you expect gasoline to be at the gas station. Damn. That's right. And we shouldn't take it for granted that we'll be able to find anything, including food. It's disturbing to me that economists at the USDA control the futures market for major crops. In doing so and in controlling production with subsidies, the USDA essentially controls supply and demand. I worry because farmers do not necessarily have the knowledge or equipment to go back to less fuel intensive methods of farming now. Fifty years ago farmers all knew how to produce 20 different commodities on their farm. Today, they largely produce only two: soy and corn. It is almost all dependent on soy and corn, and depends on quite a bit of fossil fuel to boot. Farmers can't just put animals back on pasture right away in order to cut fuel costs. They would need to convert those fields to different crops: hay, wheat, or some mixture of native grasses. They don't necessarily have the equipment for that anymore nor do they even own any animals. It would require some sort of partnership between farmers and feedlot owners, I suppose. I'm not an economist so I can't say how things would pan out in a depression if one were to occur. I honestly don't know. However, our food system is incredibly centralized and dependent on foreign oil. That's not reassuring to me. For that reason, I feel the need to secure my food supply before anything like this happens. I've bought a lot of open pollinated plants to attempt a garden this summer, and I'm starting to buy more and more from local producers in an attempt to escape a food system that might collapse one day. Sounds scary, I know -- and it's not a bullet-proof plan, of course. Luckily, I live in an area where I can get a lot of locally produced items relatively cheaply direct from the farm, including bison, beef, elk, venison, vegetables, eggs, and milk. I could probably produce a considerable amount of eggs, honey, and vegetables on my own property. If you, too are concerned about such matters you may wish to check out where to obtain locally produced goods. I've produced and maintained home gardens with a reasonable amount of effort with friends -- enough to supply two people for a year on about 5000 square feet or so. I also fondly remember my grandparent's garden when I was growing up. In the two world wars, backyard gardening played a much more important role in American society, according to Michael Pollan. I find it interesting that in WWII such "Victory Gardens" were supplying 40% of America's produce. That's pretty impressive, but not too surprising from my perspective since I know first hand what a moderate-sized garden can produce in a good year. It's also not surprising to hear Pollan say that the USDA opposed such Victory gardens, because of course the USDA makes no sense whatsoever most of the time. I'm certainly not hoping for a depression. I'm just speculating and trying to be secure. I don't have the same obstacles as many people, thank goodness. I imagine that in an economic meltdown, homeowner's associations aren't really going to care whether you dig up your front and back yards for vegetable gardens or not. I'm pretty sure they would have some pretty nasty restrictions about it officially on the books, though. One of my friends is restricted in the type of trees she can plant in her own backyard. It's really quite absurd. It's her property and really not any of her neighbors' business. It bothers me that HOAs have grown into sort of quasi-governmental organizations restricting such basic freedoms as the right to plant a tree on one's own property because of a few seed pods that might blow into someone's yard. For people who belong to HOAs, I think it might be wise to start raising such issues if you know there are rules on the books restricting your freedoms. There is another growing trend that does relate to real governmental organizations, and that is keeping chickens in one's backyard for eggs. (Of course, I'm not advocating roosters -- that would be a complete nuisance to neighbors.) Hens are not loud and with a fence no one really notices them. This site, Urban Chickens, often discusses urban chicken ordinances and the efforts in getting them overturned. It appears that people all around the country are looking into keeping chickens in their backyards, and where such ordinances exist they are seeking to overturn them, often with success. The benefits, of course, would be yummy eggs, pest control, and fertilizer for your lawn! Such freedoms might be particularly important in the future. Those who are concerned about their local ordinances should get involved in trying to get the rules changed. And, of course, we need to keep a very close eye on the USDA's onerous National Animal Identification System. Such a program will protect no one from terrorism or disease, and we all know what it is really about: more government control over our food. We honestly don't need the USDA or the EPA coming around and collecting taxes on chicken farts. Join me in a future post as I discuss the soil fertility benefits of animal-based agriculture. Yes, even in your own backyard! Labels: De-regulation, Individual Rights, NAIS, Why the USDA is Not Your Friend E-mail Monica    PermaLink    0 Comments   Sunday, January 11, 2009 Defending Capitalism vs. Defending the Status Quo By Monica @ 2:02 PM FA/RM strongly defends a free market in food. That's our core mission: The group, Free Agriculture - Restore Markets (FA/RM), advocates agricultural and health policies based solely on the principles of individual rights. The protection of a person's basic rights to growing, producing, selling, buying, and eating the food of his or her choice -- which are applications of the fundamental rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness -- require a separation of economy and state. We support the right of producers and consumers to grow, sell, manufacture, and trade food supplies to mutual benefit without government interference. Based on objective fraud and tort laws, the courts can adjudicate cases of harm to consumers due to negligence or fraud. This is not anarchy. This is free-market capitalism. Because we defend free-market capitalism, I feel that it’s important to write a few educational posts now and then on some of the shenanigans that are going on in our food supply, as Diana has recently done. She also made the excellent point in the comments line to her post that too many businesses have now sold out their own long-term interests for shorter ones, which is often an unintended effect of government regulations and/or the faulty epistemology so prevalent in our society today. That's particularly true for agriculture. I'll be writing on this issue of short- vs. long-term interests with regard to soil fertility in the future. Educational posts about food are useful to free-market activism to the extent that such information reveals that people can't just sit back and hope that all businessmen will behave morally in the marketplace -- particularly those in foreign countries like China where corruption is rampant and universally accepted as the normal way to do business. People shouldn't assume -- with or without the existence of government regulations -- that every food product one can buy is safe or healthy. Furthermore, recognizing that some businessmen will cut corners for a quick buck -- and then criticizing them when they do it and adjusting purchasing accordingly -- isn't anti-capitalist. As a friend of mine recently wrote to me in an email, “Objectivists certainly ought to speak out about bad behavior on the part of businesses -- particularly fraud and negligence. We aren't pro-business; we're pro-capitalism and pro-freedom.” Precisely. Labels: "Safety", De-regulation, Individual Rights, Trade E-mail Monica    PermaLink    0 Comments   Saturday, January 10, 2009 Thoughts on the Morality of Meat Eating By Monica @ 10:50 AM There are a few commenters that have left some witty or otherwise enjoyable comments in one of Dr. Eades' most recent posts. These comments have to do with Michael Pollan's personal prescription for a healthy diet: Though I loved Michael Pollan’s “The Omnivore’s Dilemma”, I avoided reading his latest book “In Defense of Food”, mainly because I was turned off by the mantra “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” Sounded like the usual dogmatic nonsense to me. Then there's this, from a different commenter: I modified it a little: “Meat food, Not too lean, Mostly leaf plants” I think you can see where this is going. Now this, from yet another person in the same thread: “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” Sounds like a living hell to me. If you don’t live forever it will certainly feel like it. Someone–I think it was MSNBC–ran a contest for viewers to come up with their own 2-3-2 guide to eating. Winner: “Ate plants. Lots of them. Still hungry.” These comments above are telling. I, too, expressed concerns in a previous piece that this "eat mostly plants" schtick seems to be the take-home message of Pollan's work, rather than the other excellent points he so often makes. There's a reason I spend so much time on the nutritional myths of meat on this blog, and that is because there are various motivations to attack meat in our society. No one out there wants to outlaw vegetable eating for the sake of vegetable rights, human health, or the environment. There are definitely problems with the way meat is produced. Dr. Eades has pointed that out himself on at least one occasion, and he echoes my own thoughts on the industrial production of meat. However, recognizing those problems and unpleasantries doesn't mean we have to fall down the "fat is evil" rabbit hole or become vegans. That's why I spend a lot of time on the meat issue, and would likely still do so apart from my personal dietary preferences. I've tried to treat the issue of meat eating and meat production objectively on this blog. I firmly believe that humans need meat for optimal nutrition but also believe they should be completely free to avoid it if they so choose. Unfortunately, that's not the view of so many vegetarians, vegans, animal rights activists, and environmentalists who want to force their select foods on others through the law by outlawing meat. This article, written by a farmer, is a good analysis of such concerns. Defending meat doesn't mean defending ignorance or even widespread practices. In fact, people should be fully aware of what is required to produce their food and far too many are ignorant about it, willfully or not. However, there's a crucial distinction between revealing the truth about meat production in the United States today and claiming that it's a universal ethical issue. Food choices are particularly not a completely free will choice so long as the government influences farm and food policy, makes unhealthy products of all types cheaper, and restricts access to certain foods through various methods. That shouldn't be taken as any kind of support for Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) that result in sick animals, bacterial resistance, and obnoxious odors and water pollution for local residents. Diana wrote an excellent article about feedlot production yesterday and some of the potential free market solutions to this problem. Personally, I think feedlots would remain with us even in a free market if consumer demand doesn't shift, but I think there would be a natural tendency for them to be smaller without the EQIP program. Spending on EQIP has risen dramatically each year since the program's inception in 1996. If a resident sues a local CAFO, all the owner has to do is apply for an EQIP grant to clean up the pollution. That's morally wrong. It's also an indication that the current cost of grain-fed feedlot beef does not reflect what the true market price should be. I don't believe that means that grass-fed meats would be excessively more expensive in a free market, though. USDA inspection regulations are much more costly to smaller producers that are producing grass fed meat. Those regulations, too, need to go. They would dramatically cut the cost of locally and humanely raised meats. Michael Pollan largely agrees that CAFOs should bear the cleanup costs themselves without being propped up by taxpayers. But here's where he goes wildly wrong: The government should also throw its support behind putting a second bar code on all food products that, when scanned either in the store or at home (or with a cellphone), brings up on a screen the whole story and pictures of how that product was produced: in the case of crops, images of the farm and lists of agrochemicals used in its production; in the case of meat and dairy, descriptions of the animals’ diet and drug regimen, as well as live video feeds of the CAFO where they live and, yes, the slaughterhouse where they die. The very length and complexity of the modern food chain breeds a culture of ignorance and indifference among eaters. Shortening the food chain is one way to create more conscious consumers, but deploying technology to pierce the veil is another. It's very frustrating to see someone like Pollan nail the problem (government interference in agriculture) and call for a "solution" of yet more government interference. It's particularly frustrating since he is so widely read and people then bandy about these ideas without thinking critically about them. I simply cannot agree to the "deployment of technology", which means the deployment of my money, which means the deployment of legalized theft, to "educate" other consumers about their food. Too many Americans agree with this erroneous line of reasoning that yet more government programs are the solution to all of our ills. I don't like feedlot practices, either. That's why I attempt to sponsor local producers so that I know exactly how my food was produced and where it came from. I certainly don't need a "live video feed" to tell me about the local farm I've visited or the local slaughterhouse where the animal is killed. To force me to pay for an incredibly expensive system in an attempt to educate others about their food is morally wrong. In any case, can acknowledgment of the reality of meat production really be forced on an individual? It cannot, no matter how much money is spent. Evasion of reality is morally wrong but no one can force a mind, and too often such "public education" projects designed to do just that only result in indifference and resentment rather than the desired "educational" goals. People either wish to be educated about their food or they do not -- besides the more fundamental point that it's not the government's job to do so. If consumers do wish to be informed, there are far better sources of education than an expensive government program. Further, a picture is not an argument. Should the Type II diabetic in the middle of Windsock, Nebraska -- with only one grocery store around for miles on end -- feel guilty at the cash register for choosing feedlot bacon over pasta when he sees a live video feed of a slaughterhouse? Morality is contextual. This reader over at Eades' blog hits it straight on: At the end of this work (Omnivore's Dilemma) he moralizes extensively after shooting a feral pig. Absent was any recognition that killing is sometimes a necessity. He would have felt differently if he had to feed a hungry family. While I don't agree with everything said in this essay, this statement from Garrett Hardin in Tragedy of the Commons is appropriate: In passing, it is worth noting that the morality of an act cannot be determined from a photograph. One does not know whether a man killing an elephant or setting fire to the grassland is harming others until one knows the total system in which his act appears. "One picture is worth a thousand words," said an ancient Chinese; but it may take ten thousand words to validate it. It is as tempting to ecologists as it is to reformers in general to try to persuade others by way of the photographic shortcut. But the essence of an argument cannot be photographed: it must be presented rationally -- in words. Update: 12PM, fixed some typographical errors and added a link. Labels: Ethics, Individual Rights E-mail Monica    PermaLink    2 Comments   Wednesday, January 7, 2009 Activism Opportunity for Manna Storehouse By Monica @ 7:26 PM The Stowers family is pleased to announce that you can follow their case through their attorney's website, The Buckeye Institute. The press statement can be seen directly at this location. For those unaware of the raid on Manna Storehouse, I've written about the incident here, here, and here. Anyone wishing to make a donation to the Stowers' legal fund is encouraged to make it to the Buckeye Institute. The Buckeye Institute is an independent research and education group and does not perform contract work or accept government grants: "To maintain the highest degree of intellectual integrity, we need the support of the people whose lives we're seeking to improve through sound public policy. We thank you in advance for your support. " I received an email requesting people to write letters, especially to the Governor of Ohio, the Ohio Department of Agriculture and the Lorain County Health Department. If anyone has experienced a similar tale of government abuse, please leave it here in the comments and I will forward it to the Stowers', as they would like to hear about it. Will you please join me in writing these three government offices? We need to send a clear message to the officials in Ohio -- and other government agencies in the country no doubt following this case closely -- that these types of actions are completely unconstitutional and unacceptable. Here is my letter. Feel free to adapt it to your needs. Dear __________, I am extremely disturbed at the strong-arm tactics displayed in the raid on the Stowers home in late 2008. Not one complaint of illness has been made against Manna Storehouse, nor has any evidence been offered that the products of the Stowers farm are dangerous. Would this type of action have been acceptable in America in 1808 or even 1908? No. Then why is it acceptable in 2008? It is not. People have a constitutional right to enter into contractual agreements that harm no one, and they have a right to do so without government permission slips. For too long now, a government official has been responsible for deciding what is healthy. The current regulatory scheme drastically decreases choices available to consumers and forces them to buy food products as the government sees fit -- regardless of their own judgment or unique circumstances. This is a complete anomaly in human history. For thousands of years, even well into the history of the United States, humans have survived and lived perfectly healthy lives without a government dictating their food choices. The members of the Manna Storehouse coop are informed consumers. As for the possibility of food-borne illness, there are no guarantees of safety even from federally inspected items, including pasteurized milk, beef, chicken, tomatoes, sausage, spinach, and alfalfa sprouts -- despite what government agencies would like us to believe. All Americans need to be more informed about their food choices -- not lulled into a false sense of complacency about a particular product simply because it is deemed "safe" by a state or federal health agency. Americans must have the right to eat the food they choose. Should situations of harm to consumers arise, Americans will always have a recourse: the courts. Yet there wasn't even a case of food poisoning as an excuse for this raid. No one complained or became ill from purchases from the Manna Storehouse coop. No one's rights were violated until the Stowers home was forcibly entered. Why was there a need to raid the Stowers home and confiscate thousands of dollars worth of food, including private supplies as well? This type of action resembles something out of a Soviet Politburo handbook. It is most certainly not our founders' vision of the United States. The Ohio Department of Agriculture and the Lorain County Health Department should be ashamed of themselves. Ohioans, indeed all Americans, should be allowed to to make their own decisions about the food put into their bodies -- without any government interference whatsoever. The government should not be able to unlawfully seize peoples' very sustenance because of minor code infractions. Government agencies appear to need continual reminders that it is they who serve American citizens -- not the other way around. This outrageous action against the Stowers family is a clear violation of the fourth and fifth amendments of the Constitution of the United States, and all such raids need to come to an end. Monica Hughes, PhD, founder of Free Agriculture -- Restore Markets (fa-rm.org) Labels: "Safety", Farm Raids, Individual Rights E-mail Monica    PermaLink    0 Comments   Tuesday, January 6, 2009 Uncle Sam Wants YOUr ... Raisins! By Monica @ 7:05 PM From Tim Sandefur of PLF on Eminent Domain comes this absurd story of how each year the federal government seizes the raisin crop to adjust prices: You might think it a little strange that every year the federal government seizes up to a quarter of the entire raisin crop in California. But it's called "agricultural adjustment," and it's done by a government-run cartel that has operated since the New Deal on the theory that making raisins and other goods more expensive for the consumer is somehow good economic policy. Federal law creates the "raisin administrative committee," which every year decides on a quota of raisins that are to be taken off of the market so as to "stabilize" (i.e., increase) the price of raisins in the grocery store. These seized raisins are sold under a government brand to public schools and other entities, and the proceeds from these sales are used to subsidize American farmers who sell raisins overseas. This lets them charge below-market costs for such raisins, thereby making it harder for raisin producers in those countries to make a living. What's left over after these subsidies are doled out is then given back to the farmers whose raisins were stolen in the first place. Obviously this is less than the actual value of the raisins in the first place. ... For more on the absurdity of agricultural adjustment, check out the great classic, Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt. Hazlitt explains the simple lesson that you cannot get rich by throwing food away, no matter how much such a policy might increase the price of whatever food remains. Your government at work! And to think this nonsense has been going on since 1929. Labels: Agricultural Adjustment, Government Idiocy, Trade E-mail Monica    PermaLink    0 Comments   Monday, January 5, 2009 Linda Faillace Discusses NAIS By Monica @ 7:56 PM NAIS is not going to assure consumer confidence in the meat supply, but that is how it is being sold to the American public. In fact, the USDA has actively blocked independent testing of mad cow disease by Creekstone Farms, and the levels of testing that the USDA carries out are woefully inadequate: less than a tenth of a percent. With three cows discovered so far, that level of testing is simply not going to be effective at discovering the disease, and the USDA knows it. It has admitted a concern that more testing will "undermine confidence in the meat supply." We're going to have to keep a close eye on the Obama administration when it comes to the NAIS issue. It's simply a mechanism for more control over our food supply. The safety and terrorism issues are a complete smokescreen. In Linda Faillace's book Mad Sheep, she issued a very strong verdict against the USDA, saying that it needs to be completely dismantled and restructured. I give the book my highest recommendation and wrote a review of it here. Labels: "Safety", Meat Inspection, NAIS, Why the USDA is Not Your Friend E-mail Monica    PermaLink    8 Comments   Sunday, January 4, 2009 Raw Milk Knuckleheads and the Constitution By Monica @ 10:51 PM David Gumpert writes about a recent article I saw that has been flying around in the mainstream media, one which I hadn't yet had a chance to comment on. As usual, with anything raw milk related, he's beaten me to it. The article is about the "inherent unsafety" of raw milk these days. Apparently the number of food-borne illness outbreaks from raw milk has gone from around 2.5 to 5. I honestly can't remember what the time interval is but I think it was over a 5 year span. It might have been yearly, I'm not exactly sure. Funny how the regulators aren't writing press pieces on the inherent danger of burritos due to that listeria outbreak in sausage last week! So what are the regulators and scientists to do about these crazy raw milk knuckleheads that just won't take "no" lying down? David writes: The authors then repeat a number of lies—for example, “Raw milk advocates suggest that unpasteurized milk products are completely safe...” and “Scientific evidence to substantiate the assertions of the health benefits of unpasteurized milk is generally lacking.” It's true. I don't know any raw milk advocates claiming that upasteurized milk is completely safe. That would be absurd, particularly depending on the source of the milk and whether or not it was inspected! The assertion isn't about the science, it's about rights. These people don't get the concept of rights. David continues: What interests me, though, is their conclusion about how to cope with “raw-milk advocates”: “When the public is presented with a large body of conflicting information, their decision-making process does not always yield the same results as that of experts. This problem is particularly complicated by the fact that individuals with established attitudes not only seek information that is supportive of their views but also unconsciously process information in a biased fashion. That results in a population that is not easily persuaded by informational messages alone.” So, what do you do about knuckleheads who just don't "get it"? “...message clarity, message repetition, and source credibility.” In other words, keep repeating your points, regardless of what “raw-milk advocates” say. And if that doesn’t work? Resort to old-fashioned threats, even against your colleagues who may sympathize with the knuckleheads, as the article concludes: “...physicians, veterinarians and dairy farmers who promote, or even condone, the human consumption of unpasteurized milk and dairy products may be at risk for subsequent legal action.” The notion of fundamental human rights being at stake and an informed group of people making informed choices (and accepting the slight possibility that they or their children could become ill), isn't really important to these self-appointed dictators. Just keep hitting the idiots over the head with "the facts" and they'll come around. Maybe the regulators, scientists, and doctors need some refresher history and government courses. Boy, do they ever. Unfortunately, too many Americans agree with this type of erroneous thinking, that public policy ought to be based in the decisions of "experts". There's also apparently been a discussion on a food poisoning trial lawyer's blog about at what point it becomes appropriate to respond with force to government initiatory force. Yikes. David again writes: This is a discussion that can quickly become highly charged. Mark alludes to the “tipping point,” but suggests quite appropriately that he doesn’t know exactly where it is. Nor do any of us. But wherever it lies out there, our government enforcers seem to be moving closer to it as they raid farms of peaceful families while waiving firearms. It is also important to remember that our founders had experienced the abuses of an authoritarian government directly from the British, and considered armed resistance important enough to be made a key component of our constitution. Mark is just giving expression to that, reminding us of the New Hampshire license plate’s admonition: “Live free or die.” Indeed. Just about everyone in this country could really use a refresher course on the Constitution at this point -- most notably lawyers, judges, and Supreme Court Justices. Oh, let's throw in Congresspeople and the President and his cabinet to boot! After they all get done reading it for the first time since whenever, they could all stand to read Man's Rights as well. Labels: Constitution, De-regulation, Individual Rights E-mail Monica    PermaLink    0 Comments   Saturday, January 3, 2009 What's Wrong With Tom Vilsack? By Monica @ 10:13 PM Lots. Tom Vilsack is Obama’s pick for Secretary of Agriculture, if you hadn’t heard. Let's start with corn. As governor of Iowa, he was named “Governor of the Year” by the Biofuel Industry Organization. If you did not know, ethanol from corn is a process that uses as much or more energy to create than the finished product generates. Only the government could dream up such a wasteful scheme. Cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel may be profitable enterprises, as opposed to corn ethanol, but if that is the case they do not need government to prop them up. This is not rocket science -- even self-described environmentalists agree that ethanol needs to stand on its own. But it would appear that it’s going to be business as usual at the USDA with Vilsack in charge, with yet more taxpayer money -- on top of the $56 billion already spent in a decade on corn! -- going to Big Corn. Monsanto, Syngenta, et. al. must be lapping this news up. Once these programs get started, they grow a life of their own. That's why we have to kill them before they are actually born. Speaking of killing bad programs before they start, let's talk about the National Animal Identification System -- NAIS. Those trying to raise healthy, free-range grass-fed meat animals might be up against more trouble under USDA headed by Vilsack. Vilsack is a supporter of NAIS, and if implemented fully, more small farmers (read: pastured, humane operations) raising animals will be put out of business by it. Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) will be allowed to register hundreds of animals under one tag while other producers will have to buy a tag for each animal. This system will not even prevent animal-borne disease. It can only track it 48 hours after an outbreak. And given that the USDA is allowing the mixing of meat from Canada, Mexico, and the USA and labeling it as such in grocery stores, it is not even going to be useful in meat recalls. NAIS needs to be a top priority under the Obama administration. It's an invention of Big Moo to give them better access to the export markets. It needs to remain a completely voluntary system and the USDA is trying hard to get this implemented for all animal owners by now trying to get it implemented state by state, requiring it for interstate commerce, and requiring it of producers in order to sell meat for the USDA's School Lunch Program. Thankfully, many are fighting hard against NAIS now and it's only been implemented in a handful of states. A recent suit brought against the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has resulted in APHIS canceling their memo requiring NAIS for interstate commerce! This is very encouraging -- it shows that when people stick up for their rights and stand up against intrusive programs before they start, they can be prevented. If you haven't voted to kill NAIS, please do so here. It's in third place for ideas about Agricultural Policy on change.org. You can also vote to legalize raw milk: that proposal is in first place in Agricultural Policy. Obama's pick for Secretary of Agriculture really doesn't look good for people who support individual rights and a more rational farm policy. In addition to wanting to prop up Big Corn and Big Moo with your money, Vilsack himself received $42,782 in farm subsidies over a seven year period. Are we ready to end the farm subsidy programs yet?!? Is this “change we can believe in?" The "change" that economically unsustainable ethanol should continue to guzzle our tax dollars, deplete our soils of vital nutrients, and create an enormous hypoxic dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico the size of New Jersey? The "change" that millions of dollars should be spent on animal eartags in the name of “safety” at the expense of the small farmer? The "change" that billions of dollars should continue to be extorted from hard working Americans to give to lawmakers and billionaires? The "change" that Americans should continue to be fed a steady diet of subsidized commodity corn, wheat and soy products that lead to obesity, cancer, heart disease, and Type 2 diabetes, while continuing to be told by the USDA that these foods will lead to better health? No. I saw that I could put an end to your outrages by pronouncing a single word in my mind. I pronounced it. The word was "No." John Galt's Speech, Atlas Shrugged, p. 973 (35th Anniversary Edition) Labels: "Safety", De-regulation, Government Idiocy, NAIS, Nutritional Guidelines, Rants and Whines, School Lunch Program, Subsidies, Why the USDA is Not Your Friend E-mail Monica    PermaLink    2 Comments   Subsidies for Billionaires -- and Congresspeople Too! By Monica @ 8:46 PM Well, dear readers, it’s high time I addressed the issue of farm subsidies. Hold onto your seat. First, a bit of preliminary information about subsidies. The Environmental Working Group has compiled a wonderful searchable database and some excellent statistics on the farm subsidy programs, which are a subset of the Farm Bill spending: $177.6 billion in subsidies 1995-2006 67 percent of all farmers and ranchers do not collect government subsidy payments in United States, according to USDA Among subsidy recipients, ten percent collected 74 percent of all subsidies amounting to $130.6 billion over 12 years Recipients in the top 10% averaged $36,290 in annual payments between 1995 and 2006. The bottom 80 percent of the recipients saw only $731 on average per year Now that you have an idea how the money is generally distributed, here are some more specifics about the top programs and crops that receive USDA money: Corn Subsidies $56,170,875,257 Wheat Subsidies $22,051,566,200 Cotton Subsidies $21,329,862,262 Conservation Reserve Program $20,337,282,263 (This is a euphemism for paying farmers not to farm – i.e. to pull marginal land out of production because subsidies are driving down prices which encourages overproduction.) Disaster Payments $15,114,518,393 Soybean Subsidies $14,239,702,740 Rice Subsidies $11,043,795,298 Sorghum Subsidies $4,569,912,363 Dairy Program Subsidies $3,560,356,847 Livestock Subsidies $2,908,502,988 Peanut Subsidies $2,609,286,072 Barley Subsidies $1,962,025,270 Environmental Quality Incentive Program $943,955,199 (This is a euphemism for paying farmers to clean up the factory feedlot waste that creates obnoxious odors for local residents and manure pollution sometimes hundreds of miles downstream. This program started around 1996.) Tobacco Subsidies $530,488,022 Sunflower Subsidies $461,135,751 Apple Subsidies $261,540,987 Sugar Beet Subsidies $242,064,005 Canola Subsidies $200,281,433 Oat Subsidies $198,255,252 Wool Subsidies $185,590,080 Get a load of what is missing. With the exception of apples, all fruits and vegetables are conspicuously absent. Grains are very highly subsidized. I don’t know exactly why this is, but I believe it probably stems back to Earl Butz’s desire to feed to world and mass-produce food cheaply. I need to do more research to confirm this, but it is interesting that what almost all of the subsidized items above have in common is that they store well. It’s clear with all of the above data that most farmers producing fruits and vegetables are managing to stay in business without any federal "help" whatsoever. Most people think of the farm subsidy system as helping small family farms stay afloat. Nothing could be farther from the truth: Farm subsidy payments are based on acreage, so by definition, the largest agribusinesses get the largest subsidies. Consequently, commercial farmers — who report an average income of $200,000 and net worth of nearly $2 million — now collect the majority of farm subsidies. Most farm subsidy dollars go to millionaires. … Payment limits exist — on paper. However, an entire industry of lawyers exploits loopholes, rendering these limits meaningless. Farmers can simply divide their farms into numerous separate entities and then collect subsidies for each farm. For example, The Washington Post reports that Tyler Farms in Arkansas has collected $37 million in farm subsidies since 1996 by dividing itself into 66 legally separate corporations. Other farmers evade payment limits by signing up family members, such as the Georgia farmer who reportedly collected thousands in additional subsidies by listing his two-year-old daughter as a co-farmer. It gets even sillier. Most subsidies are based on land’s historical use, even if it is no longer used for farming. So when 75 acres of Texas farmland was recently converted into a housing development, the homeowners on these $300,000-properties become eligible for annual farm subsidies for the lawn in their backyards. Residents never asked for these subsidies and have even stated that as non-farmers they do not want the government mailing them checks. It gets worse. You may be shocked to know that more than 50 billionaires received a total of more than $2 million from farm welfare programs between 2003 and 2005. The government has begun to try to curb the amount of subsidies pocketed by millionaires and billionaires. The problem is that some of the recipients are congresspeople themselves, with ten of the twelve recipients receiving up to 6 figures each in farm subsidies, pocketing a total of about $6 million over a ten year period. Do you think that the congressional recipients of this pork dole-out are likely to vote out the farm subsidy system that fattens their own paycheck? Not a chance. Get a load of this statement: "Without these programs, there are some years that we would have been in very, very dire straights," said Sen. Jon Tester, a Montana Democrat elected last year who farms 1,800 acres. Along with his wife, he received about $232,000 from 1995-2005, according to Department of Agriculture records gathered by the Environmental Working Group. Hm. I wonder if the “we” he is referring to there in "dire straits without their farm subsidies" would be he and his wife. It would also appear that there is some sneakiness involved on the part of some lawmakers in reporting this “farm” income: Members of Congress must report sources of income totaling more than $200, but most get payments through partnerships or other entities, so it can be difficult to learn which ones receive the subsidies. Recipients are searchable by name on www.ewg.org, but, for example, payments to Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., are listed under her maiden name, Lambert, at a Virginia address near Washington. Records show Lincoln and her family members collected $715,000 from 1995-2005, the most recent year complete data are available. She said she personally received less than $10,000 a year, and the subsidies ended in 2005 when her land was sold. The proposed $283 billion, five-year Senate farm bill would preserve a system that pays 84% of subsidies to the biggest 20% of the farms, according to the working group, which supports caps on farm payments. Some agribusiness companies receive millions from taxpayers each year, even with crop prices at record levels. One farmer-senator, Republican Chuck Grassley of Iowa, plans to offer an amendment that would cap payments at $250,000 annually. Grassley collected about $225,000 for his corn and soybean farm from 1995-2005. His son took in about $654,000, records show. Neither ever got $250,000 in a year. How convenient for Grassley, keeping the annual payment cap above what he and his family would receive in a given year. How generous! But I almost forgot about the billionaires: Microsoft co-founder Allen, who got $39,932 worth of subsidies; brokerage bigwig Charles Schwab, $67,498; the Walton family, at least $8,800; and banker-philanthropist Rockefeller, who received $50,023 in subsidies. Wait…it gets better! The Pritzker family — which besides Hyatt Hotels also owns Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines and commands a collective worth of at least $22 billion — took in a total of $273,461.57 in subsidies. Among their holdings: cattle and horse ranches in California and Wisconsin, along with timber interests in Louisiana, Illinois and elsewhere. Oil heir and avid outdoorsman Lee Marshall Bass, of Fort Worth, Texas, who is estimated to command a $3 billion fortune, collected nearly $250,000. Also in the upper ranks was oil-and-gas kingpin Tom Ward, who received subsidies totaling $135,710.98 for his investments in Kansas and Texas farms and feedlots. Most of the money came via wheat subsidies. Ward's estimated wealth is $1.6 billion. According to this article, Paris Hilton’s grandfather, hotel czar William Barron Hilton, got some farm subsidy money too. That means Paris Hilton may actually inherit some of your hard earned tax dollars. Ready to end the farm subsidies yet? Rep. Marion Berry, D-Ark., says the system works well: He and his family's farming interests received almost $2.4 million in federal payments from 1995-2005, records show. His net worth in 2005 was $1.7 million to $6.6 million, according to his financial disclosure statement. "He has firsthand experience of how this really benefits farmers," said his spokeswoman, Angela Guyadeen. Wow, he sure does! Believe it or not, it actually gets even more absurd. We’re paying dead people to farm: In July of 2007, the Government Accounting Office discovered something about the farm subsidy program. It turns out, the government was still paying farmers after they had died. And it wasn’t just a small amount. It was over a billion dollars in subsidies. Over a seven year period, the Department of Agriculture paid $1,100,000,000 in subsidies to farmers who had shuffled off this mortal coil. Of the 73 estates checked by the GAO, sixteen has received over $200,000 in subsidies, and 4 topped $500,000. The Department of Agriculture also paid $400,000 to a soybean and corn farm in Illinois after the owner had died in Florida in 1995! The farm just told the government that the owner was “actively engaged” in the day to day operations of the farm. An Indiana corporation that was owned entirely by one person never notified the government of the owner’s death in 1993 and continued to collect unspecified payments for a decade before new owners filed for farm benefits. The government made $567,000 in payments to an Alabama estate over seven years on behalf of an owner who died in 1981. Another estate continued to receive unspecified payments on behalf of a person who died in 1973 — more than three decades ago — without any investigation or review. Please refer your acquaintances, friends, and family members to this post the next time they claim that agriculture would collapse without subsidies. It’s a load of hooey. In fact, 90 percent of all farm subsidies in the United States are linked to just five crops — wheat, cotton, corn, soybeans and rice. Producers of fruits, vegetables, beef and poultry receive almost no farm subsidies and most farmers simply aren't even getting farm subsidies. Somehow, their products manage to make it to market. Thankfully, we also have a 35 year case study of a country with almost completely free market farm economics. In 1984, New Zealand swiftly eliminated farm subsidies under a newly elected labor government. Only 1% of farmers lost their farms and New Zealand’s farming industry is doing better than ever, particularly the sheep industry which was previously subsidized. The advice of the Federated Farmers of New Zealand to the farmers of America? “Get off the subsidy gravy train as soon as possible.” Oh, I almost forgot to tell you. Tom Vilsack, governor of Iowa and Obama’s new pick for Secretary of Agriculture, received subsidy payments of $42,782 from 1995 to 2006. That's approximately 1/3 of the Farm Bill, folks. Your tax dollars at work, paying lawmakers and billionaires tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars, giving farm subsidies to landowners who don’t farm, paying farmers not to farm, and doling out checks to dead people. This isn’t a system that needs reform. It needs complete elimination. Especially considering that it’s been going on since 1929. Labels: Government Idiocy, Subsidies, Why the USDA is Not Your Friend E-mail Monica    PermaLink    3 Comments   Thursday, January 1, 2009 Honey Laundering and Food Labeling By Monica @ 8:02 AM Yes, you read right. Here is a news article hitting my inbox this morning, tying in nicely to my previous post on honey: AUSTRALIA has been caught up in an international "honey laundering" scam in which Chinese honey is disguised and sold as the product of another country. The illegal scheme follows the collapse of bee colonies in the US and Europe, creating a shortage of honey and the bees necessary to pollinate crops, The Times and The Australian report. In the scam, drums of honey are shipped from China, usually to a distributor outside the country, who then repackages and re-exports it. In one case, drums of Chinese honey were marketd (sic) "Polish Light Amber Honey". In 2003, Melbourne-based agents of a Chinese firm rebadged Chinese honey as Australian and onsold it to the US. As a result Australia is on a list of 13 countries whose honey products must be cairfully (sic) checked on entry to the US. ... The Melbourne operators were charged and fined $489,000 for importing and rebadging 125 containers holding 1.7 million litres of Chinese honey sold to the US. The elaborate subterfuge is to avoid heath and safety checks, import fees and tarrifts (sic) imposed by the US and other countries on Chinese food products. Here's another report on this story. It's very revealing. If your kid eats Honey Nut Cheerios, s/he could be getting an unexpected (albeit probably small) dose of some pretty toxic antibiotics like ciprofloxacin and chloramphenicol. This is why I said that any foreign honey is suspect. China is an enormous danger to the food supply of the United States. And such fines simply aren't going to stop them, as the second report clearly indicates. As usual, Chinese producers and Chinese-based firms are willing to do almost anything to make a fast buck -- whether adding toxic melamine to milk (it is still going on -- I get news alerts about this daily), ethylene glycol to toothpaste, or fraudulently labeling their food as from a different country so as to get consumers to buy it. They will play this game endlessly to escape the regulatory schemes set up. It's not going to end here, and new regulations aren't going to protect consumers because the Chinese will keep adapting to find ways around the regulations. I'll repeat it -- the greatest way to ensure the safety of your food (or at least that your food is not from China) is to buy a whole food and to buy locally or domestically sourced items. This isn't protectionism, it's common sense. If third world countries had ethical production standards and my inbox wasn't flooded with several news items about food fraud -- daily -- I'd have no problem buying foreign food for myself. It's a personal choice -- nevertheless, I feel compelled to tell all of you readers what you're up against and that you do so at your own risk. Let me give you an example of why any packaged, multi-product food in the store is suspect. Stoneyfield Farm labels their yogurt as organic yet they source some of their raw materials from China. First, it's a multi-product food: there's more than one ingredient and whenever that is the case the manufacturer is not required to label the country of origin for those ingredients. Second, I highly doubt there is any verification proces to make sure the Chinese strawberry farmers aren't spraying toxic chemicals like methyl bromide, or worse -- or that the strawberries are even rinsed before going into the yogurt. Same for any other multi-product food: you have no idea where it came from. Literally any boxed or packaged food with more than one ingredient could have sourced one or more of the ingredients from China. If grocery stores refused to stock goods from China they'd have to shut down their entire store because a majority of the items sold in a grocery store are multiproduct goods, which means there's a possibility that they contain raw materials from China. The new country of origin labeling (COOL) requirements for meat, supposedly designed to help consumers, are also a joke. I recently saw soup bones in the grocery store labeled, "Product of the USA, Canada, and Mexico." Informative, no? Actually it is -- it gives at least some indication of what is going on in those USDA-approved meat packing plants. Labels: "Safety", De-regulation, Honey, Labeling, Meat Inspection E-mail Monica    PermaLink    2 Comments