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

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 July 2009 September 2009

Wednesday, September 2, 2009 Food Producers Threaten to "Go Galt" By Monica @ 12:45 PM Over the past several months, there's been an enormous wave of concern over "Obamacare." Even the CEO of Whole Foods condemned Obama's healthcare plan. Some doctors have even threatened to go on strike. I highly recommend a good resource on the current "healthcare" debacle: We Stand Firm. But much less attention has been given to some recent food legislation bills. However, the proposed increase in "food safety" regulations are having the exact same effect: producers of food are threatening to go on strike. I've written about the most recent legislation in question, HR 2749, here. From a BusinessWeek article by David Gumpert entitled Small Food Producers Question Greater FDA Powers, here's a brief summary of HR 2749: There's a big push in Washington to pass new food safety legislation. The House has already passed a major bill, the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009, which would significantly expand the Food & Drug Administration's authority to oversee food companies, and the Senate is expected to act on a similar version once its recess ends after Labor Day. President Barack Obama has indicated he will sign whatever the legislators finally approve. The intensive action is coming in response to a number of highly publicized food recalls involving everything from peanut butter to spinach to cookie dough to raw hamburger over the last three years. The new law would seem to reduce the chances of food contamination by clamping down on producers—requiring detailed, written, quality plans, more frequent FDA inspections, and tough penalties for violations. These "written food safety plans" have been estimated to cost thousands of dollars to enact. If the idea of medical service providers going on strike bothers you, how about producers of food? Sound too implausible to be true? David Gumpert writes: For Destandau, the latest federal efforts to crack down on food producers is part of a long-term trend. When he started in business in 2003, he had one inspector to deal with, from the California Food & Agriculture Dept. Now he deals with more frequent and costlier inspections from both the CDFA and the county health department. As Destandau contemplates the addition of FDA inspectors, he considers leaving the U.S. entirely. "Right now, we are seriously looking at moving to Australia," he says. Of course, as with healthcare, the increased regulatory burden would not cause food production to grind to a swift halt. However, a certain number of food producers would simply stop producing -- and quality and choice would gradually decline over the coming years and decades. The true answer to food-borne illness is a free market. That means de-regulating large and small producers alike and de-regulating things like raw milk. Smaller food producers and small farmers often like to mention that large food producers cause food-borne illness on a much wider scale and it is harder to track. These points are true, but overall, food-borne illness rates are remarkably low. Even so, mistakes, negligence, and fraud all happen. No amount of regulation will take that fact away. Producers, if they make a mistake or commit fraud, should be held responsible for the food they produce. One of these means is through objective tort law. Consumers also need to be responsible. In 2009, one would expect various third party inspection organizations to eventually crop up in the absence of the FDA. (They already exist for organic certification, and the standards are more stringent than the USDA's. It should be noted that organizations like NOFA pre-date the USDA organic certification program.) 100 years of experience with the FDA's "food safety" regulations ought to be enough to convince Americans that more nannying by the FDA isn't the answer. We don't need more food safety regulations, irradiation mandates, food bans, and the like. Here are some results of flawed FDA and USDA policies. An Ayn Rand quote is apropo: "One of the methods used by statists to destroy capitalism consists in establishing controls that tie a given industry hand and foot, making it unable to solve its problems, then declaring that freedom has failed and stronger controls are necessary." If HR 2749 passes, there will be one sure result: reduced quantity and quality at your farmer's markets, local farms, and meat and veggie CSA as they become unable to cope with the costly regulatory burden. Eventually it would happen in the grocery store too. Let's not let it. Labels: "Safety", Government Idiocy E-mail Monica    PermaLink    0 Comments   Saturday, June 27, 2009 HR 2749, Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009 By Monica @ 3:22 PM This just in from Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund. This bill, HR 2749, is surreal. It would give the FDA far-reaching power to shut down food facilities and imposes large fines (from $100,000 for small producers to $7.5 million for corporations) and jail time. It could also affect small farms, backyard gardeners selling produce, and artisanal producers at farmer's markets by regulating the way they produce or grow their items. This is truly unbelievable. Please take the time to read the FAQs below and take the appropriate action. Also, please forward this to as many people as you can. ACTIONS TO TAKE 1. Call Your Representatives Personal contact is an effective way to change hearts and minds. To find your representatives, use the finder tool at www.Congress.org or call the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121. When contacting your representatives, use examples from the FAQs to explain your opposition to HR 2749. 2. Sign the Petition HR 2749 has been moving quickly through Congress. If you have not already done so, please send a personal message to your legislators through the online petition "Oppose HR 2749" at www.farmtoconsumer.org/petitions_new.htm 3. Donate to the Fund Help the Fund continue its valuable service - helping small farmers and protecting your access to quality food. www.farmtoconsumer.org/donate FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs) HR 2749 - Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009 NOTE: Answers are based on the June 17 Waxman version that was accepted by voice vote of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Page references are noted per this version posted at http://www.ftcldf.org/docs/Waxman_Amd_061709--hr2749_ans.pdf Q1: Does FDA have jurisdiction over INTRAstate commerce? A1: As a federal agency, the FDA has jurisdiction over INTERstate commerce. For example, the prohibited acts regarding adulteration and misbranding in the current Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) all refer to INTERstate commerce. However, the existing law states that "in any action to enforce the requirements of [FFDCA] . . . the connection with INTERstate commerce required for jurisdiction in such action shall be presumed to exist." [1a] Combined with court decisions addressing the connection between INTRAstate and INTERstate commerce, it is unclear what kind of showing defendants would have to make to rebut the presumption and avoid federal regulation. The agency's regulatory power is limited to commerce, however, so non-commercial activities (such as growing your own vegetables for personal consumption) are not regulated. Under current law, a business qualifying as a "food facility" must register with FDA, even if that business only engages in INTRAstate commerce. [1b] In addition, the agency can inspect the records of a business that engages solely in INTRAstate commerce if there is a "reasonable belief that an article of food is adulterated and presents a threat of serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals." [1c] [1a] 21 USC 379(a) [1b] 21 USC 350(d) [1c] 21 USC 350(c) Q2: Would HR 2749 expand the FDA's regulation of INTRAstate commerce? A2: Yes. Under HR 2749, FDA's regulatory control over INTRAstate commerce would grow considerably. The bill would allow for inspections of firms whose business is strictly within a State. [2a] It would impose, among other requirements, a mandate for all firms in the food business to comply with national performance standards for various foods set by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). [2b] It would also require most firms in the food business to establish a traceback system for their products, even if those products never cross State lines. [2c] [2a] Section 105(a)-pp. 42-43 [2b] Section 103(b)-pp. 36-37 [2c] Section 107(c)-p. 54 Q3: I have a garden and sell produce at a road-side stand on my property. Would HR 2749 apply to me? A3: Yes, you would now have to follow federally-established standards for growing produce. [3a] Produce not grown as required by these standards would be considered as adulterated under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). [3b] Further, you would be required to make your business records available to FDA inspectors. [3c] The inspectors would have the power to show up unannounced without a warrant to search your records without any evidence whatsoever that you have committed a violation of the law. If you refuse to let the inspector see your records, you would be guilty of adulteration under FFDCA. [3d] [3a] Section 104(b)-pp. 38-41 [3b] Section 104(a)-p. 38 [3c] Section 106(a)-p. 48 [3d] Section 207(a)-pp. 119-120 Q4: I sell produce from my garden at a local farmers market, under HR 2749 would I have to register as a "food facility" with FDA? A4: Farms are exempt from the registration requirement under current law. [4a] HR 2749 would not eliminate this exemption. "Farm" is narrowly defined under current regulations [4b]; so, it is possible that many farms that have not registered in the past, could be required to do so if FDA has more resources at its disposal to enforce registration. For example, a farm that sells vegetables straight from the garden (i.e., no processing) would not be a "food facility". If FDA strictly interprets the definition of "farm", a farm that sells canned vegetables at the market would be a "food facility" because canning is considered "processing" under the law. [4c] Under federal regulation, a farm that processes food would not be considered a "farm" for purposes of the registration requirement unless ALL of the processed food is consumed ON the farm. [4d] Under HR 2749, those who sell vegetables from the garden at farmers markets would be required to follow federal standards for growing produce [4e]; and their business records would be subject to random warrantless searches by FDA inspectors even if the agency has no evidence of any violation of the law. [4f-see Q3/A3 above] [4a] 21 USC 350d [4b] 21 CFR 1.227(3) [4c] 21 CFR 1.227(6) [4d] 21 CFR 1.227(3) [4e] Section 104(b)-pp. 38-41 [4f] Section 106(a)-p. 48 Q5: I own a bakery and sell my goods at a local farmers market, how would HR 2749 apply to me? A5: HR 2749 would apply to you in the following ways: 1 - Your bakery would qualify as a "food facility" and you would need to register with FDA each year [5a] and pay an annual fee ($500 in 2010 [5b], and increasing in future years as indexed for inflation [5c]). 2 - You would have to register in electronic format. [5d] 3 - You would be required to have a unique facility identifier number. [5e] 4 - You would be required to conduct an analysis identifying potential hazards at your food facility; and you must implement controls to prevent those hazards from occurring as well as a plan for what to do in the event that any do occur. [5f] 5 - If your products cross state lines, you must develop a FOOD SAFETY PLAN. [5g-also see Q6/A6 below] 6 - You would also be required to establish and maintain a system for tracing the food you produce. It is uncertain at this point what this traceability system will require, but the requirements are likely to be extensive. [5h] [5a] Section 101(b)-p. 6 [4b] Section 101(b)-p. 13 [5c] Section 101(c)-p. 14 [5d] Section 101(b)-p. 7 [5e] Section 206(a)-p. 118 [5f] Section 102(a)-p. 21 [5g] Section 102, sec 418A(a)-p. 28 [5h] Section 107(c)-p. 54-58 Q6: What will a FOOD SAFETY PLAN involve? A6: Your FOOD SAFETY PLAN would have to include a hazard analysis that identifies potential hazards in your operation. The plan must also include descriptions of a variety of procedures you follow to prevent hazards from occurring and corrective actions to take if any does occur. In addition, you would need to describe your procedures for recordkeeping, conducting recalls, and traceback. Further, the plan must include how you ensure a "safe and secure food supply chain" for the items and ingredients you use as well as how you implement any science-based performance standards required by FDA. [6a] [6a] Section 102, sec 418A(b)-pp. 29-30 Q7: I have read a summary of HR 2749 and am alarmed by the provision giving the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) the power to quarantine any geographic area within the country. How broad is this power? A7: Under HR 2749, the HHS Secretary would have the power to prohibit ALL MOVEMENT of ALL FOOD within a geographic area. No court order is needed to exercise this power. The Secretary only has to notify the appropriate official of the State(s) affected and issue a public announcement. [7a] [7a] Section 133(b)-pp. 98-99 Q8: I am a raw milk consumer. Is it true that under HR 2749 would give FDA the power to institute a complete ban on the sale of raw milk? A8: Yes, HR 2749 requires the HHS Secretary to issue "science-based performance standards . . . applicable to foods or food classes." The Secretary is to "identify the most significant foodborne contaminants and the most significant resulting hazards . . . and to minimize to an acceptable level, prevent or eliminate the occurrence of such hazards." [8a] FDA would have the power to make pasteurization of all raw milk a performance standard. Based on both its public statements and its record of taking enforcement actions against farmers, FDA is vehemently opposed to the consumption of raw milk and would like to ban its distribution. Even if FDA does not issue a performance standard requiring pasteurization, the likelihood is that if HR 2749 passes into law, the agency will be increasing its enforcement actions against raw milk producers whose products cross state lines. FDA has indicated that raw milk is a priority item with the agency; with the passage of HR 2749, it would have much greater resources to go after raw milk than it did before. FDA could take enforcement action directly or through state agencies funded by FDA. The way to stop this threat is to support HR 778, a bill that would, in effect, end the ban on raw milk for human consumption in interstate commerce. [8b] If you have not already done so, contact your Representative and Senators asking them to co-sponsor and/or vote for HR 778. You may send a message to them through the petition service by clicking on "Support HR 778 Now" at www.farmtoconsumer.org/petitions_new.htm [8a] Section 103(b)-p. 37 [8b] 21 CFR 1240.61 Q9: I purchase products from an Amish producer who has said he would not register his facility because the electronic filing requirement violates his religious beliefs. What are the criminal and civil penalties he could be facing if he is charged with violating the law? A9: Under HR 2749, failing to register a food facility would constitute "misbranding." [9a] If any of the "misbranded" products are introduced or "delivered for introduction into interstate commerce", the producer could be sentenced to up to ten years and be assessed criminal fines. [9b] Under HR 2749, anyone knowingly violating certain prohibitions contained in the FFDCA such as the prohibition against introducing adulterated or misbranded food in interstate commerce, could face these penalties. In addition, the Amish producer could be facing substantial civil penalties. Under HR 2749, any individual who knowingly violates a provision of section 331 of FFDCA (prohibited acts) relating to food, can be fined up to $100,000; a corporation can be fined up to $7.5 million. [9c] [9a] Section 101(a)-p. 6 [9b] Section 134-p. 100 [9c] Section 135(a)-p. 101 Q10: I'm a farmer who sells products direct to consumers. I want to protect the privacy of those who purchase from me and do not want to turn over to FDA any customer information I have in my records. What are the potential penalties if I refuse? A10: Under HR 2749, FDA would have access to all records relating to the food producer's distribution of products. Failing to provide records to FDA would constitute adulteration. [10a] The criminal penalty for refusing access to records would be up to ten years imprisonment. [10b] The civil fines could be up to $100,000 for an individual and $7.5 million for a corporation. [10c] [10a] Section 207(a)-pp. 119-120 [10b] Section 134-p. 100 [10c] Section 135(a)-p. 101 More HR 2749 information is posted through links at http://www.ftcldf.org/food%20safety.htm Anyone with additional questions is encouraged to contact the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund directly by calling 703-208-3276 or emailing info@farmtoconsumer.org Labels: Activism Opportunities, Government Idiocy E-mail Monica    PermaLink    1 Comments   Science vs. Dogma By Monica @ 9:15 AM You’ve heard me say I don’t have any firm beliefs about climate change, though I’ve blogged a tad on the issue from time to time when it relates to evolutionary biology. I’ve learned firsthand the dangers of trusting conventional wisdom on matters of much import. (I’m speaking chiefly of nutrition where the conventional wisdom is mostly wrong and a lack of objectivity among researchers seems to abound.) I’ll make a brief but somewhat rambling foray into “climate change” in this post. This is due to current events (Cap and Trade bill passing the House yesterday) and the fact that the USDA has already admitted that EPA regulation of CO2 would radically impact how agriculture would be conducted in the United States (see pages 67 and 68). While I’m a big fan of pasture-based animal agriculture and think it’s a win-win-win-win situation for human health, animal welfare, pollution (not CO2), and economic benefits to farmers (Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed!), I’m not naïve enough to think that these are the types of changes the USDA would attempt to make in order to stem “climate change”. This is wholly apart from the question of whether that change is occurring, what its causes are if that is the case, and whether the USDA’s attempts at central planning would actually work (and I suspect they would not). This is simply not going to happen in the current political climate in the US, when politically connected Monsanto al. preen about "sustainability", the farmers who grow Monsanto’s crops receive literally billions in corporate welfare yearly, and environmental do-gooders everywhere exalt the benefits of a plant-based diet to reduce environmental impact and feed more people. Monsanto also gloats over a 10% reduction of methane by using rBST (a product it has now sold to another company) in feedlot cows when a 50% reduction is reported using pasture and the milk from pastured cows is more nutritious. There’s sustainability and there’s sustainability*. Interestingly, New Zealand has a huge animal products market for the size of its country, and has pasture-based animal husbandry with very low costs of production. Guess what else New Zealand did last year? They halted their new climate change program. Of course, that’s not a scientific point and doesn’t prove anything about climate change either way. However, it’s worth considering that New Zealand is a pretty “green” country. The fact that they can step back and re-assess the value of a cap and trade scheme is worth noticing. The fact that New Zealand, and now Australia, are questioning the wisdom of cap and trade schemes, has not been lost on the climate change alarmists, whose message gets shriller and shriller by the day -- nay, the hour. Practically 50% or more of the articles coming in through my Scientific American feed are about climate change. Some of the titles are truly absurd. Then there’s this post from realclimate.org popped up in my Google Reader yesterday. It’s basically an attempt to dismiss an EPA document that raises the idea that the EPA’s position on climate science might be wrong. Click on over and check it out. (You might want to have a paper bag handy, though. It’s that nauseating.) So I got curious and clicked on Alan Carlin’s EPA document, which is linked in the realclimate.org post, to see whether Gavin Schmidt’s (of realclimate.org fame) allegations were true. Besides the fact that I think Carlin makes some good points (I only skimmed this), the review of Carlin’s document at realclimate.org is very lacking in substance. Gavin Schmidt minimizes the impact that bloggers can have (one wonders if this also includes him?) and attempts to detract from the opinions of anyone who disagrees with him when they are not climate scientists. He also under-reports the amount of peer-reviewed research Carlin cites. While peer review does not necessarily mean anything important scientifically, Carlin cites at least 30 peer-reviewed papers, a heft minority of them published in Science. Did Schmidt think no one would click the link to Carlin's document and read? But here’s the main problem with Schmidt’s line of argumentation (besides the fact that it’s rude and condescending, which is an immediate turn-off). Generally, he mentions someone’s lack of climate science credentials as often as he possibly can. Interestingly, Gavin Schmidt leaves out the point that although Carlin is an economist, he is an environmental economist and has a degree in physics. Claiming that someone is unqualified to comment on climate science because he is a physicist is a bit like saying that someone is unqualified to comment on nutrition because he’s a biochemist. It’s ridiculous. I don’t like the tactics of the APGW community. Argument from authority and ad hominem argumentation are simply not arguments. I’ve seen such comments all too many times in the field of nutrition. The comments line to this post is a good example. If a person can’t debate a matter by referring to the facts of reality, cannot admit errors, and/or must instead defensively sling insults to persuade others, then I can come to no other conclusion than that person is intellectually dishonest. (Or they could just be ignorant – but this doesn’t apply when the person has staked their entire career on a particular stance.) Ordinarily, none of this would matter much, but as fellow ecologist and evolutionary biologist Elisheva Levin explains, in this case the government is on the side of the global warming alarmists that think regulation and taxes are the answers to all of our problems: These people in Congress are not benevolent. They live for a momentary gain, and do not consider the future of tax slavery and misery to which they condemn their own posterity. They are like lemmings running blindly over a cliff. And it will not matter one iota in the vast reaches of planetary time. The climate cycles of the planet will continue to wax and wane in great temporal cycles. Species will come, and species will go. Earth abides. sustainability* The Feasibility of a Pastured Animal Production Model Diet for an UNhealthy Planet The Cow Tax and PeTA’s Dishonesty More on Meat and Sustainability — and a Challenge to Environmentalists Thoughts on the Environmental Effects of Carnivory and Veganism Labels: Global Warming, Government Idiocy E-mail Monica    PermaLink    3 Comments   Thursday, June 25, 2009 Farm Policy Article in The Objective Standard By Monica @ 1:39 PM What's at the root of tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer-funded corporate welfare yearly, the unhealthy diet of many Americans, the demise of the family farm, and taxpayer-subsidized confined animal feeding operation (CAFO) waste? The USDA. Read all about it in my recent article published in The Objective Standard. Labels: Government Idiocy, Subsidies, Why the USDA is Not Your Friend E-mail Monica    PermaLink    0 Comments   Wednesday, May 27, 2009 Forbidden Fruits By Monica @ 10:10 PM Did you know that the federal government applies fines to farmers that shift from growing commodity crops like soy, cotton, wheat, rice, and corn? Yes, you read right. Farmers across most of the United States literally can't decide what to plant on their own land without the threat of federal fines. Not only will the farmer forego subsidies for failing to plant a "commodity crop" on acreage that has traditionally been used for that purpose, he'll be fined hundreds of dollars per acre for growing fruits or vegetables instead. Read all about the forbidden fruits (and vegetables). If that isn't outrageous enough, consider that our tax dollars are already subsidizing (and thus, cheapening) foods made of cornmeal, high fructose corn syrup, and vegetable oils like corn, soy, and cottonseed -- all with serious, known adverse health effects like non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, Type II diabetes, and coronary artery disease. Let me make it plainer. Your tax dollars have been cheapening items like Doritos, Pepsi, Twinkies, Crisco, and Wonderbread for almost 100 years now. Meanwhile, the federal government obstructs your access to cheap, local, fresh vegetables in summertime. This is appalling. If I was prone to conspiratorial thinking, and if I didn't know better than to believe that conspiracies don't last 100 years, I'd be tempted to say that the USDA's true mission is to put the American populace underground in a big hurry. Labels: Government Idiocy E-mail Monica    PermaLink    1 Comments   Monday, April 13, 2009 Food Safety Cops Outlaw Lil' Ole Church Ladies' Pies By Monica @ 6:23 PM Just when you think it couldn't get worse, here is another example of an outrageous level of nanny state insanity -- home baked dessert sales at local churches in Pennsylvania are deemed illegal. ROCHESTER, Pa. -- On the first Friday of Lent, an elderly female parishioner of St. Cecilia Catholic Church began unwrapping pies at the church. That's when the trouble started. A state inspector, there for an annual checkup on the church's kitchen, spied the desserts. After it was determined that the pies were home-baked, the inspector decreed they couldn't be sold. ... The problem is the pies are illegal in Pennsylvania. Under the state's food-safety code, facilities that provide food at four or more events in a year require at least a temporary eating and drinking license, and food has to be prepared in a state-inspected kitchen. Many churches have six fish fries a year, on Fridays during Lent. St. Cecilia's has always complied with having its kitchen licensed, so food made there is fine to serve. But homemade goods don't make the cut. Go read the whole thing. If these pies are so dangerous, why is it legal to give them away? The sad thing is that this story is not exceptional. There are health codes like this across the country and they are partly responsible for the decline in farmer's markets. It is impossible to sell a loaf of bread -- or any other homemade product -- at some farmer's markets due to health codes. Getting away with it is dependent on the grace of the regulators and whether they are willing to turn a blind eye. This is all beyond absurd. These pernicious regulations must be repealed. Labels: "Safety", Government Idiocy E-mail Monica    PermaLink    1 Comments   Sunday, April 12, 2009 Freedom of Speech Abridged in Kansas By Monica @ 7:54 AM What does this have to do with agriculture? You can read all about the most recent shenanigans here. Unfortunately, this news is not new. Monsanto, the makers of POSILAC (rBGH or rBST) have been pursued labeling bans and restrictions state by state for nearly a decade now. When a dairy labeled their milk as rBGH-free, Monsanto sued them. When Monsanto was not successful with lawsuits, it attempted to enact labeling bans directly by going to state secretaries of agriculture. When that didn't work, Monsanto tried to get labeling restriction bills passed in state legislatures. Unfortunately, their last attempt in Kansas has worked. It is reprehensible. Monsanto no longer owns POSILAC -- Eli Lilly does. The people who own and use this hormone will do and say anything to sell it. Last year a peer-reviewed paper was published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) -- a very high impact journal -- in which scientists associated with Monsanto actually alleged that use of this hormone could help stop global warming. I'm not kidding. A review of that PNAS paper will be one of my next blog topics. Labels: Government Idiocy, Monsanto, rBGH rBST POSILAC E-mail Monica    PermaLink    0 Comments   HR 875 By Monica @ 7:47 AM I've been remiss in blogging about HR 875, the so-called "Food Safety Modernization Act". This bill does not take a long time to read, but the language in it is extremely vague. It proposes the erection of an enormous new federal agency called the Food Safety Administration. What appears clear under the bill is that any "food establishment" where food is passed from producer to consumer could be highly regulated. This is all a serious worry, I think. I plan to summarize HR 875 in the coming week or so, but in the meantime, you may wish to read these two articles on the matter: Kansas Cattlemen on HR 875 Local Farmers Fear More Regulation Small farmers and restaurant owners are very reasonably worried about HR 875. Labels: "Safety", Government Idiocy E-mail Monica    PermaLink    0 Comments   Saturday, April 11, 2009 Smaller Farms = Higher Prices? By Diana Hsieh @ 7:23 AM [Crossposted from NoodleFood.] Why is food purchased from local farms often so damn expensive? I recently ran across two interesting essays on the topic via the blog Food Renegade, both focused on livestock. First, in Unfair Fare, part-time New York farmer Bob Comis argues that the problem stems from a failure on the part of many small farmers to take advantage of economies of scale. Instead, these farmers tend to rely on the willingness of some not-so-bright folks to pay exorbitant prices for locally-produced food. Undoubtedly, many consumers do need to be smarter shoppers. Second, in Why Local Food Is More Expensive, farmer Joel Salatin argues that the high prices are largely the product of massive government controls. These controls are not merely ill-suited to the workings of the small farm; they also entail fixed costs that burden small farms far more than large farms. Whether you will ever buy food direct from a farm or not, I heartily suggest reading this second article. The inanity, burden, and expense of these government controls on farmers is worth glimpsing in its concrete details. It's not a pretty picture. Notably, while these two explanations for high prices of locally-produced food differ, they are not mutually exclusive. However, in the long run, the government controls over farms are clearly far more significant than the poor judgment of some farmers and consumers. The market can and will weed out inefficient farms via competition over time. In contrast, government controls can only be remedied by a massive cultural and political u-turn toward free market agriculture. Given the general confusion about and hostility to free markets today -- and given that large farms often support such controls as a means of suppressing their competition -- that u-turn will be no easy task. Labels: Government Idiocy E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    2 Comments   Wednesday, April 1, 2009 Local Farmers Corralled in Sting Operation By Guy Adamson @ 8:22 AM SPRINGFIELD (FNS), April 1 -- The kids say they were only doing their part, but authorities say the nation’s food supply is a little bit safer now thanks to the work of these school-age members of the volunteer service group AgriCorps. Six local farmers were cited for noncompliance with the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) thanks to help from area 4-H Club and FFA members, now part of the U.S. government’s AgriCorps food safety volunteer group. “We really couldn’t have carried out this animal safety sting operation without the help of our youngest volunteers,” said Skip Butts, Sr. Executive Regional Troop Leader of the AgriCorps Volunteers. According to authorities, the school-age AgriCorps volunteers asked the farmers to bring their best dairy calves and heifers to the county fairgrounds for a 4-H dairy judging competition. But the competition was just a ruse to see if the farmers were following NAIS protocol—they weren’t. NAIS regulations require all farm animals to be tagged with an identification chip and any movement tracked in the national food safety database. None of the six farmers who showed up were in compliance and all were issued citations. In lieu of a court appearance, all six volunteered to join the AgriCorps Volunteer-Abroad program. None of the four men and two women cited were available for comment since they immediately left for the new AgriCorps farm training facility at Riker’s Island in New York, according several relatives, who asked not to be named. “The best part is, we get to keep the animals!” said a delighted Lisa Smith, age 10, who begged her neighbor to bring his animals to the contest. “I’m glad they volunteered to go help people in other countries who don’t know how to grow food.” The local Dairymen Corps, Inc., a public/private partnership organization, will operate the six farms until the local farmers return from overseas volunteer duty, said Butts. He added that additional supply of soy milk from the National Food Reserves will be allocated for the area to make up for any drop in cow’s milk production as a result of the transition. ### April Fools! Yes, this is a fictional story…for now. Labels: "Safety", Government Idiocy, Humor, NAIS E-mail Guy Adamson    PermaLink    0 Comments   Friday, March 20, 2009 Farmers Go On Strike By Monica @ 9:27 PM Not here in the US, but in Argentina. Read all about it. Seems the government there has a slightly different policy that our government here in the US. Rather than being subsidized, the farmers in Argentina are getting pretty heavily taxed. Neither of these absurd set of policies actually works. Labels: Government Idiocy, Subsidies, Taxes, Trade E-mail Monica    PermaLink    0 Comments   Thursday, March 19, 2009 Who Supports (and Opposes) NAIS? By Monica @ 4:57 PM I'm often greeted with disbelief or dismay when I suggest that larger producers favor NAIS. But it's true. This excellent editorial by Timothy Carney nails it when it comes to NAIS (and even other issues like the unintended effects of recently enacted regulations on childrens' clothing shop owners and toymakers). Here's an excerpt: It’s informative to study who’s backing mandatory NAIS, and who’s opposing it. On the pro-regulation side, lobbying records and congressional testimony show, are McDonalds, the National Pork Producers Council, the National Milk Producer Federation, and some technology companies that likely hope to get in on the action of tracking all these animals. On the anti-regulation side are hundreds of family farmers and ranchers who argue the mandate will crush them. If you are a corporate ranch, the costs and hassles of tracking each animal by RFID tags may be worth it in any event, while smaller outfits do better with cheaper, old-fashioned methods of tracking their herds. Think of Wal-Mart’s inventory control compared to a mom-n-pop corner store. Separate from congressional discussions about mandating NAIS, the USDA has proposed a new uniform numbering system for the current voluntary NAIS. The public comments on this regulation reflect the small rancher outrage over the program. Nearly 5,000 comments have been filed, many by farmers, almost all negative, and mostly directed at NAIS itself rather than the numbering proposal. In a New York Times op-ed this week, one family farmer described the burdens this law would impose. “Each time one of those animals is sold or dies, or is trucked to a slaughterhouse, we would have to notify the Agriculture Department. And there would be penalties if we failed to account for a lamb quietly stolen by a coyote, and medical bills if we were injured when trying to come between a protective sow and her piglets so we could tag them.” ... And in all these regulations, there’s another common thread. The biggest businesses in the regulated industries—often the businesses whose sloppiness lead to the safety scares in the first place—support the regulations. The big companies have the lobbyists to craft the fine print in the regulations, and they also have the economies of scale to bear the burdens. Government regulation is usually billed as a check on big business by the people’s representatives. Looking closer, however, reveals that regulation is often a big-government power grab that crushes smaller businesses and protects the big guys. Labels: Government Idiocy, NAIS, Why the USDA is Not Your Friend E-mail Monica    PermaLink    0 Comments   Friday, March 13, 2009 White Paper on NAIS By Monica @ 8:16 AM The National Independent Consumers and Farmers Association has just published an excellent white paper on NAIS. It clearly details the cost of NAIS to various size producers and is a must-read for anyone interested in fighting this new legislation: $6.69 per head for over 400 head of cattle $18.07 per head for 100 head of cattle $63.61 per head for 25 cattle. (!!!!!) I am friends with a family that raises a small herd of Angus in Longmont. This would increase their costs by at least $636 yearly. (They have at least 10 head of angus, possibly more.) Another acquaintance who does not wish to be named went to a state hearing last year about NAIS. She told a pork producer in favor of this program (no doubt a large producer) that she didn't support NAIS because it would wipe out her family's ability to feed themselves. His response? "Well. Just go to WalMart and buy food, you idiot." Government programs, especially NAIS, do not support family farms or a more independent lifestyle, nor will they do anything to make our food supply safer. Traceability with NAIS would end at the slaughterhouse, not the grocery store. The goal is for large producers to gain greater access to the export market. Let them use their program voluntarily, not force it on everyone else to be paid for by everyone else. "Farm to fork" traceability with an RFID tag also makes no sense for small farmers selling directly to consumers who know exactly where the products came from. Labels: Government Idiocy, NAIS E-mail Monica    PermaLink    1 Comments   Wednesday, March 11, 2009 NAIS Hearing Today, Streaming Video/Audio By Monica @ 8:19 AM The NAIS hearing of the U.S. House Agriculture Subcommittee on Livestock Dairy and Poultry on Wednesday March 11, at 10:00 a.m. Eastern time, will have video and audio streaming available at the following link: http://agriculture.house.gov/hearings/audio.html Our legislators are to discuss Animal Identification. Besides RCALF no "stakeholders" get to testify. RCALF has made their position quite plain before. Let's hope they do so again today. Labels: Government Idiocy, NAIS E-mail Monica    PermaLink    0 Comments   Tuesday, March 10, 2009 One Day to Act on NAIS -- Today By Monica @ 2:00 PM ***ACTION ALERT*** I've written about the NAIS hearing before and this is a new reminder. Please call and leave your congressman a message today before tomorrow's hearing. It's crucial that we do all we can to stop NAIS. From Nature's Harmony Farm Blog: The U.S. House Agriculture Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy and Poultry will hold a hearing on NAIS on March 11. Bills to put National Animal Identification System (NAIS) into law, HR875 and companion Senate S814, are being pushed through Congress, as well as an Appropriations Bill with funding for NAIS. This hearing is critical to blocking mandatory NAIS. :::::::: WHAT: Congressional Hearing on NAIS WHEN: Wednesday, March 11 WHERE: Washington, DC The U.S. House Agriculture Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy and Poultry will hold a hearing on NAIS tomorrow, March 11. Bills to put NAIS into law, HR875 and companion Senate S814, are being pushed through Congress, as well as an Appropriations Bill with funding for NAIS. This hearing is critical to blocking mandatory NAIS. Find your congressman here and contact him or her immediately. It's easy to get involved and make a difference. Labels: Activism Opportunities, Government Idiocy, NAIS E-mail Monica    PermaLink    0 Comments   Sunday, March 8, 2009 Thoughts on the Environmental Effects of Carnivory and Veganism By Monica @ 5:24 PM The popular press is awash with stories these days of how meat contributes to global warming and how many people are turning to veganism to reduce their "carbon footprint". There is even a proposed EPA tax on emissions from farm animals. From Scientific American articles, change.org pieces, and statements like this from respected nutritionists: "The more rice, corn, potatoes, sweet potatoes, and beans you eat, the trimmer and healthier you will be – and with those same food choices you will help save the Planet Earth too", environmentalists, vegans, and animal rights activists are attacking any and all methods of raising animals -- whether for meat, dairy, or any other use -- as contributing to "climate change." But is it true? Before I deal with actual truth or falsehood of such statements, I'd like to state my position on "climate change" so that I can be as transparent as possible here. First, I do believe the globe is probably warming, and that it might be happening at least partly from human activities. I honestly don't know. However, I don't believe that this in any way justifies the political "solutions" being proposed to "climate change" (cap and trade, coercive laws, etc.). I haven't actually investigated the global warming issue seriously from a scientific standpoint and don't really have time to do so right now. I used to be a dyed in the wool member of the global warming camp and have gone back and forth on the issue over the past, but the fact is that wherever the truth lies, my knowing it would make very little difference in my day to day activities, and thus, it ranks pretty low on my list of self-education priorities. If that disqualifies me in your mind from commenting on the issue of carnivory vs. veganism as it relates to "climate change", so be it. I believe peoples' actual arguments, and whether they are logical or not, are the things that we should be dealing with. Now that we have that out of the way, let's consider the issue. First, let's be honest. Vegans and vegetarians raise a number of valid points when it comes to meat production. Some of these are actual problems and some may not be problems but the facts remain: feedlots often contribute to waterway pollution, cattle release methane, and that the way in which the animals are raised (indoors, confined, unsanitary conditions, fed antibiotics as a routine measure because of the immense crowding and wrong food which both foster illness) is, by and large, inhumane. I've blogged on each of these points before, including the absurdity and wastefulness of subsidizing this inefficient method of raising animals through the EQIP program. Further, it is absolutely true that as we increase in each level of the food chain from primary producer (plants, algae) to primary consumers eating primary producers, to secondary consumers (animals that eat primary consumers), to tertiary consumers (this last category are the top predators in any ecosystem and eat both primary and secondary consumers: wild cats, dogs, humans, eagles, etc. are examples) about 90% of the energy ingested as food is lost as heat and only 10% is converted to biomass. There are some variations in those numbers, but those are the basics: lots of energy lost as heat or waste products as you go up in the food chain/food web. This all makes perfect sense from the standpoint of physics and basic physiology/metabolism. It's so well-documented in the literature that I see no reason to provide references. No one disputes that most of the energy from the fuel in the internal combustion engine is lost as heat rather than converted into mechanical power. It's the same principle in living organisms. This is the reason that in any given ecosystem, there's an immense amount of biomass of primary producers and hardly any biomass, comparatively speaking, of tertiary consumers, i.e. top predators. This is also the basis for claiming that meat contributes to global warming. After all, if you are running grass or grain through an animal before that animal food gets to a human, lots of the energy is lost as heat or waste. Waste products of respiration are CO2 and water (or CO2 and ethanol or lactic acid if you're a fermenter). One of the waste products of the bacteria in ruminants is methane. Of course, we all know that CO2 and methane are the alleged "bad actors" of "climate change." The logic of the vegan argument is that if you bypass eating the ruminants (or any other animal, for that matter) you are more efficient at converting the calories of primary production (plants) into biomass and you avoid the energy "wastage" and extra CO2 and methane production. But there are just a few problems with this very simplistic line of argumentation. Let's address them. First, the assertion that humans evolved as vegetarians, or that their most recent common ancestor was vegetarian, has been blown out of the water. Personally, I think a good vegan diet with proper supplementation and avoidance of processed food is probably head and shoulders about even the standard American diet. But that's not the point. The point is, should people have the right to eat the diet they are designed evolutionarily to eat, the diet that is in their own best interest? Or should they eat a vegan diet to "save the planet", in the words of Dr. McDougall? It's a valid question. If you believe a vegan diet is optimal, that's fine for you, but there are serious issues with the scientific basis of such an argument from an evolutionary and nutritional standpoint. And certainly such a diet shouldn't be foisted on humans everywhere for political reasons if the point of morality is to teach us how to enjoy life to its fullest (as opposed to sacrificing for someone or something else, ultimately suffering or dying sooner than necessary). Let's take the issue of energy loss. Yes, it's true that lots of food energy is lost as heat when we eat animals. However, there are more subtle points to consider. How does the caloric intake differ between vegans and carnivores or even vegans and meat-heavy omnivores? If Good Calories, Bad Calories is any indication, those with carb-heavy (read: plant-heavy) diets are driven to ingest more calories. I've certainly found this to be true in my own experience. A meat-heavy diet, at least as far as my own personal experience, results in spontaneously reduced caloric intake of as much as 800 calories daily. That's something that is never accounted for in the "carbon footprint" calculations. And honestly, what quantity of greenhouse gases are produced by grain- and legume-fed vegetarians? Beans, beans, the musical fruit, the more you eat the more you toot. Seriously, eating high-carb plant foods causes the production of more intestinal gas. I'm not sure what the chemical composition of that gas is, but the presence of the gas is something everyone who has switched from a high carb to a low carb diet, or spends a lot of time around bean-eating vegetarians, can amply attest to. Moving on. Is most of the world's land arable and suitable for crop production? It is not. I've blogged about that before. In fact, this is considered a major problem of plant biotechnologists who develop breeding programs to develop crops for less than optimal conditions. Lots of the earth's land, however, is rangeland and quite suitable for animal production. Another problem is the simplistic assumption about modern-day vs. ancient production of CO2 and methane from cattle. Actually, I'm not even sure the vegan "climate change" activists or their followers want to consider this. There are currently about 100 million head of cattle in the United States. Most of our cattle are grain-fed for at least part of their lives and grain-fed cattle produce about twice as much methane as grass-fed cows. However, they are not grain-fed their entire lives. My best estimate is that at any given point, around 25 million head are being fed this way. Estimates of the number of bison present in pre-settlement times is also as high as 100 million head, with bison being about twice as big as cows. I'm sure many people find it difficult to believe that the American continent could foster twice as much ruminant biomass as it currently does, but the fact is that the Americans plains soil was extremely fertile before modern grain- and soy-based agriculture washed much of it into the ocean, with enormous amounts of primary production (much of it underground in the form of prairie grass). I'm not sure how many head of bison were turned over yearly to predation or hunting. Today, approximately 1/4 of the national herd of cattle makes its way into the food chain yearly. But assuming that grass-fed bison produce similar amounts of methane to grass-fed cows, and that there could have been twice as much bison biomass as current cattle biomass, that means there were probably very similar amounts of methane being produced all along and that this hasn't changed much historically. This pretty much blows away the argument that we should consider cattle per se a significant problem when it comes to global warming. Finally, let's consider the darling of the environmentalist/vegan movement: soy. Let's be fair -- soy is a nitrogen fixing plant, meaning it can pull useless nitrogen gas from the air and turn it to valuable, fertilizing ammonia with the aid of bacterial endosymbionts in the root tissue. Even Thomas Jefferson recognized the value of using legume crops such as vetch to restore fertility to depleted soil. Still, soy is a plant with a shallow root system that results in soil erosion when grown in monoculture. Soy is often shipped up from South America, grown on land where rainforests once grew. Then, if the pure soybeans aren't eaten, and they usually aren't, they are processed in an extruder. Here is a picture of a soy extruder: Hint: that puppy doesn't work on solar or wind power. Now let's consider the grain-based diet that the vegans want us to go on. Any crop grown in the US today post-1950s in the era of subsidy-powered commodity agriculture requires vast amounts of ammonia fertilizer input through the Haber process. Animals could provide a much more balanced source of fertilizer, and played an important role in agriculture besides meat production prior to the 1950s. Long-term, there is simply no way to completely amend soil without farm animals if we want optimal plant (and thus, human) nutrition. These are the very animals many vegan activists would like to see eliminated to solve "climate change". Even that is absurd. Let's consider the Haber process, shall we? It is responsible for 1/4 of the world's nitrogen fixation and works by burning nitrogen and hydrogen gas through four rounds of heating to between 300-550 degrees C, to produce NH3. Hint: the fuel for the Haber process does not come from solar or wind power. OK, vegan activists for climate change. Please tell me which of the two options you think uses more fossil fuel: 1) The Haber process and the fuel required to transport the products of the Haber process to the fields? Or 2) locally raised animals depositing their dung directly on the fields, with all the necessary nutrients (not just nitrogen), as they did 50 years ago and as they still do on many family farms in the United States? I hope I have demolished the idea that you have any idea how much carnivory vs. veganism truly contributes to "climate change" or "greenhouse gas" production without doing a lot more in-depth calculation in all of the areas mentioned above. Personally, I think my locally raised real bacon is a lot more environmentally friendly than the soy-based Smart Bacon grown with Haber-produced ammonia, shipped to the US, and then processed in an extruder which uses petroleum products. Here are the ingredients in Smart Bacon: Water, soy protein isolate, wheat gluten, soybean oil, textured soy protein concentrate, textured wheat gluten, less than 2% of: natural smoke flavor, natural flavor (from vegetable sources), grill flavor (from sunflower oil), carrageenan, evaporated cane juice, paprika oleoresin (for flavor & color), potassium chloride, sesame oil, spice extractives, fermented rice flour, tapioca dextrin, citric acid, salt. Look at the amount of processing involved. Many of the substances in bold are produced or extracted through an industrial process. How much fossil fuel is used to produce "environmentally friendly" products like Smart Bacon vs. real bacon? Want to bet? Having fallen prey to "meat is bad for the environment" arguments myself in the past, it disturbs me to see these arguments advance. More and more people are adopting the idea that they will "save the planet" through veganism, often at the expense of their own health. It's fine if their choices stop with them, but ten years ago "cap and trade" would been inconceivable to most people. Today it's being offered up as an actual political "solution", and not a voluntary one. If someone had told me five years ago that the EPA would even consider taxing emissions from farm animals, I'd have laughed in your face. In light of that, ask yourself whether any of the following is truly an exaggeration: How long before our animal protein is rationed for the sake of "saving the planet"? How long after that before vegans, animal rights activists, and environmentalists seriously push to limit or forbid raising livestock in the name of protecting the environment? And how long after that before we're all forced to be vegan? In my practical experience, many of the followers of the vegan movement who do so for environmental reasons are, for whatever reason, unable to understand or investigate the science behind the claims for their action. They are simply woefully ignorant. They aren't actually evil people. But the originators of such claims (PETA and others), those who can understand science and who either knowingly start or perpetuate lies for their own ideological ends at the expense of the truth, are hopelessly corrupt. These lies need to be exposed. More than the simple truth is at stake. For some of us, our very sustenance depends on it. HT for soy extruder picture: Cheeseslave Labels: Bison, Buffalo, Ethics, Global Warming, Government Idiocy, Grass-fed, Individual Rights, Meat Myths, Pastured, Subsidies E-mail Monica    PermaLink    4 Comments   Saturday, February 28, 2009 Red Alert on NAIS -- Bills in Congress! By Monica @ 7:03 AM ****ACTION ALERT**** WHAT: Congressional Hearing on NAIS (National Animal Identification System) WHEN: Wednesday, March 11 WHERE: Washington, DC The U.S. House Agriculture Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy and Poultry will hold a hearing on NAIS on March 11, 2009. Bills to enact NAIS into law, HR875 and HR814, are being pushed through Congress, as well as an enormous "Appropriations Bill", i.e. massive spendulus program, with funding for NAIS which passed in the House and is now awaiting in the Senate. This House hearing is critical to blocking mandatory NAIS. Blocking passage of the appropriations bill, 1105, is also critical. What do these bills do? Here is the first one HR 814 - the bottom line is that the Dept of Ag can: 1. Make all farmers who bring an animal to a USDA slaughterhouse participate in this program or the USDA slaughterhouse can refuse them (regardless of whether you are selling your meat in state or across state lines). 2. Farms will need a premise ID to ensure traceability from farm to consumer in order to comply with this bill. 3. The Dept of Ag can send a rep out to your farm to inspect and copy your records for each animal. HR 814 -TRACE ACT of 2009 This Act may be cited as the `Tracing and Recalling Agricultural Contamination Everywhere Act of 2009′ or `TRACE Act of 2009′. SEC. 414A. TRACEABILITY OF FOOD. (a) Establishment of System- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary shall establish a traceability system described in subsection (b) for all stages of manufacturing, processing, packaging, and distribution of food. (b) Description of System- The traceability system required by subsection (a) shall require each article of food shipped in interstate commerce to be identified in a manner that enables the Secretary to retrieve the history, use, and location of the article through a recordkeeping and audit system or registered identification. SEC. 26. TRACEABILITY OF LIVESTOCK, MEAT, AND MEAT PRODUCTS. (a) Definition of Traceability- In this section, the term `traceability’ means the ability to retrieve the history, use, and location of an article through a recordkeeping and audit system or registered identification. (b) Requirements- (1) IN GENERAL- Cattle, sheep, swine, goats, and horses, mules, and other equines presented for slaughter for human food purposes, and the carcasses or parts of carcasses and the meat and meat food products of those animals, shipped in interstate commerce shall be identified in a manner that enables the Secretary to trace– (A) each animal to any premises or other location at which the animal was held at any time before slaughter; and (B) each carcass or part of a carcass and meat and meat food product of such animals forward from slaughter through processing and distribution to the ultimate consumer. (2) TRACEABILITY SYSTEM- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary shall establish a traceability system for all stages of production, processing, and distribution of meat and meat food products that are produced through the slaughter of animals described in paragraph (1). (c) Prohibition or Restriction on Entry- The Secretary may prohibit or restrict entry into any slaughtering establishment inspected under this Act of any cattle, sheep, swine, goats, or horses, mules, or other equines not identified as prescribed by the Secretary under subsection (b). ——————————- The second bill establishes NAIS via the newly created Food and Safety Administration, run by the “Administrator” - whoever that is…. HR 875 - ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FOOD SAFETY ADMINISTRATION SEC. 210. TRACEBACK REQUIREMENTS. (a) In General- The Administrator, in order to protect the public health, shall establish a national traceability system that enables the Administrator to retrieve the history, use, and location of an article of food through all stages of its production, processing, and distribution. b) Applicability - Traceability requirements under this section shall apply to food from food production facilities (FARMS), food establishments, and foreign food establishments. ACTION: Please call and fax all members of the subcommittee (below). 1. When you call, ask to speak to the legislative aide for agriculture. 2. Please send this to everyone you know, ESPECIALLY to people in the states with members on the subcommittee. Members need to hear from their constituents- -the people who vote them into office. It's important that residents of Colorado and Connecticut call in. The representatives sponsoring these atrocious bills are Diana DeGette (D-CO) and Rosa DeLauro (D-CT). *State*** *Party/Dist* ** *Representative* ** *Phone*** *Fax*** *Website email form* AL R-13 Mike Rogers 202.225.3261 202.226.8485 http://www.house. gov/mike- rogers/contact. shtml CA D-18 Dennis Cardoza 202.225.6131 800... (20... http://www.house. gov/cardoza/ contact.shtml CA D-20 Jim Costa 202... (20... http://www.costa. house.gov/ CA D-43 Joe Baca (20... (20... http://www.house. gov/baca/ zipauth.shtml CO D-4 Betsy Markey, (20... (20... https://forms. house.gov/ betsymarkey/ contact-form. shtml GA D-13 David Scott (Chair) (20... (20... http://davidscott. house.gov/ Contact/ IA D-3 Leonard Boswell (20... (20... http://boswell. house.gov/ messageform. htm IA R-5 Steve King 202.225.4426 202.225.3193 http://www.house. gov/steveking/ email.shtm ID D-1 Walt Minnick (20... (20... https://forms. house.gov/ minnick/tours. shtml MD D-1 Frank Kratovil, Jr. (20... (20... https://forms. house.gov/ kratovil/ contact-form. shtml NE R-3 Adrian Smith (20... (20... http://www.house. gov/formadriansm ith/issues_ subscribe. htm PA D-17 Tim Holden (20... (20... http://www.holden. house.gov/ contactform_ zipcheck. shtml TN R-1 David P. Roe (20... (20... https://forms. house.gov/ roe/invite- request-form. shtml TX R-11 K. Michael Conaway (20... (20... http://conaway. house.gov/ TX R-19 Randy Neugebauer, Ranking Minority Member (20... (888) 763-1611 (202) 225-9615 http://randy. house.gov/ ?sectionid= 8&sectiontree= 8 VA R-6 Bob Goodlatte, (202) 225-5431 (202) 225-9681 http://www.house. gov/goodlatte/ emailbob. htm WI D-8 Steve Kagen, (202) 225-5665 (202) 225-5729 http://kagen. house.gov/ contact.shtml Also, email Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack. His e-mail address is AgSec@usda.gov. Finally, contact your Senators and tell them NOT to support HR1105. The message is simple: We don't want, nor will we comply with, the National Animal Identification System in any form. It doesn't matter that there is ever more consumer demand for locally raised animal products. The government could kill small farming with these bills. If you are a farmer, take action or lose your right to raise animals. If you are not a farmer and you plan on raising animals in your backyard, take action or lose the right to raise these animals. How easy/cheap do you think it will be to order a few chicks by mail order from a hatchery when the whole process will require traceability by a bloated government organization? If you are a consumer of locally raised meat, take action or lose the right to eat the food you want. This isn't an exaggeration. Most people think the choices in our supermarkets are greater than ever before, but this is mostly true for produce and processed foods. Check out the meat products available in London in the mid-1800s. Ask yourself how many of those species and cuts of meat are available in your supermarket today in 2009. Some of this is simply a result of consumer choice, but a good deal of it is regulation. Try finding brain, for instance. It's loaded with DHA and perfectly safe if it comes from grass-fed animals, but the regulators have banned access to it. The government/Big Ag juggernaut wants to shut down our freedom of choice for their short-term goals. Remember, NAIS is a program invented by Cargill, etc. to gain access to the export market, which requires traceability. They are not content to form a voluntary program on their own; they are the ones who presented the idea to the USDA; they would rather have small farmers pay for the program so that they can benefit (every animal tagged vs. one tag for hundreds of animals for the corporate farm). If we don't act, small farmers will be forced out of business and we will be faced with one species of chicken raised in a few "approved" warehouses in the United States where the animals are packed in like sardines. Same for every other farm species, of which over 30 will be tracked by this proposed program. Not only is this a violation of our rights, it will further consolidate and endanger our food supply. Any thinking person who understand the principles of disease control could tell you that this is an epidemiologic nightmare waiting to happen -- and the results would be the exact opposite of the supposedly beneficial intentions of this tracking program. It's that simple. Your sustenance is in peril. Don't think if you are a vegetarian or a vegan that regulation of food "safety" doesn't affect you. "Safety" is just an excuse for ever greater control over our food supply -- whether it is forced regulation /safety /pasteurization / irradiation mandates for meat, milk, or vegetables. Labels: "Safety", Activism Opportunities, De-regulation, Government Idiocy, Individual Rights, Meat Inspection, NAIS E-mail Monica    PermaLink    2 Comments   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   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   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   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   Wednesday, December 31, 2008 Vitamin D, Vitamin K2, and the Power of Government Influence By Monica @ 7:37 AM I point you to four posts by Richard Nikoley of Free the Animal that just might revolutionize the way you think about the sun, and perhaps even change the course of your life: Epidemic Influenza and Vitamin D Vitamin D and Type I Diabetes Sunscreen Vitamin D Deficiency and Cancer Another great site with hours of reading on Vitamin D is the Vitamin D Council. After reading these you'll truly believe fact is stranger than fiction when it comes to the government's public service announcements. Dr. Eades has advised a much more rational approach toward sunscreen as well. In short, it may be very wise for you to revisit your relationship with the sun considering humans' evolutionary relationship with it. This doesn't mean you should sit around all day in the sun and get a severe sunburn. It means you need to understand the difference between UVA and UVB, which one is correlated to melanoma, which one is correlated to the prevention of all diseases of civilization, and which rays the sunscreens are actually blocking. In a timely and related post, Stephan of Whole Health Source charts the consumption of butter and margarine with heart disease mortality over the past 100 years. Real butter also contains vitamins D and K2, both fat-soluble vitamins. The entire post with charts should not be missed, but I can't help posting a good portion of the prose here: Was the shift from butter to margarine involved in the CHD epidemic? We can't make any firm conclusions from these data, because they're purely correlations. But there are nevertheless mechanisms that support a protective role for butter, and a detrimental one for margarine. Butter from pastured cows is one of the richest known sources of vitamin K2. Vitamin K2 plays a central role in protecting against arterial calcification, which is an integral part of arterial plaque and the best single predictor of cardiovascular death risk. In the early 20th century, butter was typically from pastured cows. (There's very old, as in 70 year old, evidence for this and its correlation to seasonal mortality from heart disease in Nutrition and Physical Degeneration. Mortality is highest in the winter when both of these vitamins, D and K2, are low in humans.) Stephan continues: Margarine is a major source of trans fat. Trans fat is typically found in vegetable oil that has been hydrogenated, rendering it solid at room temperature. Hydrogenation is a chemical reaction that is truly disgusting. It involves heat, oil, hydrogen gas and a metal catalyst. I hope you give a wide berth to any food that says "hydrogenated" anywhere in the ingredients. Some modern margarine is supposedly free of trans fats, but in the U.S., less than 0.5 grams per serving can be rounded down so the nutrition label is not a reliable guide. Only by looking at the ingredients can you be sure that the oils haven't been hydrogenated. Even if they aren't, I still don't recommend margarine, which is an industrially processed pseudo-food. One of the strongest explanations of CHD is the oxidized LDL hypothesis. The idea is that LDL lipoprotein particles ("LDL cholesterol") become oxidized and stick to the vessel walls, creating an inflammatory cascade that results in plaque formation.... Several things influence the amount of oxidized LDL in the blood, including the total amount of LDL in the blood, the antioxidant content of the particle, the polyunsaturated fat content of LDL (more PUFA = more oxidation), and the size of the LDL particles. Small LDL is considered more easily oxidized than large LDL. Small LDL is also associated with elevated CHD mortality. Trans fat shrinks your LDL compared to butter. In my opinion, it's likely that both the decrease in butter consumption and the increase in trans fat consumption contributed to the massive incidence of CHD seen in the U.S. and other industrial nations today. I think it's worth noting that France has the highest per-capita dairy fat consumption of any industrial nation, along with a comparatively low intake of hydrogenated fat, and also has the second-lowest rate of CHD, behind Japan. Funny, I thought it was the socialized healthcare system of the Japanese and the French that increased their lifespans (joking). Connect the dots. Diet is king. Not only do the French get lots of K2 and D in their dairy, which is raised more on grass than grain, but the Japanese have an intake of a different form of K2 in natto. The reasons for the health of foreigners with socialized medical systems has never been a secret to those "in the know" about nutrition. There is no paradox, let alone a "French paradox." Imagine how long they could live with a free market healthcare system that provided them with the best technology in a timely manner. Imagine how long Americans could live with our mixed economy healthcare system if it hadn't been for us getting a steady stream of nutritional information from the government for the past 40 years. Our government has been pumping out faulty nutritional advice to medical professional organizations and the public for decades, and it's worked hand in glove with farm policy. Our agricultural system is largely based on subsidized commodity wheat, corn and soy (and canola and cotton), thanks in part to the government's "public service" when it comes to nutrition, coupled with USDA farm "support" programs. The corn and soy don't even feed humans outside of providing some corn oil, high fructose corn syrup, soy oil, and some limited soy protein for tofu and baby formulas. Instead it is almost all fed to animals (with the exception of wheat. There goes the "feeding the world" myth -- are you seeing yet how this all fits together?). Is it any wonder that the government has been telling people to eat more vegetable oils (cottonseed, corn, soy, canola) and soy for "heart health"? They have to sell the stuff somehow. I've given you just a snippet of the reams of information available on the internet when it comes to these two vitamins and their crucial role in human health. Experts on vitamin D agree that the RDA for vitamin D (400 IU daily) is ten times too low and should be up around 5000 IU in wintertime -- echoing what Weston Price only told us in Nutrition and Physical Degeneration 70 years ago. Vitamin K2 is all but unknown to the medical community. As for the government propaganda that led to the ubiquity of those "heart healthy" margarines in our stores -- devoid of either fat soluble vitamin but full of trans fats originally promoted by George McGovern's dietary committee and Center for Science in the Public Interest, you can read all about the history here. The best I can say is that it's made butter in the stores dirt cheap, which is good for me. The grass-fed butter that Stephan talks about is only available from a farmer whose cows are fed on grass in summertime (I get this cream in the summertime and make butter with it). This butter is not even available in a store anymore because all the butter is made from grain-fed cows by an industrial process. It would be the highest source of vitamin K2 for those not eating fish eggs. It's nothing short of revolting that the government nutritional propaganda that has been fed to Americans in a steady diet stream of "public service" announcements has been shortening peoples' lifespans by the millions. Even worse, the end of such advice is nowhere in sight. And to think some folks want to nationalize it. Labels: Conventional Wisdom, Government Idiocy, Nutritional Guidelines, Subsidies, Vitamin D, Vitamin K2 E-mail Monica    PermaLink    3 Comments   Tuesday, December 30, 2008 "Safety" By Monica @ 9:08 AM Here’s the website of Colorado’s sole supplier of heritage turkey, Eastern Plains. (A heritage variety is a breed that was commonly grown during earlier periods in human history, but which is not used in modern large-scale agriculture.) It’s an interesting farm and it looks as if they sell all sorts of interesting heritage meats, including beef, pork, turkey, goose, duck, chicken, and lamb. I’ve never yet tasted any heritage meats but am quite eager to, particularly based on the taste tests done here. Unfortunately, Eastern Plains specifically mentions that the USDA processing adds to their cost. I'm sure there would be some increased cost to them just due to the fact that economies of scale producing grocery store food are more efficient, but just imagine how much cheaper their meats would be, even if more expensive than grocery store meats, if they didn't have to process in a USDA facility. Now imagine what would happen to this farm if the USDA slaughterhouse that they use in Colorado were to shut down or if they had increased transportation costs due to a shutdown in order to drive to an approved slaughterhouse further away. Either of those scenarios is entirely plausible given my previous writings on the matter. Requirements for slaughter in a government-approved facility are in the name of "Safety." I can say it no better than someone else I read recently: “Safety” is a word that stops all rational conversation in its tracks. "Safety" brooks no give-and-take. It is the trump card people play when they don't want to have to bother thinking a little harder about which rules really make sense, what effect they're having on us all, and who those rules are really protecting. I’m confident that meat inspection regulations are not about safety. It’s about adherence to a code that has ballooned out of any proportion to common sense. If it is really about safety it would be illegal to personally eat or to give away meat you’d slaughtered yourself, whether hunted or farmed. (Oh. As I write this I’m thinking I shouldn’t have put that last sentence up there for all to see and given the USDA any more nutty ideas.) These regulations don’t really protect consumers. How many outbreaks of food-borne illness have we had from mass-produced meats and vegetables in the past few years? A ton. And because of the scale of production, tht means that when there is an outbreak it’s enormous. Despite common germophobic beliefs to the contrary, no one is endangering their life from exposure to germs by killing and processing a chicken or a deer in their backyard: When a Virginia state inspector 12 years ago declared that the Polyface poultry slaughter area was unsanitary because it was not enclosed, Salatin fought that decision. A university lab conducted swab tests at Polyface and on government-inspected poultry purchased from a supermarket, and found that the supermarket birds averaged 10 times more bacteria than the Polyface samples. Salatin won the case. Michael Pollan, food journalist, has suggested that the USDA support local slaughterhouses rather than letting them be bought by large conglomerates and then shut down. I regret the shutdown of local slaughterhouses, too, but we need to question the premise that approved slaughterhouses are a valid type of government spending (read: theft from taxpayers) in the first place. And for what purpose, anyway? “Safety”? Would that be the “safety” of the USDA-inspected supermarket chicken with ten times more bacteria than the locally processed chicken not meeting government “safety” standards? We have to stop kidding ourselves, stop evading reality, and stop accepting the premise of government regulations and agencies as things that should be “reformed”, as opposed to abolishing them altogether. Sound radical? Maybe, until you consider the fact that somehow Americans survived for 130 years without federal inspection of meat. We have to start thinking about challenging everything we're up against. A society that encourages and rewards ridiculous lawsuits. A society that treats adults as if they are babies. A society that divorces people from their own rational judgment, incapable of making choices without a federal bureaucrat’s approval. And especially adults who throw around the word "Safety" more frequently than a 2-year-old uses the word "No!" Labels: "Safety", Conventional Wisdom, De-regulation, Government Idiocy, Meat Inspection, Rants and Whines, Why the USDA is Not Your Friend E-mail Monica    PermaLink    0 Comments   Sunday, December 28, 2008 The American Livestock Breeds Conservancy on NAIS By Monica @ 5:39 PM The American Livestock Breeds Conservancy is an organization devoted to the conservation of rare and endangered livestock breeds. In perusing their most interesting site, I found the following statement on the National Animal Identification System (NAIS): For a variety of reasons, many of our country’s rare, endangered and heritage breeds of livestock and poultry are stewarded and maintained on small, independent farms and ranches. Thus, any regulations, policies or procedures that may prove sufficiently onerous or cumbersome will discourage a significant number of those farmers and ranchers currently breeding or contemplating raising such animals. The NAIS program could have serious, unintended, and unanticipated effects on the long-term viability of our nation’s livestock industry. ...we urge all NAIS decision and policy makers to be aware of the importance of conserving our national livestock genetic legacy and to be mindful that regulations and procedures designed specifically for agribusiness and large-scale production systems may have disproportionate impact on those currently maintaining these genetic resources. Policies, procedures, and regulations that inappropriately or unnecessarily discourage farmers and ranchers from considering or continuing to steward rare, endangered, or heritage agricultural animals could lead to the extinction or functional loss of the genetic resource these creatures represent. Such a loss would diminish our country’s genetic legacy, significantly reduce the capacity of present and future animal breeders to respond to new challenges and opportunities, and potentially compromise our nation’s food security. I'd never before considered the potential effect that NAIS could have in contributing to the extinction of rare livestock breeds. What is worse is that I'm sure the USDA hadn't, either. Labels: Government Idiocy, Heritage Varieties, NAIS, Why the USDA is Not Your Friend E-mail Monica    PermaLink    0 Comments   Saturday, December 27, 2008 USDA Announces New Bureaucratic Branch By Monica @ 2:39 PM From Grainnet: Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer announced Dec. 19, the intention to establish a new USDA Office of Ecosystem Services and Markets and the creation of a federal government-wide Conservation and Land Management Environmental Services Board to assist the Secretary of Agriculture in the development of new technical guidelines and science-based methods to assess environmental service benefits which will in turn promote markets for ecosystem services including carbon trading to mitigate climate change. "Our Nation's farms, ranches and forests provide goods and services that are vital to society - natural assets we call "ecosystem services," said Schafer. "The Office of Ecosystem Services and Markets will enable America's agriculture producers to better compete, trade their services around the world, and make significant contributions to help improve the environment." Agriculture producers provide many ecosystem services which have historically been viewed as free benefits to society - clean water and air, wildlife habitat, carbon storage, and scenic landscapes. Lacking a formal structure to market these services, farmers, ranchers and forest landowners are not generally compensated for providing these critical public benefits. Market-based approaches to conservation are proven to be a cost-effective method to achieve environmental goals and sustain working and natural landscapes. Without financial incentives, these ecosystem services may be lost as privately-owned lands are sold or converted to development. Earth to government, earth to government! Here's the real market-based approach the government could use: get out of agriculture. The USDA should not be setting up a new bureaucracy to pay farmers to do something sensible because it has been paying them to do something un-sensible for the past 90 years. It's the whole bailout nonsense all over again. This news is frustrating, because when you look at the history of the USDA it becomes clear that the policies it has supported in the past, which encouraged unsustainable agriculture, have clearly led to "conservation" incentives like EQIP and CRP. USDA policies have given rise to so many problems that we have today, including the depression of agricultural land prices that has spurred the sale of agricultural land for development -- which is now to be "offset" but this Office of Ecosystem Services! What else will need to be offset by the Office of Ecosystem Services? The USDA's biofuels boondoggle. The USDA is subsiziding ethanol to the tune of 50 cents on the dollar because corn-based ethanol (as opposed to cellulosic) is economically unsustainable on its own. What is the effect? Net CO2 released into the atmosphere (not sequestered as was originally thought and intended) and the promotion of ecologically unsustainable soil erosion and nutrient depletion as farmers for the first time ever plant corn on corn on corn. (And of course this is a violation of taxpayers' rights by stealing the wealth of all to provide gifts to corn farmers for a product that could not compete in a free market.) The logical solution is to eliminate the ethanol subsidies, eliminate the grain subsidies, and return to a sustainable system of agriculture with animals as the basis of healthy, fertile soil as we largely had before the Butz era. A lack of government intervention would honestly lead to more ecosystem services (and yes, it's a valid concept). This won't happen because Obama has appointed Tom Vilsack for Secretary of Agriculture, who is a true believer in biofuels and NAIS. It is going to be business as usual at the USDA, despite all of Obama's talk of "change". Now we will have an Office of Ecosystem Services to deal with the ethanol problem that largely rose in the Bush administration. Do you see how this works? There is no admission of a problem by the USDA. Even though they know biofuels is a boondoggle, they can't reverse ethanol spending too quickly because it would undermine their credibility (ethanol subsidies actually were reduced in the most recent Farm Bill, but the spending has only gone down by around 10%, around 5 cents on the dollar). No, instead the USDA will distract the public and spend more of their tax dollars on another new bureaucracy to pretend that it is actually doing something useful. It's all about job security for the folks at the USDA. Farmers periodically took their land out of production for millenia, all without a government directing them to do it, and they would have been doing so all along if the USDA hadn't interfered in the first place. We would have had more scenic landscapes, less water pollution, more wildlife habitat, and probably more carbon sequestration if the USDA hadn't been so busy trying to "feed the world" with grain subsidies for the past 40 years. Now we have a new bureaucracy designed to "fix" the "problems" it has created. Business as usual at the USDA. And the only "change" we will have is what little is left in our wallets at the end of the Obama administration. Labels: Global Warming, Government Idiocy, Why the USDA is Not Your Friend E-mail Monica    PermaLink    0 Comments   King Corn By Monica @ 12:56 PM I took out King Corn from my local library a couple of weeks ago at the suggestion of a friend. It is a documentary about the prevalence of corn in our society. The two twenty-something filmmakers move to Iowa for a year to document their life as it revolved around the planting of one acre of corn and to follow where that one acre of corn actually goes. King Corn is not a fraud like Supersize Me, but it’s not as informative as it could have been. On top of that, it has an annoying Napoleon Dynamite feel to it. What I mean by that is that there are long stretches of silence without any narration or musical score. Often these stretches are taking up by footage of the wind across a cornfield, or a bunch of people sitting or standing in cornfields staring at one another. Despite the propensity for more and more films to use this technique, I do not share the belief that this silence coupled with a lack of information is intellectually enlightening. However, if you don’t know anything about the agriculture of corn in this country, I’d recommend King Corn so long as you have a computer or book available to do something else while you’re waiting for the interesting points. If you know something about American agriculture already, you probably won’t learn too much. However, I’ll sum up the salient points of King Corn. First, we grow an incredible amount of corn in this country. Production capability has increased roughly 8-fold in 100 years, mostly through breeding to produce crowd-tolerant strains. There are some interesting shots of the filmmakers sliding down mountains of corn in the Midwest as one would slide down a snow-covered hill on a sled. These are piled up higher than salt and sand for road service in the northeast. It is quite an amazing spectacle! Because corn is a C4 plant, it fixes a higher ratio of C13 into sugar, as opposed to C3 plants. (I wasn’t really paying great attention at this point so I don’t know if they specifically explained this -- I just happen to know this as a previous instructor of botany.) Isotopic studies show that most Americans are made largely out of corn. If you were born after 1970, chances are you’ve never tasted grass-fed beef, and the carbon molecules in your body prove that a lot of your food (whether beef, corn oil, fructose syrup, etc.) is coming from corn if you eat a typical American diet. What corn is not made into cattle feed, ethanol, or oil is made into high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) – this is only about 5% of the corn although HFCS is in almost every sweetened item in the US. That gives you an idea of the immense amount of corn the United States produces. Because the filmmakers are not allowed into factories to view this process, they research the process and start from pure dent corn, going through the chemical extraction process of making HFCS. It’s mildly interesting but the process is performed too swiftly to figure out what all the reagents are. This is another example of why this film is less informative than it could have been. It’s important to realize that the vast majority of the corn is actually not eaten directly by humans except as food additives such as HFCS and corn oil. Roughly 55% of it is fed straight to cattle. Practically all beef in the United States is now finished on corn, in the feedlot. That grain-finishing time has greatly expanded in recent decades to up to a third of a cow’s life, not just the last few weeks as it used to be. This is a complete anomaly in the history of animal husbandry. Grain-finishing makes cattle sick and can quarter a cow’s lifespan. It also believed to have created at least one acid-resistant strain of E. coli not seen before 1980: E. coli O157:H7. Cows aren’t supposed to eat corn and soy: they are evolutionarily designed to eat grass. When they are fed grain it creates an acidotic state in their bodies, which makes them susceptible to bacterial infections, which then necessitates the routine feeding of antibiotics to all cattle in feedlots. What the film doesn’t tell you is that this also alters the omega fatty acid profile of the meat and dramatically increases the ratio of omega 6 to omega 3 fatty acids. The film also features Loren Cordain bashing the amount of saturated fat in hamburger (sigh). Personally I think this is not a concern and the problems with the “saturated fat is bad” argument may be found here, here, and here. Seeing how cattle are raised in feedlots was one of the more interesting points of the film. Not only are there resulting issues of animal welfare, but of pollution as well. The larger feedlots cause tremendous pollution in the form of enormous manure lagoons that pollute water supplies and create obnoxious odors for local residents, which many residents are now suing over. Because of the pollution created by feedlots (which are really exacerbated by corn subsidies, as enormous feedlots did not exist in such high quantities before subsidies), the USDA has had to create “conservation incentives” like EQIP to get these factories to clean up their waste, to the tune of $450,000 per feedlot. To call something like this a conservation incentive is a fraud. Would we call it a “conservation” incentive to get a city to clean up an enormous holding tank of human waste that spills over into rivers? This is another example of how a proper understanding of property rights (and a privatization of our waterways), rather than a government prop-up of a certain industry as “economically necessary”, would go a long way toward improving environmental quality. I’m not bashing meat. I love meat. But it’s a plain fact that most people in the cattle industry do not like this method of raising cattle. The older ones were around 40 years ago doing things differently and they know that what they are doing is intensely inhumane and polluting. However, the fact is that government subsidization of the corn itself and the pollution cleanup process have made the feedlot method cheaper than it otherwise would be. (I'm not convinced that such long grain-finishing times or feedlots would necessarily disappear under the free market but I do believe they'd largely return to some minimum level and a smaller scale.) A key point in the film is that it’s very difficult to make money as a Midwestern farmer, and that the subsidies have spurred a great deal of consolidation due to the lower prices for corn caused by the subsidies. The cost of the special herbicide-resistant seed and other inputs (fertilizer and herbicides) is very high. Farmers would simply not make money without the government subsidies. (Of course, if subsidies were immediately eliminated the prices would eventually adjust because the government wouldn’t be promoting overproduction with subsidies that drive down the price of corn.) Many farmers now rent their land rather than owning it. The filmmakers don’t discuss this too much but it’s obvious to me that there is less incentive for farmers to care about the long-term effects of what they are doing to the land when they are just renting it. Like the people raising cattle, the people producing corn aren’t all exactly proud of the product they are producing. However, they also know that’s what the government wants them to plant. Frankly, with its long periods of silence, roughly half the movie is devoid of any truly informational content. I think much more could have been revealed, including the rotation of soy with corn, how such intensive agriculture has led to soil fertility problems and the USDA’s CRP program, and the manufacture and effect of corn and soy products (including vegetable oils) on human health. The filmmakers spent a good deal of time on corn subsidies, high fructose corn syrup, and the feeding of corn to cattle, which are all worthy of attention but are the not the entire picture when it comes to corn. There are other aspects of corn production that deserve attention: the absurdity of subsidizing ethanol production, the pollution of waterways from soil runoff and the resulting soil fertility problems necessitating more expensive inputs, the displacement of third world farmers by the dumping of cheap grains onto the international market, and the deleterious effect of corn oil (not just HFCS) on the health of Americans. Others have pointed out the absurdity of subsidies for biofuels, and I couldn’t agree more. It makes no sense to sink money into something that is economically infeasible and make it artificially cheaper at taxpayer expense, not to mention that it’s a violation of an individual’s right to his or her own income. But those that agree that we shouldn’t be subsidizing ethanol agree that we shouldn’t be subsidizing any of the commodity crops, either – which means they would almost certainly be more expensive in a free market, as would the foods (corn oil, HFCS, meat, and all corn-, wheat-, and soy-based foods) made from them. The lack of emphasis in the film on these more subtle points is probably evidence itself of how influenced even the filmmakers are by media and other government information. There are simply many other indictments against corn that should also have been included to fill the sheer amount of silence in the film. The film concludes with the filmmakers deciding to plant their one acre the following year with wheat instead of corn, and a really visually interesting overhead shot of the two playing catch in a square acre plot of wheat grown within acres upon acres of corn. The take-home point is assumed to be that they decided to use their acre to grow something healthier. Ironically, what they may not realize is that it is not corn that is really directly king in the American diet, but wheat. King Wheat. Wheat, too, is also subsidized and is probably just as bad for human health as corn. Same for soy. Now that we have a film entitled King Corn, someone should perhaps make films entitled King Wheat and King Soy. Maybe the makers of these hypothetical films could conclude their works by sticking a cow on a square acre of grass that is surrounded by a wheatfield or a soyfield. To conclude, this little film was somewhat flimsily researched. The filmmakers lifted most of their ideas straight from Michael Pollan, who is an ardent critic of the corn-based system of agriculture. But I don’t want to be too hard on this little film because most of the public probably doesn’t know this information – and they should. But enough of my opinions. Has anyone else seen this film? If so, what did you think of it? Labels: corn, Government Idiocy, Grains, Nutritional Guidelines, Subsidies, Why the USDA is Not Your Friend E-mail Monica    PermaLink    6 Comments   Saturday, December 20, 2008 Government Nutritional Guidelines, aka Pure Bunk By Monica @ 8:02 AM Here at FA/RM our mission statement says, "The group, Free Agriculture - Restore Markets (FA/RM), advocates agricultural and health policies based solely on the principles of individual rights." What is meant by that? What are "health policies based in individual rights"? So far I've mostly discussed farming on the FA/RM blog, not health policies. In part, that is because there are already excellent advocacy groups fighting for individual rights in medicine, such as FIRM. Yet the government does have health policies -- more specifically, nutritional policies -- that are intertwined with the government's agricultural policies, and most Americans are following them to a greater extent than they realize, because these policies have been adopted by most medical professional organizations and thus, medical professionals. These nutritional policies are outlined in the USDA food pyramid and include the avoidance of saturated fat, the adoption of vegetable oils such as canola oil as "heart healthy", an increase in lean meats, fruits, vegetables, and whole grain consumption, and a substitution of skim milk for whole milk. The existence of nutritional guidelines from the USDA would appear to be a conflict of interest. Why does a government agency dictating farm policy dictate nutrition as well? Unfortunately, nutritional guidelines and programs are now over 60% of the USDA Farm Bill Budget. Grain subsidies? Roughly 33%. Talk about a conflict of interest. First, let's get one thing straight. Here are FA/RM we believe people should be able to freely consume whatever they so choose. If that means a certain individual's reliance on deep fried Twinkies for 90% of his or her daily sustenance, we would support that individual's decision -- while advocating at the same time that that must pay for his or her own healthcare and pay for the true cost of these foods (and that is too often not the case today). In principle, even if the government guidelines were 100% accurate, we wouldn't support them being forced on the American public by the coerced taking of all of our money (i.e. taxation). It is not the government's job to foster a healthy population, grow an abundance of food, turn most of America's farmers into other types of laborers, or any other such nonsense. It is the government's job to protect individual rights. Individuals must decide, based on their own unique circumstances, what is good for them to eat. This diet might differ radically depending on whether one is a long-distance runner, a body builder, or has terminal cancer with less than three weeks to live. Diet is also simply not a matter of health in many instances. It is a matter of a balance short term interests, such as pleasure, and the long term interests of vibrant health and longevity. No government bureaucrat has the right to interfere with an individual's decision-making process or value hierarchy. If a person decides to eat trans fats or smoke cigarettes -- both with documented health risks -- they should have the right to do so. Such decisions violate no one else's rights in a free market in which certain foods are not subsidized and in which healthcare is paid for by the recipient. But leaving the principle of individual rights aside for a moment, and recognizing that it is the most crucial principle in determining what we should eat, let's turn to those nutritional guidelines and consider the simple question, "Are these guidelines scientific? Are they making Americans healthier?" This is an issue of fundamental importance to all Americans, to the extent that they wittingly or unwittingly follow these guidelines. It's also become a crucial matter of health oversees as subsidized grains are dumped onto the world market, putting farmers in other countries out of business, and making eating across the globe potentially less healthful. The USDA guidelines, which have been in place in one form or another since the mid-1970s, are government policies that determine how 1/6 of the American population is fed daily: the recipients of Food Stamps, schoolchildren in public schools eating the School Lunch Program's foods, and members of our military. These are also the guidelines adopted by practically every doctor, researcher, and spokesman for the Food and Drug Administration, the American Medical Association, the American Dietetic Association, the American Diabetic Association, the National Institutes of Health, the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institutes, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Cancer Society, and the American Heart Association. These guidelines call for the majority of calories to be ingested as carbohydrate -- particularly from whole grains, fruits, and vegetables which all collectively form the base of the pyramid -- with limited meat and dairy. A limited amount of oils are to be used, but these should be the "heart healthy" vegetable oils, not the "heart unhealthy" saturated fats such as lard, butter, or coconut oil. What has been the result of the implementation of these guidelines? Were they followed? Either consciously or not, the answer is a resounding "yes." While Americans are eating more calories per day, more of those calories are coming from carbohydrate and less of them are coming from fats and saturated fats. There has been an increase, not a decrease, in vegetable and fruit consumption, an increase in lean meat consumption and a decline in red meat consumption, an increase in grain, high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) and industrial vegetable oil consumption, and a decrease in whole milk consumption. Apart from the intake of HFCS, Americans in greater and greater numbers are doing exactly as the government recommends. What has been the result of more Americans following these guidelines? Almost immediately as the guidelines went into effect, more Americans got fatter. There has been an enormous increase in obesity and overweight since the 1970s, at the same time that self-reported physical activity has increased. This should lead us to seriously question whether exercise alone is sufficient at reducing weight. Indeed, Gary Taubes shows in his epic work of investigative journalism of the peer-reviewed literature, Good Calories, Bad Calories, that this belief is completely unscientific. There is now very strong evidence that the dietary guidelines for the United States are making Americans more ill by the decade. Is the government reversing course? Not a chance. I know that this sounds like a conspiracy theory. But it's not a conspiracy. It's simply a matter of fact that these guidelines were politically motivated, and that once a government behemoth sets forth at full speed ahead with the "public service" announcements, the tenor of those announcements have a great deal of inertia. In part, this is intentional since any drastic changes in recommendation undermine the agency's authority. Most of our government officials, and sorry to say, medical professionals doling out nutritional advice, have never been to the primary, peer-reviewed literature to investigate the government's claims of what is a healthy diet. Most of them would be shocked and dismayed to find that there is practically no evidence for most of the USDA nutritional guidelines. Practically everything Americans have been taught about nutrition has no basis in science whatsoever: the healthiness of whole grains and vegetable oils, the avoidance of red meat and full fat dairy, and an increase in fruits and vegetables as a necessary (rather than optional) part of the human diet. The avoidance of saturated fat in particular is based solely in Ancel Keys' 1950s research, which has now been completely discredited. And when viewed through the lens of evolution -- in which many primitive, completely carnivorous cultures such as the Inuit and Maasai that have been documented to attain spectacular health and a lack of heart disease on a diet of almost pure red meat,without any vegetables or grains in their diet whatsoever -- the USDA food pyramid makes even less sense. However, before we jump on the vegetarian-bashing bandwagon, let's consider some crucial points that are sometimes not considered in the "low carb" community. Apparently there are some very healthy primitive groups that get a majority of their caloric intake from carbohydrates from tubers and fruits -- the Kuna and the Kitavans, for instance. So we must seriously question whether it's just carbohydrates that are making Americans ill -- giving them diabetes, heart disease, cancer, and so on (and there is some spectacular evidence for this in Taubes' review of the literature) -- or whether it is a specific type of carbohydrate. Indeed, Gary Taubes calls for such controlled studies of the carbohydrate hypothesis at the conclusion of his book. At the same time, we must recognize that the Kuna are not vegetarian, that they have significant saturated fat intake from coconut oil, and that they eat 8 oz fish per day. What are the main differences in the diet of the Kuna as compared with a standard American diet? A lack of grains, refined sugars, and vegetable oils high in omega 6 fatty acids. With the exception of refined sugar, these are things that Americans are told to eat more of, not less of. Let's also consider the McDougall diet, which is a vegan diet. It has been very successful at eliminating inflammation for some people. While I personally believe that a 100% vegan diet (and even the standard American diet including meat) is often deficient in vitamins A, D, and K2, I do believe it is possible with vitamin supplementation made possible by modern technology and/or the right genetic makeup and/or dental health services (which are simply proved to be almost completely unnecessary with the proper diet) that such a diet could work for some people. What does the McDougall diet have in common with the diet of the Kuna, also in direct contrast to the standard American diet? The McDougall diet also lacks grains and refined sugar. (I'm not familiar with Dr. McDougall's stance on vegetable oils, but I suspect due to his avoidance of grains that perhaps there are also strong differences in vegetable oil consumption with the standard American diet as well.) Correction: the McDougall diet only sometimes lacks grains and avoids refined vegetable oils -- see the comments. Whatever the differences between the "low carbers", the "paleo" dieters, the Weston A Price followers, and the McDougall-style vegans (and there are many differences between all of these diets!), all of these groups have very significant departures from the grain-based Food Pyramid (and far more science behind them to boot). They either do not eat grains or they eat them sprouted and soaked. (Notably, none of the 14 cultures documented by Weston A Price as achieving optimum health ate wheat. Only two of these 14 cultures ate grains -- oatmeal or rye, always sprouted and always with significant amounts of animal products.) They do not eat refined sugar. They also do not rely heavily on omega-6 heavy vegetable oils. All of these foods have dramatic effects on the biochemistry of the human system. I understand some of them, I'm understanding more of them, but I'm not going to delve into them in this post. Click on the links, buy the books, and read about it yourself. What is even more insidious is that at almost the same time that the McGovern committee outlined these grain-based dietary guidelines for the good of the American public on scanty and now thoroughly discredited evidence, American agriculture was shifting in the same direction. The mainstream nutritional community was working hand in glove with mainstream agriculture. During the time when Earl Butz was Secretary of Agriculture, the stated goal of American agriculture became to produce as much food as cheaply as possible, but more specifically, certain types of food were to be promoted. Farmers were encouraged to plant fencerow to fencerow of grains. This era of subsidies for so-called "commodity crops", which continues to this day, spurred an era of a glut of grain products on American and foreign markets. What was to be done with all this extra product? Feed it to cattle and pigs. (The grain-based Food Pyramid being foisted on Americans as "heart healthy" is nearly identical to the diet used to rapidly fatten animals in a feedlot. A coincidence?) Something else had to be done with the rest of the grains, though -- and the soy. Such intensive agriculture -- in which maximum production was pushed at the cost of the American taxpayer -- depleted the soil, necessitating subsidization, through various conservation incentives, of letting soil lie fallow. Letting soil lie fallow was something farmers across the globe have known to be necessary for millenia, but since the government had been paying them not to do it they now had to be paid to do it. A rotation of soy to restore soil nitrogen (rather than other legumes like vetch) also became commonplace. What was to be done with this excess of corn and soy? What could not be fed to animals or the third world would now be made into tofu, high fructose corn syrup and vegetable oil (particularly corn, soy, and canola oils) and then marketed by the government and industries as healthy. Prior to the 1970s, high fructose corn syrup was practically unheard of in any American food. Today it is increasingly under attack and there is a massive marketing campaign, directed at the public and at doctors, to convince Americans that HFCS is healthy. Same for corn oil and soy oil, though Americans are more willing to buy into the marketing propaganda of these products. Canola, an even more recent invention, has had spectacular success, however. It was not granted "generally recognized as safe" food status in the United States until the 1980s, when it had been bred for low erucic acid content in Canada and then imported and grown here. Here is how those modern, "heart healthy" vegetable oils, including canola, are made: You've eaten corn, so you know it's not an oily seed. Same with soybeans. So how to they get the oil out of them? They use a combination of heat and petroleum solvents. Then, they chemically bleach and deodorize the oil, and sometimes partially hydrogenate it to make it more shelf-stable. Hungry yet? This is true of all the common colorless oils, and anything labeled "vegetable oil". HFCS and industrial vegetable oils are foods with literally NO evolutionary history in the human diet, and yet they are being touted by health authorities as healthy. Of course, something without any evolutionary basis could be healthy with the proper evidence, but there is none. (Grains also have little evolutionary history with humans, but they have been around significantly longer that HFCS and vegetable oils, depending on one's genetic background. Despite that, wheat in particular is generally very destructive to human health.) Companies have a right to try to sell whatever they want to the American public, but not at the public's expense through subsidies and taxation. It's especially insidious that these products are harming taxpayer health in addition to being paid for with our coerced tax dollars. Strong evidence is emerging that vegetables oils are quite bad for our health as well. In a series of well-researched and erudite posts, Stephan of the continually enlightening Whole Health Source outlines the case against vegetable oils for us. Take heed: vegetable oils might just make you dumber, fatter, and sicker. Don't expect the government to tell you that, though, while it is busy subsidizing the vegetable oil industry with billions yearly and telling medical organizations to tell their doctors to tell their patients to eat more of it. I've learned over the past year or so that diet is a very inflammatory subject. I can honestly say that a year ago I was literally steeped in the low-fat, grain-based, vegetable oil dictates of the Food Pyramid. Most people have strong ideas about what constitutes a healthy diet, and often react violently when someone challenges their assumptions (I certainly did). If you have not thought critically about what constitutes a healthy diet, or if you believe that a healthy diet consists of eating a little bit of "everything in moderation", you owe it to yourself to investigate the issue more deeply and re-examine your long-held assumptions. It is not an exaggeration to say that the length and quality of your life may depend on it. I don't harp on the issue of diet because I want to force my values on others. I do it because I believe an issue so important and fundamental to the mental and physical health and well-being of all humans deserves careful consideration by all, because it is an outrage that people should have to become experts in molecular biology and physiology to figure out what is healthy for them to eat, and because I believe there has been no greater health scam in the entire history of humanity than this grain-based nutritional nonsense. A reading of Good Calories, Bad Calories and Nutrition and Physical Degeneration (together they are the "Atlas Shrugged" of nutrition) clearly illustrates the major problems with America's Dietary Guidelines. These guidelines, coupled with the lack of critical thinking and often blind acceptance of industry- and government-based nutritional information on the part of the medical profession, have led us to where we are today: record amounts of cancer, diabetes, and obesity. What is even more infuriating is that the case against refined grains, refined sugars, and industrial vegetable oils are not recent revelations. Price's book, which implicates all in the degeneration of health, was published in 1939. While it's critical to avoid nationalizing our healthcare industry for all kinds of practical reasons (in addition to the most important reason, which is that it would violate individual rights), the nutritional aspect is perhaps one of the strongest, if not the strongest practical evidence against "universal" healthcare. Today, the government and the medical profession are together advocating nutritional guidelines that are killing people with cancer, heart disease and diabetes -- diseases of civilization unknown to many pre-industrial cultures. I know how difficult this is to swallow -- as trained as we are to believe that everything we have in a post-industrialized world must be superior -- but it is true. Investigate it for yourself. Now medical professionals are attempting to "fix" these problems with a high level of technology, without understanding their source. If we nationalized healthcare, we would universalize the same pseudoscientific nutritional guidelines that cause these diseases, and the only difference is that government would then attempt to fix these problems with less abundant, more costly, inferior technology -- rather than the high level of abundant, superior, and cheap technology that we would have had if medicine had remained free. We must fight tooth and nail against the government's nutritional dictations being nationalized through universal "healthcare". This advice, unquestioningly adopted by most medical professionals across the country for the past 40 years, is literally killing millions of people. There are a great many wonderful things that technology has brought us, including much medical technology. While it is tempting to defend the agricultural technology that has brought us an abundance of cheap food, there is little evidence that most of this food is healthier for us than what our pre-agricultural ancestors ate: fibrous vegetables, grass-fed meats or seafoods with appropriate ratios of omega fatty acids, full fat dairy, nuts and berries. We are living longer lives despite what we are eating, not because of it -- and Americans deserve to know it. We need to redirect agricultural and nutritional policies in America toward what is best for the consumer, and it needs to be redirected by the consumer dollar as uninfluenced by the government's pseudoscientific guidelines. This is very crucial today, as local and regional slaughterhouses shut down under government financial pressure, as farmers continue ecologically unsound farming practices which pollute our environment and food and deplete our soils, as more and more farmers grow more and more corn for biofuels at the direction of government, and as the grain-based vegetarian "diet for a healthy planet" ideas gain more traction in our culture -- with an already unfortunately and firm basis in the USDA Food Pyramid, unlikely to change anytime soon. It is not a diet for a healthy planet. It's a diet for an unhealthy environment and for many unhealthy humans, as I've written before. The government needs to get out of the business of medicine, and the business of farming and nutrition as well. Our lives really do depend on it. Labels: Conventional Wisdom, Government Idiocy, Nutritional Guidelines, Why the USDA is Not Your Friend E-mail Monica    PermaLink    10 Comments   Thursday, December 18, 2008 Another Update on Manna Storehouse Raid By Monica @ 9:26 PM David Hansen, president of the Buckeye Institute, stopped by and left a note here on my blog that he will be representing the Stowers family in court. Thousands of dollars worth of private property, including $10,000 in food, was stolen by the government. The Buckeye Institute's entire press release may be found here: The Buckeye Institute argues the right to buy food directly from local farmers; distribute locally-grown food to neighbors; and pool resources to purchase food in bulk are rights that do not require a license. In addition, the right of peaceful citizens to be free from paramilitary police raids, searches and seizures is guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 14, Article 1 of the Ohio Constitution. "The Stowers' constitutional rights were violated over grass-fed cattle, pastured chickens and pesticide-free produce," Buckeye Institute 1851 Center of Constitutional Law Director Maurice Thompson said. "Ohioans do not need a government permission slip to run a family farm and co-op, and should not be subjected to raids when they do not have one. This legal action will ensure the ODA understands and respects Ohioans' rights." On the morning of December 1, 2008, law enforcement officers forcefully entered the Stowers' residence, without first announcing they were police or stating the purpose of the visit. With guns drawn, officers swiftly and immediately moved to the upstairs of the home, finding ten children in the middle of a home-schooling lesson. Officers then moved Jacqueline Stowers and her children to their living room where they were held for more than six hours. This is pure evil. We cannot allow the government to turn this country into Stalinist Russia, seizing peoples' very sustenance because of minor code infractions! The government is supposed to work for us, not the other way around. No one even complained or got ill from anything the Stowers' were distributing. But that's so typical of all these farm raids -- no one got sick from Mark Nolt's raw cheese, or Michael Schmidt's raw milk, or Bean and Rinaldi's pastured pork. These people are simply doing what people have only been doing for millenia now. You know, that "growing and selling food" thing. I just don't know how humans survived for millions of years without a government to dictate to them what not to eat. How long until the government decides we can't grow our own vegetables for "environmental" and "safety" reasons? Let's work to make sure that day never happens. Labels: De-regulation, Farm Raids, Government Idiocy, Rants and Whines E-mail Monica    PermaLink    1 Comments   Abolishing USDA Inspection Laws By Monica @ 9:12 PM Actually, I should have entitled the post, "Abolishing USDA-Approved Slaughterhouse Requirements" because it's not as if a USDA official is standing over every animal as it is slaughtered and making sure it is done right. In this post I discussed the costly nature of requiring animals to be processed in such facilities. Well, I did a little digging and found out just how expensive. It's very expensive. And for very ridiculous reasons having nothing to do with food safety: Jenny Drake was a Virginia state health inspector until five years ago, when she and her husband moved to rural Tennessee and started Peaceful Pastures, a small livestock farm. They raise free-range beef, pork, turkey, veal, lamb, goat, duck, and chicken -- without jacking the animals up with hormones and antibiotics, as is common practice at factory farms. Their meat goes through a USDA processing facility, as government regulations require -- all except the poultry. And because of those chickens, the Peaceful Pastures have been troubled. Therein lies a tale about government regulation, the decline in food quality, and the end of family farming in America. "The state says no bird in Tennessee can be sold without USDA inspection of the processing facilities," says Drake. "Here's what kills all of us small poultry farmers: There are no USDA custom-kill processing plants in the entire Southeast." Drake says she looked into building a small processing facility on her farm, but the cost of meeting government standards made it impossible. If all she had to do were to construct facilities strictly for meat processing, Drake figures she could have done so for $20,000; but as the law stands now, a building that met minimal federal guidelines would cost about $150,000. "The Americans with Disabilities Act, for example, means a small producer has to put in restrooms that are handicapped-accessible," Drake says. "I'd have to build an office for the inspector. That office has to have its own phone line. I'd have to put in a paved parking lot. We have to meet the same physical standards as a Tyson's, and we just can't do it." In the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia, Joel Salatin and his family run Polyface Farms, a highly regarded small producer of meats raised according to traditional farming practices ("like God intended," says the evangelical Christian farmer). Salatin tells a similar story of battling regulators."The code said we had to have bathrooms for our employees. I told them we were 50 feet away from two houses with bathrooms, and besides, we're a family operation: We don't have employees. It didn't matter to them. Then they said we had to have twelve changing-lockers for employees -- even if we didn't have employees." "See, this is bureaucracy in action," he says. "It has nothing to do with the quality of our meat. They just want to follow the code. This is happening all over the country. A lot of it is being done under the guise of protecting the general welfare and guaranteeing clean food. But what it really does is protect big agribusiness from rural independent competition." Utterly absurd. Labels: De-regulation, Government Idiocy, Rants and Whines, Why the USDA is Not Your Friend E-mail Monica    PermaLink    0 Comments   Whole Foods -- A Monopoly? By Monica @ 8:42 PM I don't think so. But the Federal Trade Commission does. Ryan Puzycki of The Undercurrent writes: In 2007, Whole Foods, the popular purveyor of natural foods, sought to expand its business by acquiring rival grocer Wild Oats. However, the Federal Trade Commission claimed that the merger would violate antitrust laws by creating a natural foods monopoly. Although federal judges approved the deal, the FTC won an appeal a year later, after the merger was well under way, and now the case is set to go to trial in February. The company has already spent $17 million cooperating with the FTC and faces millions more in legal fees should the trial proceed. This is so dumb. And just on a practical level -- Whole Foods a "natural foods" monopoly? What is a "natural foods monopoly"? It's absurd. Even regular grocery stores have a wider array of natural foods now. And hasn't the government heard of farmer's markets and Community Supported Agriculture (CSAs)? Oh, wait, I almost forgot! The government wants to shut those down too! You cannot buy much besides vegetables at farmer's markets anymore, due to food safety regulations that prevent direct sales of anything produced in a home kitchen. Forget buying that loaf of Granny's bread. It could kill you, you know. Honestly. If Whole Foods has to go out of business because of this nonsense, I'll be seriously pissed. Whole Foods is the only place that I can get the following items: Greek yogurt, olive oil that is not a fraud, coconut oil, palm oil, sprouted bread, raw milk cheeses, and non-preserved meats (except those from my farm, but demand is so high they are often sold out). Those are just the items I can think of right now. Labels: De-regulation, Government Idiocy, Rants and Whines E-mail Monica    PermaLink    1 Comments   Wednesday, December 17, 2008 USDA Motions to Dismiss Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund Suit By Monica @ 5:52 PM The Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund has filed a suit with the U.S. District Court – District of Columbia requesting an injunction to stop the implementation of NAIS by states or the feds. If successful, the suit would halt the program nationwide. (Yes!) Despite the fact that the USDA has said that NAIS is a voluntary program, there are various mandatory implementations in a few states, namely Wisconsin, Indiana, North Carolina, Tennessee and Colorado. Unsurprisingly, the USDA has now filed a motion to dismiss the suit: Motions filed by the U.S. and Michigan Departments of Agriculture seeking to dismiss the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund suit to stop the implementation of the National Animal Identification System (NAIS), incorrectly claim that NAIS is a voluntary program. “Even as the agencies try to deny the clear facts of what they have done in Michigan, the USDA recently issued a memo that confirms what the Fund has stated in its lawsuit: NAIS is not voluntary,” said Pete Kennedy, interim president of the Fund. Kennedy cited Veterinary Services Memorandum No. 575.19 addressed to USDA's "Veterinary Services Management Team" that requires NAIS premises registration for various disease program activities. “The memo includes activities such as vaccinations, testing, and applying official ear tags for programs for every livestock species, ranging from brucellosis to scrapies to equine infectious anemia,” Kennedy noted. “One of the most important aspects of this memo is that people who refuse to have their farms registered will be registered against their will. Thus, USDA has officially abandoned the supposed ‘voluntary’ nature of NAIS.” Oh, but that's typical of so many "voluntary" government programs that then become mandatory or expanded beyond belief. Hopefully the FTCLDF will make a strong response, and I'm very glad to see them taking the offensive position on this. Too often, as in the Faillace family's case, the courts simply defer to the USDA. We need to reign in these rogue agencies. Ultimately, the USDA needs to be completely dismantled. Labels: Government Idiocy, NAIS E-mail Monica    PermaLink    0 Comments   Tuesday, December 16, 2008 Review of "Mad Sheep" By Monica @ 5:26 PM In a recent search at my local library for readings on the history of agriculture in the United States, I came across a potentially interesting book entitled Mad Sheep, with the subtitle, “The true story behind the USDA’s war on a family farm.” The cover and dramatic red lettering made me think that this book might be a typical leftist rant against corporate agriculture. Never judge a book by its cover, they say. This book should be required reading of anyone wanting to know more about USDA and agricultural policy. It chronicles the extraordinary story of an entrepreneurial family of Vermont farmers that did years of research and sought to establish a new type of sheep farming industry in the United States. Their story is unforgettable. Unfortunately, its ending is far from happy. In the 1990s, two scientists named Larry and Linda Faillace returned to the United States from a research stint in Britain, in anticipation of starting an entirely new sheep farming industry that had not been carried out in the United States before. Typical American sheep only give 100 pounds of milk per year, while the breeds the Faillaces wanted to import averaged 10 times as much, thus for the first time promising a viable sheep milk and cheese industry in the United States. After several years of research and international travel, the Faillaces arranged, with the assistance and approval of the USDA, to import three different breeds of sheep into the United States – breeds that had never been raised in the US before. The genetics and feeding history of the sheep had been tirelessly researched over several years before arranging their importation into the US. As scientists, the Faillaces were educated about and had done research on transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs), and made every effort to minimize the risk of bringing these infectious diseases into the country. One of the breeds they chose had never had a single case of scrapie, a known TSE which is already endemic in the US. They also made significant effort to show, before importation, that the animals had never been fed meat or bonemeal of any species, which is the most widely believed cause of TSEs, though this was not a USDA concern at the time. After three years of research and work with the USDA, their chosen flock successfully completed USDA quarantine and were given an inspection that stated the animals were free of any infectious disease or exposure to infectious disease. Two years later in 1998, they were approached by a USDA bureaucrat, Detweiler, and asked to surrender their animals based on “new research that sheep could be susceptible to BSE.” BSE is a TSE, but BSE is mad cow disease, and no sheep in the world had ever naturally contracted BSE. Further, the Faillaces could document that their sheep had never been fed animal products. The USDA officials would not release any “scientific” information leading to their request, but under duress admitted to the Faillaces that their request to “depopulate” the farm was based not only on this secret scientific information, but on political pressure as well. Political pressure from whom? The USDA wouldn’t say, but Linda Faillace speculates: Was this retaliation for the EU not accepting US hormone-treated beef? Was someone in the sheep industry angry over our importation? Was the dairy industry feeling threatened? And what was the political pressure Detweiler referred to? The National Cattleman’s Beef Association? The pharmaceutical industries? The last thing drug companies in the United States would want was BSE, because bovine by-products are used in a wide variety of pharmaceutical and cosmetic products – everything from insulin to bovine placenta for estrogen and anti-wrinkle creams. And if a country finds BSE, they are no longer able to source their products form the native cattle population. (p. 70) The USDA could provide no proof that the Faillace’s sheep were infected with TSEs, and it was obvious to Detweiler after meeting the Faillaces that she wasn’t going to be able to pull the wool over their eyes on the science. These were not just a bunch of country bumpkins. They knew their stuff and they refused to surrender their animals, although they did agree to turn over any sheep that they decided to kill. Another farmer who had previously obtained sheep from the Faillaces also surrendered a few sheep to the USDA for testing, and these sheep were determined to have “a foreign TSE of unknown origin.” When the USDA revealed a portion of the test results of the Western blot (which is the least reliable test for TSEs), it was clear that the samples had undergone degradation and that there was an absence of negative controls and molecular weight markers – both necessary for at least preliminary proof that the sheep has a TSE. The data were a mess. Positive control lanes were negative, samples that were supposed to be negative tested positive, and one of the USDA’s own scientists who developed the test admitted privately to them that it was unvalidated and should not be used in court. When the Faillaces requested the original samples to do independent testing and carry out “gold standard” testing, namely immunohistochemistry and histopathology, they were told the samples had been inadvertently discarded. The laboratory director also lied under oath about testing the samples blindly. After the Faillaces filed for all of the testing information to be released from the USDA under the Freedom of Information Act, the USDA’s documents revealed four hundred negative test results from the Faillace animals and other animals originating from their farm. After four years, the USDA could still provide no evidence that there was anything wrong with the sheep, while repeatedly pressuring the Faillaces to turn over their herd. At this point, more TSE tests had been run on the Faillace herd of 125 sheep than the entire cattle herd of the United States, in a vain search for mad cow disease in sheep. The animals had been under quarantine for two years. Regardless of the feed records and negative test results, the USDA Secretary ordered the animals destroyed, a decision ultimately upheld by a judge in court. The Faillaces filed for an appeal, and although the federal appeals court expedited the hearing, the court admitted that it did not have the right to stop the USDA from seizing the animals should they decide to do so before the appeal date. After months of dealing with tapped phones and constant surveillance of their property, in late March 2001 only two weeks before the hearing in the appeals court on April 10, 2001, 27 armed federal agents and 13 USDA officials arrived at the Faillace farm, seized all their animals, and sent them to Iowa to be destroyed. The USDA also confiscated their sheep semen so that they would not be able to rebuild their herd by crossbreeding with American sheep. Despite a USDA promise to pay “fair market value” for the herd, and despite the Faillace’s estimate of a profit of $11.3 million had the herd not been quarantined and sales of lambs not restricted for nearly three years, the USDA paid the Faillaces a measly $250k for five years of hassle and lost income. After the Faillaces lost their sheep, the laboratory that had conducted the original Western blot tests was shut down due to negligence. A USDA-appointed panel concluded upon seeing the condition of the laboratory that the accuracy of the TSE work in the Faillace case had to be questioned. Unfortunately, it was too late. And even so, tests conducted on every single destroyed animal in the Faillace herd were negative by IHC and histopathology – the gold standard tests for determining whether an animal has a TSE. Nearly a decade of the Faillaces’ work had been destroyed – for nothing. The lack of conclusive proof of any TSE in the destroyed Faillace herd (it took the USDA over a year to release the test results, and they kept testing and re-testing in vain for a year in order to try to obtain positives) also didn’t convince the USDA not to enforce a five year quarantine that didn’t end until 2006. This quarantine prevented them from keeping hooved animals, and much of their farm equipment was ordered destroyed by incineration in an incinerator in Massuchusetts. When Larry Faillace followed the dump truck that was removing the materials from their farm for supposed incineration on USDA order, he found and documented with photographs that the materials actually went to a landfill in north Vermont. So much for the threat of mad cow disease in sheep --- it was a complete ruse the USDA was going through to maintain public confidence in their decisions. The Faillaces had had enough. They sued the USDA for fraud so that the quarantine would be lifted. Their case was not heard years later until three weeks before the quarantine ended. The judge ruled in favor of the USDA that the quarantine was legal. There you have it. The USDA carried out a war on various sheep farmers and other imported animals for five years under the fantasy that imported sheep (documented to have never been fed meat meal!) might transmit mad cow disease to cows or humans. In the meantime, the USDA allowed actual mad cow disease (BSE) to emerge in cattle the United States. A year after the first emergence of BSE in the US in 2003, the USDA ordered decreased testing of BSE to approximately one tenth of a percent of animals in 2004 – a 32% decrease in testing. (Wouldn’t the emergence of BSE in the United States logically call for more testing?) When a single case of BSE was also found in a dairy herd of 4000 cattle in Washington, the herd was quarantined for one month. Only 131 other animals were slaughtered and tested before the USDA proclaimed the BSE to be an “isolated case”, lifted this one month quarantine and milk sales were resumed. Contrast that with the Faillace experience. The Faillace farm underwent a five year quarantine following destruction of the animals, and their entire herd was destroyed with no evidence of a TSE at all, let alone that it could have spread to cows and caused mad cow disease. The mad cow coverup doesn’t stop there. The legal battle between the USDA and Creekstone Farms has gone on for three years now, as I’ve recently written, with the most recent court ruling in 2008 in favor of the USDA’s position to deny Creekstone Farms the right to test for mad cow disease. This story beggars belief, doesn’t it? Massive corruption in our government agencies and the courts, both of them obstructing justice and truth. But wait – it gets worse. In 1998, preliminary unpublished results from a study in Britain showed that sheep thought to have scrapie (a TSE that is already widespread in the United States) actually had BSE. Only a few scientists were privy to these results. Detwiler, the USDA bureaucrat who instigated of the quarantine of the Faillace’s farm in 1998 (probably partly as a result of this unpublished research), had been one of these few scientists. But in 2001, just months after the Faillace herd had been destroyed, an independent audit did DNA testing of the brain samples used in that study. 100% of the tissue was of cow origin. The supposed sheep brains being investigated for BSE (mad cow disease) were actually cow brains. File that story under the “duh” category. Mad Sheep is nothing short of stunning. It is required reading for anyone interested in the government violation of individual rights when it comes to agriculture. Most people do not think of the USDA as a corrupt agency in comparison to other government agencies. Unfortunately, an honest review of the facts indicate otherwise. Labels: Farm Raids, Government Idiocy, Why the USDA is Not Your Friend E-mail Monica    PermaLink    3 Comments   Exemption to Cow Fart Tax in the Works By Monica @ 9:10 AM From MadisoNet.com: An aide to Sen. John Thune says Thune's bill to exempt livestock from the Clean Air Act has been filed with the clerk of the U.S. Senate. ... The Environmental Protection Agency has denied it is targeting livestock as a potential tax source. ... Last month, the American Farm Bureau Federation said it is convinced the EPA's proposal to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act will result in new taxes on livestock operations. The farm group cited U.S. Department of Agriculture figures and said any farm or ranch with more than 25 dairy cows, 50 beef cattle or 200 hogs emits more than 100 tons of carbon equivalent per year. Therefore, the Farm Bureau says, those operations -- making up more than 90 percent of U.S. dairy, beef and pork production -- would have to get a permit under the proposed EPA rules. The Farm Bureau says the fees would mean annual assessments of more than $100 per dairy cow, $87.50 per head of cattle and $20 per hog. As usual, the bureaucrats back down and deny everything when their evil plans are exposed. I'm glad the lawmakers are sitting up and taking notice on this one. Plans for a cow fart tax under the Clean Air Act emerged only a few weeks ago, mostly in obscure local newspapers, online sources, and only one source which I would consider mainstream (Yahoo news). However, there was an enormous stink about this in the blogosphere and farming communities who contacted their lawmakers, which I'm sure had an effect. (This is yet another reason why it is so important to keep the government's slimy hands off the internet, too!) This goes to show that putting up a stink to protect our rights will work but it has to happen early on -- before the bureaucratic nonsense begins. Constant vigilance! Labels: EPA Tyranny, Global Warming, Government Idiocy E-mail Monica    PermaLink    1 Comments   Monday, December 15, 2008 Will NAIS Make Food Safer? By Monica @ 9:44 AM From NoNAIS: In Ireland industrial oil contaminated the pig feed at a major commercial feed supplier resulting in 200 times the acceptable levels if dioxins in the pork. As a result 100,000 pigs face depopulation as the government likes to euphamistically puts their killing sprees. The result is a total worldwide recall of Irish pork products which will hurt farmers, workers, retailers and consumers. It also leaves in question the safety of beef, poultry and lamb that may have been fed tainted food from that same supplier. This disaster points to the problems with centralization, consolidation of Big Ag both in the single source of feed and the small number of large pork producers. Indeed. Imagine a top down centrally planned system in which all auto makers in the United States are encouraged and supported through "auto subsidies" from the United States Department of Automobiles (USDA) to make only 2-3 types of vehicles. The consolidation of these companies is supported through government handouts over the course of a century, because the government has decided that auto makers will be far more efficient if there are fewer of them and if they each concentrate their efforts on 2-3 types of automobiles rather than 20 or so. Billions of taxpayer dollars are spent in an effort to encourage the auto makers to produce as many autos as possible, regardless of consumer demand. When problems of quality, efficiency and safety arise, regulations are piled on top of regulations to "ensure" the safety of both the autos and the products used to make these autos, under various programs under the United States Department of Automobiles (USDA). A number of new, small auto makers wish to sell their autos, for which there is great demand. However, the USDA is concerned about these uninspected automobiles. A few defective autos from these smaller auto makers result in a public outcry for the USDA to start regulating the smaller auto makers as well, regardless of the fact that the USDA-approved manufacturers are pumping out a higher proportion of defective products. The USDA comes to the obvious conclusion based on this public outcry. It must outlaw the direct sale of any automobile not made in a USDA-approved plant. Despite the slightly higher production costs to produce their product in a USDA approved facility, the smaller companies operating without USDA subsidies and outside of the USDA approved supply system see their market share continue to grow due to increased demand by a minority of informed consumers. Because of regulations outlawing the sale of these autos in ordinary establishments, they work directly with consumers to establish CSAs, or Community Supported Auto companies, in which consumers will buy autos directly from the manufacturers in an attempt to escape the costly USDA regulations. These CSAs are so successful that they see their market share grow from $1 billion to $12 billion over the course of a decade. Nevertheless, this new arrangement is branded as uncapitalistic and an obvious communist threat to free enterprise. Quality continues to decline in USDA approved facilities. Massive recalls of millions of autos result, so the USDA does the obvious. It attempts to avoid disaster by providing more "auto subsidies" to the subsidized auto makers so that they can improve quality and safety. All at the USDA agree that consumer confidence in the socialized auto market, which they insist is an example not of socialism but of free enterprise, must be upheld. Unfortunately, over time, recalls of the USDA-approved items keep getting larger as the USDA-supported consolidation continues. The USDA can no longer ignore these problems. The USDA comes to the obvious conclusion that the current regulations are insufficient to ensure the safety of the public. A new system of safety must obviously be drawn up. After all, the majority of the public is crying for the USDA to “do something”. Many important people at the USDA, together with the USDA approved manufacturers, get together and brainstorm a system that might once and for all finally ensure the safety of autos everywhere. They call the system NAIS, the National Auto Identification System. They propose that all autos be tagged with radio frequency identification chips so that any auto with a problem can be traced back to one of the four auto making plants in the United States, all of which rely on 1-2 auto parts supply companies for their raw materials. Most of the larger, USDA subsidized auto makers sign up for the program. When problems are found either in one of the four auto plants or one of the two parts suppliers, the tracking system is hailed as a marvelous success at determining the source of the safety problems. Although this does nothing to actually make autos safer, it does determine the source of the safety problems so that yet more regulations can be applied to the few remaining producers to ensure safety. The government responds to this success at tracking safety problems with the only obvious solution. New regulations must be drafted that mandate the tagging system be used and paid for by all auto makers, not just those not using USDA certified suppliers or USDA manufacturing plants. After all, how will people who buy their car directly from a particular auto maker through a CSA know where the safety problem originated? More safety problems emerge under producers compliant with NAIS. The solution is obvious. The NAIS tagging system must now obviously be required of all those producing autos for their own use, even if they do not sell their autos to anyone else. After all, public safety and confidence in the USDA must be upheld! Shortly after the enforcement of NAIS for every automobile in the United States, all transportation production becomes controlled by the USDA. Home-produced autos and even bicycles not inspected in a USDA facility or bearing a USDA RFID chip are outlawed as an obvious threat to public safety. Under the Auto Patriot Act, anyone questioning the lawfulness or utility of the USDA’s NAIS system is branded as unpatriotic. The Bill of Rights is discarded and the US Constitution is re-written. Shortly thereafter, the NAIS information is handed over to the EPA so that the EPA can collect emissions taxes. What a handy system at monitoring exactly who owns how many automobiles! That wasn't the original intent of NAIS, but it sure became convenient once the EPA got their slimy hands on the information! Now the USDA, in concert with the EPA, can mandate the total number of automobiles a person is allowed to have. The EPA continues to draw new and lower threshholds of the number of autos per person as the decades pass. Eventually the mission of the USDA is transformed over the course of a century from the regulation of auto safety to bicycle redistribution and education through the Bicycle Stamp Program and the Bicycle School Transportation Program. (See any similarities to the previous post yet?) Labels: Government Idiocy, NAIS, Why the USDA is Not Your Friend E-mail Monica    PermaLink    0 Comments   FDR's Farm Policies By Monica @ 8:13 AM Those of you who've read my short history of the USDA know that the agency expanded greatly under FDR's administration. I also make brief reference in the same document to FDR's bungled attempts to reduce crop and animal production, but here are some more details from Ari Armstrong's FreeColorado, in which Armstrong writes about Burton Folsom Jr.'s New Deal or Raw Deal? Here's the basic story. Hoover with his Smoot-Hawley Tarriff destroyed American agricultural exports. Then, with the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, Roosevelt paid farmers with tax dollars to stop growing crops on some of their land, artificially propped up the prices of various (politically selected) agricultural products, and unleashed thousands of bureaucrats to enforce the Byzantine controls. The bureaucrats were, of course, paid to reduce agricultural output and increase prices through taxes on food processors that were passed along to consumers. And yet some people continue to praise FDR as an enlightened, "progressive" president, despite the profound harm of his stunningly stupid programs. Folsom notes on page 67, "In 1933, the U.S. was plowing under 10 million acres of cotton and killing 6 million piglets; in 1935, the U.S. was importing 36 million (bales) of cotton and 2 million pounds of ham and bacon." What is less well known is that we are still subsidizing agricultural overproduction, though in somewhat different ways now. This overproduction is ironically spurred (as it was in the decades preceding the FDR era) by the some of the USDA's own research, so that we are paying for both the creation of the problem and the "solution" to the problem. How do we pay for this overproduction? Through "commodity crop" subsidization and storage of surplus crops, which cost the taxpayer roughly $10 billion yearly from 2002-2006. Under various conservation incentives, Farm Bill money is also used to pay farmers to not plant crops periodically in order to enhance soil fertility because of past policies that encouraged the overproduction and encouraged unwise agricultural practices in the first place. Farmers have let fields lie fallow for thousands of years as a wise agricultural practice to enhance soil fertility. Now we are paying farmers to do it because the government has, for decades, paid farmers to produce too much. A prime example of how government intervention spurs unwise agricultural policies is the subsidization of corn for ethanol. Instead of planting corn on beans, farmers will for the first time ever plant corn on corn, which would be against their long term interest in a truly free market. Planting legumes such as beans results in higher soil nitrogen due to nitrogen fixation. Now that farmers will not be replenishing soil nitrogen through this ancient method, more inputs will be needed which will further raise the price of corn. This will almost undoubtedly lead to the need for more "conservation incentives" to "solve" the soil fertility problems caused by the ethanol subsidies in the first place. Today, approximately 95%-96% of the USDA annual Farm Bill Budget goes toward programs not devised until the FDR era, approximately 70 years after the inception of the USDA. These are the School Lunch Program, Food Stamps, and the various "farm support" programs described above. Labels: Government Idiocy, Subsidies, Why the USDA is Not Your Friend E-mail Monica    PermaLink    0 Comments   Friday, December 12, 2008 What Will Obama's Agricultural Policies Look Like? By Monica @ 12:19 PM The short answer is, "No one knows." But at The Complete Patient, David Gumpert speculates about Obama's general philosophy on the regulation of food. If Obama's statements on raw milk are any indication, we may in trouble: “...The potential risks presented by disease-causing bacteria, from E.coli to salmonella, raise serious concerns about raw milk's viability in commercial markets. I understand your distaste for unnecessary federal regulations. At the same time, the FDA has a responsibility to provide consumer protection.” ... All Obama’s statements and all his appointments thus far suggest he’s a big-government guy. We can’t allow the American auto industry to fail, he says. Why not? We just can’t. Same for the banking industry, the insurance industry, the mortgage industry, and every big industry that comes hat in hand seeking a multibillion dollar handout. The President-elect may even be a super-big-government guy. There’s a movement afoot in Europe for a “world government” to tackle the big problems of climate change and financial collapse. According to a senior correspondent at the Financial Times, Barack Obama is favorably disposed. If you think the FDA and USDA are tough, I suspect they’d look downright soft and cuddly next to a world government making decisions about what we can, and can’t, eat. I hate to be super negative about this guy before he takes office, and I’m sure he will push constructive initiatives on energy and a few other areas. His predisposition to favor the regulators... isn’t encouraging. Unfortunately, I would agree. Watch for the nanny aspects of the state to expand greatly under an Obama administration. Roughly a week ago there were hints that Salazar was going to be the Secretary of Agriculture. As someone who grew up on a Colorado ranch, I was hoping we could see some more sensible agricultural policies from Obama than we saw under the Bush (though they'd obviously still be far from ideal). But now, with hints that Salazar will be taking a different post, there are rumors in one of the comments lines over at NoNais that the head of Pennsylvania's Department of Agriculture Dennis Wolff might be on the short list for the Secretary of Ag. job. Yikes. Wolff is an obvious opponent of freedom of choice and free speech. And the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture has been carrying out an all-out war on raw milk in recent years under his direction. If it is true, we'll just have to work extra hard at rallying the troops! Labels: De-regulation, Government Idiocy, Why the USDA is Not Your Friend E-mail Monica    PermaLink    2 Comments   Tuesday, December 9, 2008 Ontario Raw Milk Farmer Fined $55k, American Academy of Pediatrics Addresses Raw Milk Safety By Monica @ 10:45 AM Michael Schmidt says he won't pay and he'll continue to sell the milk to boot. Good for him! Individual rights win when people make a principled defense. The fact that some people are choosing to disobey the law and choose food that the government doesn't approve of is driving some people nuts (just see the first comment on the article.) Here is a video documenting the raid on Schmidt's farm earlier this year. All I can say is that at least in Canada these raids aren't conducted with SWAT teams and semiautomatic weapons trained on children. Ignore the annoying music but watch the whole thing to see the massive amount of confiscation of private property there was. Further, raw milk must be becoming such a big issue that the American Academy of Pediatrics has addressed it. Of course, the AAP has determined that raw milk is dangerous, but consider the source. These are the folks who want to put 8 year olds on statins and give 1% milk to babies to prevent obesity and cholesterol problems. Labels: De-regulation, Government Idiocy, Raw Milk E-mail Monica    PermaLink    0 Comments   Monday, December 8, 2008 What is NAIS? By Monica @ 4:15 PM This USDA program, the National Animal Identification Program (NAIS), is currently "voluntary" but will probably become required within a year if it doesn't receive strong opposition. So what is it? Many farmers have been registered under NAIS without their knowledge and against their will or consent. The supposed aim of this program is to protect Americans from bacteria and terrorism by tracking animals with radio frequency identification chips. Similar aims are touted for Bush's RealID program, which would put RFID chips in driver's licenses at the state's expense and then require a RealID of every person in order to open a bank account or enter a Federal Building. (The RealID program was passed in Congress as part of a military appropriations bill. This is also a program deserving strong opposition from supporters of individual rights, but it is beyond the scope of FA/RM.) If you eat animal products, NAIS affects you. From Northern Express: Its goal is to track every animal from birth to death, and all the movements in between, with the radio frequency IDs that look like white buttons. Supporters say that tagging animals with a 15-digit ID will make the food supply safer. The USDA aims to register all meat producers by January of 2009. The idea of the NAIS—voluntary in most states—is to quickly identify the source of an infected animal and to protect citizens from terrorists who contaminate the food supply. Farmers will have to log in every "event" of an animal's life, such as going to a fair, trucking them to another farm, or participating in a rodeo. Not just cattle, but also pet ponies, 4-H animals, and backyard chickens (not fish, though). The passage above is somewhat consistent with what is already happening. Here in Colorado, a child wanting to enter their animal in the Colorado State Fair has to be part of the "voluntary" NAIS system. So, technically, it's not voluntary if states require it. Both Michigan and Indiana have mandatory NAIS. Texas, however, has successfully fought against implementation of this system. Go Texas. This is the government website from APHIS (the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service) explaining NAIS. The problem is that the goals of NAIS appear to conflict. The website indicates that NAIS is about disease control. Yet the USDA has recently issued letters assuring farmers that NAIS will not be used for disease control. This makes no sense. Here is what I know about NAIS after months of research. Every farm animal will be monitored with RFID chips as it is moved from location to location, only small or backyard farms will be required to tag every animal, and larger corporate farms that move animals in groups will only be required to purchase one tag per lot of hundreds of animals. (Obviously, at $5-$20 per tag, that's going to create a huge distortion in the market favoring the large farmer.) Large farming corporations designed and are supportive of this NAIS effort, because it will allow them greater access to the international market (not to mention eliminating domestic competition because of the disproportionate costs borne by the small farmer). That is unfortunate but it should be no surprise to anyone who knows anything about agriculture. APHIS would like premises registration and animal identification to become mandatory by January 2008, and enforcement of the reporting of animal movements to be mandatory by January 2009. Thankfully the NAIS program has not met these timelines, but we must still act to prevent further implementation, because it appears that APHIS has just made NAIS mandatory for interstate commerce. To make matters worse, legislators have tried to link NAIS with the School Lunch Program (both are USDA programs), making premises registration under NAIS a requirement of producers selling food that will be used in the School Lunch Program. (I am uncertain as to whether this requirement was actually passed in the agriculture appropriations for 2009 but if it wasn’t, we can certainly expect it to rear its ugly head again in the next Farm Bill omnibus legislation). To summarize, NAIS is a violation of the first, fourth, fifth, and fourteenth amendments. Besides the fact that this program is an obvious violation of individual rights, let’s examine some of the other pragmatic reasons that NAIS is a bad idea. First, it will eliminate small producers. This will further marginalize safety which will then likely lead to further government regulatory mandates to clean up dirty food (such as irradiation) rather than making sure it is clean in the first place. Eliminating smaller producers will also largely erase any vestige of humane treatment in the production of animal foods. (I realize many people don’t care about either of these things, but I do.) Second, it will allow the government unprecedented access to private property information. When considering the proposed EPA animal taxes to control CO2 production and the increased communication we have seen between federal agencies under the Bush administration, this is a very bad thing. We do not need the USDA reporting private property information to the EPA so that the EPA can collect taxes on cow farts. Third, owners will be required to report birthdates of animals, lost tags, and slaughter/death/missing animals. Such events will be required to be reported within 24 hours, with massive fines if they do not cooperate. Fourth, veterinarians will be required to report sightings of untagged animals and register the animals with the USDA (involuntary registration is already happening without the will or consent of farmers by state employees). Fifth, it is unprecedented for the US government to conduct surveillance of citizens simply because they own a specific type of property. The exceptions are motor vehicles and guns, but these are registered at the state level. NAIS would subject all owners of farm animals to federal surveillance and control. What can you do? First, visit Barack Obama’s site at http://change.gov/pages/rural_agenda/ and tell him what you think of NAIS. You can also post comments at http://www.change.org/ideas/view/stop_nais and vote to move anti-NAIS higher onto Obama's agenda (I have done this and you should see my comment there). Save your comments and also consider writing your representatives to tell them that you oppose NAIS. Third, use those comments to write the House Committee on Agriculture at agriculture@mail.house.gov. Spread the word to family and friends. Consider writing op-eds and letters to the editor. Also, visit stopanimalid.org and nonais.org for more reading and information. Labels: De-regulation, EPA Tyranny, Government Idiocy, NAIS, School Lunch Program, Why the USDA is Not Your Friend E-mail Monica    PermaLink    0 Comments   Cow Fart Tax Coming Your Way By Monica @ 4:06 PM If someone had told me five years ago that the EPA would start taxing farting cows to control greenhouse gas emissions, I would have laughed in their face. It is now happening. The flatheads at the EPA are going to tax flatulence. But first, a bit of history. This summer, Dr. John Lewis published a timely call to action: In July the federal Environmental Protection Agency issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which details their plan to force Americans to reduce emissions of CO2 and other so-called “greenhouse gases.” This follows on an Executive Order signed by President Bush, which was made possible by a U.S. Supreme Court decisions ruling that CO2 is a “pollutant.” (!) This plan will strip the American people of their freedom, and place them under the control of a single, all-powerful, federal agency. Industrial permits, furnace regulations, auto emissions testing, building permits, transportation, and food production—all will fall under the boot of the EPA. Environmentalists will use lawsuits to pressure the EPA to tighten an ever-shrinking noose around the neck of every American. The EPA's document starts with a clear warning that using the Clean Air Act to regulate CO2 will lead to uncontrollable growth of the agency’s power: "EPA’s analyses leading up to this ANPR have increasingly raised questions of such importance that the scope of the agency’s task has continued to expand. For instance, it has become clear that if EPA were to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles under the Clean Air Act, then regulation of smaller stationary sources that also emit GHGs [Greenhouse Gases] – such as apartment buildings, large homes, schools, and hospitals – could also be triggered. One point is clear: the potential regulation of greenhouse gases under any portion of the Clean Air Act could result in an unprecedented expansion of EPA authority that would have a profound effect on virtually every sector of the economy and touch every household in the land." (ANPR p. 5) The ANPR also includes the following, in a comment by the Department of Agriculture: "many of the emissions are the result of natural biological processes that are as old as agriculture itself. For instance, technology does not currently exist to prevent the methane produced by enteric fermentation associated with the digestive processes in cows and the cultivation of rice crops; the nitrous oxide produced from the tillage of soils used to grow crops; and the carbon dioxide produced by soil and animal agricultural respiratory processes. The only means of controlling such emissions would be through limiting production, which would result in decreased food supply and radical changes in human diets." (ANPR pp. 66-67) To the many who believe that these excerpts from the EPA's document are exaggeration, recent events have proven otherwise. The EPA has not lost any time in calculating how much to tax agriculture under its new plan to cut CO2 emissions, according to NoNAIS: In a massive power grab the EPA is attempting to tax all sources of greenhouse gasses. If your cow farts they want your money. Same goes for your pigs. Your house. Anything.... If the USDA EPA has their way it would impose an annual tax of $20 per pig and $87.50 per cow. Who knows how much they’ll tax your home or wood stove but you can bet once they get their slimy claws into your life they’ll never let go. (link inserted by me) Moreover, as explained by the blog author, Jeffries: In the Federal Registry the USDA comments discuss: If GHG emissions from agricultural sources are regulated under the CAA, numerous farming operations that currently are not subject to the costly and time-consuming Title V permitting process would, for the first time, become covered entities. Even very small agricultural operations would meet a 100-tons-per-year emissions threshold. For example, dairy facilities with over 25 cows, beef cattle operations of over 50 cattle, swine operations with over 200 hogs, and farms with over 500 acres of corn may need to get a Title V permit. It is neither efficient nor practical to require permitting and reporting of GHG emissions from farms of this size. Excluding only the 200,000 largest commercial farms, our agricultural landscape is comprised of 1.9 million farms with an average value of production of $25,589 on 271 acres. These operations simply could not bear the regulatory compliance costs that would be involved. Jeffries explains that presumably, the cost per animal is calculated through the Title V regulations. This has become more widely substantiated through other press releases and independent associations (you can simply google for other news reports if you desire). It is crucial for everyone to understand that the proposed tax on livestock is just the beginning. The underlying premise here is a tax on greenhouse gas emissions. According to EPA documents, they will have the authority to regulate any emissions of so-called greenhouse gases. This means the rest of agriculture as well (tilling the soil releases CO2), your woodstove, your barbeque grill, etc. The predictable result is that massive amounts of farmers would go out of business, consumer food prices would be driven through the stratosphere, and the EPA will continue to expand its powers as they draw new minimum thresholds of greenhouse gases. Jeffries further notes: You will have to make your house meet EPA standards, pay fees to get it inspected and approved or have it condemned. Want to talk housing crisis? Very few homes in America will meet the standards. This means all those homes will get dumped on the market for pennies on the dollar. That will create a new round of foreclosures and depress real estate prices further. The EPA is throwing gas on the fire. Having just read Harvest of Sorrow about the dekulakization of towns in Russia, I can’t help but notice the similarities between Soviet Russia and what our future situation might look like in the United States if we don't act and speak out. The result would be mass unemployment and an even greater reliance on foreign countries for our food. If these rules were to be strictly enforced, the ultimate result would be famine, death, and waves of people being hauled off to prison camps for minor infractions of agricultural codes, such as keeping a few extra chickens. In the end, it would be the downfall of the United States. It is all there in the government documents above. Unfortunately, both NAIS (see the post above) and the EPA taxes would dovetail to create disastrous government controls over our food, because the USDA would have the knowledge about all premises in the country where animals are raised and could simply pass this information to the EPA so they can collect their taxes. Many farmers are already being enrolled in the USDA’s “voluntary” NAIS program without their knowledge or consent. Both of these programs must be stopped before they are started. What can you do? First, you can speak up to the coming Obama administration about your views on such matters. Visit http://change.gov/agenda/energy_and_environment_agenda/ and http://change.gov/pages/rural_agenda/ and leave your comments about such matters as the USDA’s NAIS and EPA taxes on agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. Second, you can look at my proposal on Obama's site and vote for it, here: http://www.change.org/ideas/view/stop_the_proposed_epa_taxes_under_anpr 158 more votes to get it to first place in the category of Global Warming! Come on, activists, let's overwhelm them with votes! Second, save the comments you submit to the Obama change.gov site and write your representatives and officials for office about your views. Write op-eds or letters to the editor. It is also of vital importance to simply spread the news to others. Alert your friends and family to these proposals by pointing them to our website and blog so that they can remain updated. Labels: EPA Tyranny, Global Warming, Government Idiocy, NAIS E-mail Monica    PermaLink    0 Comments   USDA Actively Blocks Testing of Mad Cow Disease By Monica @ 4:00 PM How would you feel if a government agency, with a century-long mission to inspect the food supply for safety, refused to allow testing for food-borne diseases? Sound too absurd to be true? Read about it here and here. Here are the basics. Creekstone Farms spent $500k to test for mad cow disease (BSE) so that they could sell beef to Japan in order to meet Japan's strict importation standards after the mad cow scare. Here’s the hitch. The USDA controls access to test kits for mad cow disease. When Creekstone Farms requested the kits, it was denied by the USDA the ability to test for the disease. Why? Because the USDA caved to special interest pressure of groups such as the National Cattlemen’s Association, who were afraid that the testing of every cow might become the standard for all slaughterhouses for domestic sales as well. In other words, it might have revealed an actual problem with the safety of the US beef supply or allowed a competitor greater market share due to increased quality and consumer demand. And goodness knows, we can't allow the free market to work in order to reveal safety problems and meet customer demand! Perhaps there are many people in the United States who wouldn’t care whether every head of cattle is tested for BSE or not. But why not let the free market give it a try? Is it reasonable to assume that some individuals would pay only $.20 more per pound for beef that is BSE-free? Yes. Creekstone Farms filed a lawsuit challenging the USDA’s decision. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that Creekstone had to be allowed to buy the test kits. Unfortunately, the USDA appealed the decision. A three judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (“DC Circuit”) reversed the decision. They ruled that the USDA now has legal authority to prevent the use of BSE tests by Creekstone Farms. You can read the DC circuit’s lengthy decision here. You can also read this insightful piece about how the USDA probably wouldn’t have won this appeal without the occurrence of a previously existing regulation called the Virus-Serum-Toxin Act (VSTA). Remember and tell this story the next time someone hits you over the head with their nonsense about the need for government “safety” standards and regulations. The free market can do it better, if our government would allow it. Labels: Conventional Wisdom, De-regulation, Government Idiocy, Why the USDA is Not Your Friend E-mail Monica    PermaLink    0 Comments   When Antibiotic-Treated Means Antibiotic-Free By Monica @ 3:54 PM Tyson Chicken labels its chicken as free of antibiotics and growth hormones. But it turns out that Tyson Chicken has been caught injecting pre-hatched chicks 2-3 days before hatching, with antibiotics. However, they continue to label the chickens they sell as "raised without antibiotics." The USDA told them to stop using the "antibiotic free" label after Tyson lost a suit brought by competitors for false labeling. Now Tyson Chicken is suing the USDA to keep using the term. Why? For a completely understandable reason. The previous USDA rules said that any antibiotic treatments given before the chick is two days old don't actually count when it comes to labeling. The USDA is not your friend. This story needs to spread far and wide to those who believe that USDA regulations assure quality, safety, and truth in the marketplace. This story is part of the reason why I don't trust USDA labels, why I want the USDA's ability to regulate food abolished, and why I am moving toward buying all my meat and eggs from producers that I can verify as honest. I don't need any more government-approved fraudulent labels on my food. Last year, Tyson Chicken was completely within its legal rights (as defined by the USDA) to label antibiotic-treated chickens as raised without antibiotics. That is, until the USDA decided to change its tune following the suit brought against Tyson. Here is what we need. We need a truly free market in food, which in part means abolishing the USDA's ability to sponsor lies. The USDA should not have any authority to regulate food inspection or to prevent the local production, local slaughter, or direct farm to consumer sales of completely healthy foods. For them to be able to do so is a violation of an individual's right to trade freely to mutual benefit and even makes our food system demonstrably less safe. We need companies to start telling the truth and to suffer the full consequences of not doing so. It is notable that without the previous USDA regulations that supported Tyson Chicken's fraudulent labeling, Tyson would probably have already stopped using the "antibiotic free" label by now due to the lawsuit brought by competitors and the subsequent court order. We won't have justice so long as companies can then turn around and sue a government agency that supported their fraud in the first place. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, consumers need to stop believing everything they read. Consumers have a misplaced confidence in the USDA and other government agencies to "protect" them. Ultimately, fraud will only come to some minimum level when the public stops supporting it with their dollars and starts being personally responsible enough to verify claims, either directly or indirectly through independent certification. Labels: De-regulation, Government Idiocy, Why the USDA is Not Your Friend E-mail Monica    PermaLink    0 Comments   Truth in Advertising Opposed by Lobbyists (and Some Government Officials) By Monica @ 3:35 PM Unfortunately, these days we are seeing a collusion between business and government in all sectors of the economy: the financial bailout, GM’s request of a government “loan”, and insurance companies, in their short-sightedeness and contrary to the long-term interest, now salivating at the government welfare trough advocating universal healthcare. Unfortunately, such actions on the part of business owners extend to agriculture and have the same root causes: too much government regulation that then fuels lobbying and special favors to special interests. To eliminate the “revolving door” between government and business that the political left so often speaks of, we need to eliminate the door itself. More regulation means only one thing: that the revolving door will spin even faster. Here is one example of what I am talking about. About five years ago, Monsanto sued Oakhurst dairy in Maine for labeling its milk growth-hormone free. (Monsanto owns the growth hormone, rBGH). They lost the case, but Monsanto didn’t learn its lesson about trying to use the courts to suppress free speech. Their lawsuit in Maine didn't work so now they're trying to get state bans on non-rBGH labeling enacted by going directly to state bureaucrats to get bans enacted directly. They found a friend in Pennsylvania secretary of agriculture Wolff, former conventional dairy farmer and true believer of FDA research. Monsanto was able to get a labeling ban scheduled in Pennsylvania, which was (thankfully) overturned by the governor earlier this year. Monsanto’s complaints are that when another milk company labels its milk as not containing rBGH, it makes their product look inferior. So: Leslie Zuck, executive director of Pennsylvania Certified Organic, ... offers a sensible compromise. Instead of banning the labels, why couldn’t dairy farmers who use the artificial growth hormone use their own labels? Ms. Zuck suggests this: “We use rBGH and it’s great stuff!” Exactly. I realize that rBGH has been banned in practically every country except the United States, and I don't support those bans. However, I do support the right to any voluntary labeling by any company, so long as it's accurate. If Monsanto believes in its product, why don’t they just stick up for it? Likely because they already feel they are under attack by regulators across the globe. I'd like to think Monsanto's actions are just a response to the irrationalism of food bans. But I also wish they would just grow up, make a principled case for a free market, and stop trying to use political pressure to squelch their competitors and further obfuscate consumer knowledge about the food supply. More importantly, I wish our elected representatives would read the First Amendment. Labels: De-regulation, Government Idiocy E-mail Monica    PermaLink    0 Comments   Government Regulation of Raw Milk By Monica @ 3:27 PM If you’ve read my other blog or Diana’s blog, you might be asking yourself, “Raw milk, raw milk. What’s the deal with raw milk?” Well, I don’t consider FA/RM to be the place to advocate raw milk. For that you can visit realmilk.com and get much more information that I can provide. We drink raw milk in our household, as do about 5 other Objectivists I know, and I believe it is a far superior product in taste and nutritional quality. There are valid scientific reasons to drink the stuff but I won’t get into that in detail here. One of the purposes of this blog is to advocate that people become educated about their own food, whatever choices they ultimately make. Whether you are a raw milk drinker or not, individual rights in food production and consumption is what we’re about. That includes unpasteurized products if consumers so choose. The FDA disagrees. They say, “...raw milk, no matter how carefully produced, may be unsafe.” Yes, that's true. Substitute almost any food product for the words "raw milk", and you'll get a much better picture of the false sense of security about food that the FDA is trying to provide. Let's see.... Pasteurized milk was responsible for 2 food borne illness outbreaks in 1997. (And now, most milk is ultrapasteurized because of the evolution of heat resistant strains of bacteria. Next time you buy milk check the label.) Eggs? 3 outbreaks. Chicken? 9 outbreaks. Fruits and vegetables? 15 outbreaks. Salads? 21 outbreaks. The salad outbreak affected 1104 people. Let’s not forget the outbreaks of salmonella on alfalfa sprouts and tomatoes recently, not to mention the numerous E. coli outbreaks in beef leading to massive recalls last year. The real questions are these. First, “Does the government have the right to deny people a product that they want to buy, for whatever reason?” The answer is “no” so long as that purchase does not violate anyone else’s rights – and it doesn’t. The sec