Bribery and Graft abound as Reid attaches S.510 to clunkers

 

Marti Oakley (c)coyright 2010 All Rights Reserved

_________________________________________________________

The FDA and USDA have routinely used the Federal Register to “update” the food safety system, always granting themselves far reaching authority and empowering themselves far beyond the intent of the original legislation that created these blights on America.”

____________________________________________________

And the Republicans joined right in!

I can only imgaine that the halls of the Senate were virtually awash in  “funding” from lobbyists as Republicans joined Democrats in the greatest assault on agriculture ever launched by our own government.

It seems there is no stopping the nefarious Harry Reid (D) NV.  With the country screaming no to the ill conceived S.510 Fake Food safety bill, Reid was successful in attaching the agricultural police state bill to a non-related bill and rammed this piece of garbage through the senate once again. 

And where were those Republicans who got the message from voters that things needed to change?  Well…they were right in there voting yes along with the Democrats.  Even Senator Tom Coburn (R) OK., jumped on the band wagon and voted to pass this attack on food production and supply into law.  Its just amazing what bags of corporate lobbying money  can do to politicians. 

S.510 Fake Food Safety bill was passed quickly late Sunday afternoon; a vote taken when the Senate could be assured few were watching or even aware that the vote on the criminalization of independent and family agriculture was taking place.  Like rats scurrying across the deck of a sinking ship, senators lined up one by one to vote against the best interest of their districts and in favor of the industrialization of agriculture. And like rats, they hurriedly scurried away before their presence was detected.  Rats are like that. 

Betrayed again: S.510 fake food safety loaded into government funding resolution

Marti Oakley (c)copyright 2010  All rights reserved

__________________________________________________

“The intent is to derail the conversation from one of actual food safety, to one of “that’s not fair!”.

The argument is being put forward that it is not fair to exempt small farmers and ranchers from the corporate machine that would wipe them out.  I find it strange to hear the word “fair” applied to this obviously staged conversation.” 

South Korean trade deal signed: Bend over America!

Marti Oakley (c)copyright 2010 All Rights Reserved 

________________________________________________

Comment:  It appears we are caught in the middle of a nightmare from which we are unable to wake. While the president insists we must accept the global economy, we can see the devastating effects of this system of global banking, mounting famine and starvation, the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few and the massive decline in wages and the standard of living here in the US.  If this is what a global economy does, and if unlawful trade agreements are constructed to facilitate this, I say we reject it totally; it is killing us all.

Wheat, the Staff of life, now a guarded commodity.

 

Paul Griepentrog (c)copyright 2010 All Rights Reserved

With high temperatures and drought affecting Russia and Western Europe the Russian government has announced a halt to all wheat exports and has placed additional security at storage facilities.  Russia, the third largest wheat exporter in the world has asked Belarus and Kazakhstan to halt exports as well to prevent price increases in domestic supplies.

No such luck here in the US as speculators are driving prices converting unstable US dollars into commodities.  Wheat prices have risen $1.97 a bushel, or 42 percent, this month and are at their highest level since September 2008.  It’s the biggest gain for wheat contracts according to records dating back to 1959 according to the Chicago Board of Trade.  This is deemed even more unusual for prices to advance during harvest a time which is normally the low point in the yearly cycle. 

Further problems exist as Western Canada was not able to plant 13 million acres due to wet weather. 

New EU regulation sets out rules for dairy imports

Live link:  The DAIRY REPORTER

By Guy Montague-Jones, 16-Jul-2010

The Commission has published a new regulation covering health and certification conditions for the introduction of dairy products into the EU.

Regulation No 605/2010, published in the Official Journal of the European Union, replaces the Commission Decision 2004/438/EC, which was adopted in April 2004.

Canadians fighting back against GE Wheat & Alfalfa

From our Canadian correspondent: Sandra Finely

___________________________________

(GE = genetically engineered.

GMO = genetically modified organism. Same thing.)

Canadian Biotechnology Action Network

Support Bill C-474 – before April 1, 2010.

Together we can stop GE Alfalfa and GE Wheat.

Flax farmers in Canada are now paying a heavy price because of this exact problem.  Late last year, Canadian flax exports were discovered contaminated with GE “Triffid” flax.  Flax farmers actually foresaw that GE contamination or even the threat of contamination would close their export markets.  They took steps in 2001 to remove GE flax from the market. Despite this measure, flax farmers were not protected. The GE flax contamination closed our export markets in 2009. It has created market uncertainty and depressed prices. Farmers are also paying for testing and cleanup and may be required to abandon their own farm-saved flax seed and buy certified seed instead. These costs are an unnecessary and preventable burden.

We cannot allow GE seeds to harm our export markets.

Buy, Buy an American Pie….

Only it isn’t made in America any more, and we don’t know what’s in it that could kill us.

Report shows less beef production, growing exports

www.naisSTINKS.com

Editors note: The USDA and ag media can carefully document history with numbers.  It is the job of each ranch survivor to use the data to make profitable projections . Although these numbers are probably correct, here is how it will shake out:

1) The US has imported more beef than exported for the last 21 years.

2) Although data shows more beef is imported (+$2,000,000,000) than is exported, a reducing inventory of beef production has had no resolve in USDA and BEEF CHECK OFF efforts to increase US exports. The unasked question is “Who does the US buy beef from for export sales when the nation has not produced enough beef in 21 years to feed the nation?”

3) No extra expense is necessary for US producers to implement NAIS when exports are proven to be of no value to the US producer.  Any country that thinks US should do mandatory NAIS will not be able to buy any US beef shortly.  There won’t be any extra available.

4) US beef export will be history within 3 years.  Check the data and watch. 

5) The Beef Check Off money should be used totally to promote a US market to increase competition with vegetarian promotions. Darol Dickinson

DROVERS INDUSTRY NEWS  1-20-10

Report shows less beef production, growing exports
By John Maday  |  Wednesday, January 20, 2010

NAIS ~~~~ a COCKSURE CONJECTURE

NAIS Stinks <nonais@naisstinks.com

By Darol Dickinson
9-9-09

---

Scripts for NAIS state directors have been prepared with Delphi anti-groupthink interrogation techniques. Neil Hammerschmidtz, facilitator Larry Miller, change agent Jeri Dick and John Weimer at USDA have perfected these deceptive, contradictory and extreme methods to high pressure sell the flawed thought of NAIS.

President Eisenhower said, “Farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil, and you’re a thousand miles from the corn field.” Born in Abilene, Kansas, an area known for corn and wheat production, was the authoritative background of this presidential quote. Oh, for a quote today with accuracy and experience to back it up! Quotes by elected leaders today contain larger words, eloquence and surety, yet completely lacking integrity.

The National Animal Identification System (NAIS), proposed by profit motive industries, the World Trade Organization and fund-hungry USDA branches are riddled with pabulum substance quotes. Different from the factual Eisenhower, but similar in that quotes are coming from high up leadership with degrees as long as a wagon tongue; today’s honesty is sickly void. As highly paid government employees make poorly thought-out quotes, their numbers often reflect the serious need of a $3 Chinese calculator.

A Time To Be Serious

With up to 2000 U.S. ranchers going belly up per month, grandiose quotes of great profit from beef exports quickly perk the ear of hard working livestock people. Even though they seldom check the numbers, USDA leaders can tease a rancher off a cliff with a grandiose profit theory.

In a recent Beef Magazine article called “Put up or shut up” the author quoted, “If we do nothing and we lose market access……the losses would amount to $18.25/head if we do not adopt NAIS and we lose 25% of export market share.”

Only Listen to Exact Data

What is market share? Last year, 2008, the USA exported beef, live and processed, a total value of $2,876,906,000. The same year the USA imported beef, live and processed, paying exactly $4,764,392,000. In simple terms, this means the US doesn’t produce enough beef to feed the nation and nearly two billion dollars worth of beef must be imported. Annually this data changes very little.

If export sales are reduced there will not be a need to import as much product. If export sales are increased there will be a need to import that much more to feed the nation. Therefore, all the scuttlebutt about increasing exports to help ranchers be more profitable is no more than Botox verbiage.

The $18.25/head loss without NAIS on all 97,000,000 U.S. cattle equals $1,770,250.000. Wow, that causes most of the whole export income to go away. Perhaps the $18.25 figure was slightly exaggerated – like a 93% exaggeration! Today, not a single country requires animal tracing to purchase USA beef.

The King of Exaggerations

USDA Unable to Weed Out GMO foods

http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre50d5zd-us-usda-gmo-policies/

WASHINGTON, Jan. 14, 2009 (Reuters) — The U.S. food supply is at risk of being invaded by unapproved imports of genetically modified crops and livestock, a USDA internal audit report released Wednesday said.

The report, released by the U.S. Agriculture Department’s Office of Inspector General, said the USDA does not have an import control policy to regulate imported GMO animals.

Its policy for GMO crops, though adequate now, could become outdated as other nations boost production of their own GMO crops, the report added.

The Office of Inspector General recommended the department develop an overall control policy for all GMO imports and implement a strategy to monitor GMO crop and livestock development in foreign nations.

The audit found that the USDA needs to develop screening measures to weed out undeclared GMO crops and livestock. The department currently has no measures in place to identify a shipment of unapproved GMO imports unknown to the U.S. regulatory system, the report said.

The United States has been a forerunner in developing GMO plants and animals since the 1990s, but other countries are beginning to invest more in biotechnology.

The report noted that China has pledged $500 million toward biotechnology by 2010 and has developed a new form of GMO rice.

Although the implications associated with Americans consuming unapproved GMO food are unknown, the health and environmental concerns that it poses could threaten commerce.

The USDA’s lack of policies and monitoring capability on the matter reflect the United States’ dominance over the global market concerning genetic modification.

“Department officials stated that they have not needed such a strategy because most transgenic plants were first developed within the U.S. regulatory system, and it was unlikely that anything unfamiliar would be imported,” the report said.

“And transgenic animals have not been commercialized,” the report also said of officials’ reasoning behind being slow to develop regulations.

The USDA, for the most part, agreed with the report’s recommendations.

In a letter to the Office of Inspector General, the USDA said it would create a plan for monitoring GMO plant and animal developments worldwide by November 30. But further action on policy would require approval from the incoming administration.

 http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre50d5zd-us-usda-gmo-policies/