CFS claims victory while Roundup Ready alfalfa gets ready for 2010 planting

By Barbara H. Peterson

Farm Wars

While the Center for Food Safety (CFS) does its victory dance claiming that it won the Supreme Court genetically modified alfalfa (GM) case, and no GM alfalfa will be forthcoming any time soon, the Roundup Ready seed is already sitting in the wings ready to be planted. The House of Representatives just sent a letter asking Agriculture Secretary Vilsack to allow planting for the fall 2010 season. I guess they figure approval is a done deal, so why waste time, eh? 

Illegal Immigration and Animal Identification : Linked Through Policy If Not Practice

  

Lynn Swearingen (c) copyright 2010 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

One of the only consistent issues with the current Administration is that their inconsistency keeps one off balance. It is difficult to “know your enemy” if the Rules of Engagement keep migrating.

In line with the plot contained within George Orwell’s Animal Farm, a community is formed based on “freedom for all theory”. Slowly through manipulation of the rules by the “rulers”, enforcers bring to bear unendurable suffering to ensure the “good of all” through the protectionism of the ruling class. When said rulers make errors or mistakes in planning, either the previous rulers are blamed or a mystical outside force is pinpointed as the cause of the faulty administrations failure. In a twist of fate even more damming is the eventual piecing off (or actual sale) of the less powerful members of the ruling party to sustain the greed or power held by the despots. Sound familiar yet?

Rosa Delauro cranks up her broom: The wicked witch of the North rides again!

Marti Oakley(c) 2010 All Rights reserved

________________________________________
DeLauro (D) CT  http://delauro.house.gov 

From the statements by Rosa Delauro to the House committee:  While the administration asked for $14.2 million for this program, we do not feel it is a good use of resources to fund NAIS until the agency develops a clear plan for a mandatory system with measurable goals, long-term funding levels, and a plan for successful implementation. (emphasis mine)

Dear Ms DeLauro:

Your insistence on a mandatory system for the National Animal Identification System, one clearly rejected by the majority of the independent and family agricultural and livestock community across the nation, is not lawful.  You are a legislator and should be fully aware of this, and I believe you are. 

USDA – New laws for meat packers

USDA

The proposed rule is available from the Grain Inspection, Packers & Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) as www by clicking on “Federal Register.”

 Source: usda.com

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced that the U.S. Department of Agriculture plans to begin rulemaking next week that very well could lead to “the most aggressive” remodeling of the Packers & Stockyards Act (PSA) since it was created in 1921.

The rule will be published on June 22 and will be directed toward making sure that the marketplace is fair and transparent and rewards contract growers and livestock producers for investment, labor and producing high-quality livestock and poultry, Vilsack said during a teleconference with trade reporters.

The rule, which is required by the 2008 Farm Bill and by the PSA itself, will provide a 60-day comment period.

Much of the rule addresses the consolidation and integration of production that Vilsack implicated has damaged the vibrancy of farming and rural communities.

Vilsack emphasized that the changes proposed in the rule are designed to protect producers and would prohibit packers from engaging in practices that USDA believes are anticompetitive if not collusive, such as favoring certain-sized producers and packer-to-packer buying.

In particular, the proposed rule will require that contracts be publicly available so producers entering into contracts can determine if they’re receiving terms that are consistent across substrates such as a region or an industry itself or fundamentally different from contracts offered other parties.

Vilsack said the issues that the rule addresses are not so much about demand and supply but for whom demand and supply “is working.” He said it’s about level playing fields so those who “work hard have a shot at success.”

He also emphasized that there are “a number of great companies” in the livestock packing and poultry industry “that do the right thing,” and the rule won’t really change how they conduct business. It’s the companies that don’t “play by the rules” that will be affected, he said.

Proposed USDA Contract Poultry Rules Promise to Level the Playing Field for Farmers

For Immediate Release:
June 18, 2010

For More Information Contact:
Becky Ceartas: (919) 621-8453, Steve Etka: (703) 519-7772
Newly Released Rules Enact Key 2008 Farm Bill Reforms to Protect Growers

WASHINGTON – Today, the U.S. Department of Agriculture released proposed rules that would provide poultry growers with key protections that would mitigate unfair contract provisions that are all too common in the poultry industry.

The rise of corporate federal agencies and the assumption of power

Marti Oakley (c)Copyright 2010 All Rights Reserved

___________________

“As with USDA and FDA, this presumption will target farms, small businesses and independents and drive them out of business while blithely ignoring the real cause of any threat of greenhouse gasses by multi-national corporate contractors who openly engage these corporate federal agencies and buy their way through the system.”

________________________

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is now using the same propaganda protocol as the USDA and FDA along with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and claiming a “presumption of authority”.  The idea here is to put the presumption claim into the public consciousness as “fact”.  That which is not rebutted, even if it is a fiction, stands as (fact) in the eyes of the law. 

When dealing with any presumptions of authority by any state or federal agency, look to the law that was the catalyst for either creating the agency, or directing its actions.  Neither state nor federal agency is allowed to act outside of the legislative intent.  And, even if they are acting within legislative intent, that intent cannot abrogate or violate your rights. To do so makes the creating law itself void on its inception. 

Poultry growers air complaints

Food & Water Watch 

Daryll E. Ray

“Tom Terry, a former grower from Tennessee, told us a similar story. He said that after loading up the chickens from one of his barns he followed the company trucks to the plant so he could watch them being weighed on the scales at the processing plant. He was prevented from doing so.”

June 4, 2010

This year, the Obama administration is holding a series of five hearings across the nation to explore competition issues affecting the agricultural sector in the 21st century and the appropriate role for antitrust and regulatory enforcement in that industry. The second of these workshops, conducted jointly by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of Justice (DOJ), was held at Alabama A&M University in Normal, Alabama.

The May 21, 2010 workshop was led by Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and US Attorney General Eric Holder. The hearing focused on issues in the poultry industry, and featured panel discussions on poultry grower issues and trends in poultry production. And, it also included opportunities for public comments.

“All players in the poultry industry deserve an honest chance at success, and that requires a fair, viable, and competitive marketplace,” said Vilsack. “Today’s conversation helped bring a better understanding of the issues impacting growers on a daily basis and provided an opportunity to openly discuss some of the ideas that have been raised to address these concerns.”

“To Free America” radio program. Guests: Paul Griepentrog and Randy Cook

American News Net

Linked here:      First Amendment Radio  

Randy Cook and Paul Griepentrog of the National Organization of Raw Materials will be guests of Randy Yarbrough on “To Free America” radio program.  They will be discussing the proposed food safety bills, and presenting a rebuttal of the FDA’s and USDA’s presumption of having authority to regulate on farm production through interstate commerce.  From 5-7 CDT Thursday  

Leges vigilantibus, non dormientibus subveniunt. The laws aid those who keep watch, not those who sleep (that is, the vigilant, not the negligent).

http://americanewsnet.com/

http://www.firstamendmentradio.com/

Dean Foods Accused as Dairy Farmers Say They Are Getting Milked

By Alison Fitzgerald  2010-05-27 03:00:00.0 GMT

May 27 (Bloomberg) — At Harold Howrigans dairy farms in northern Vermont last year, the red ink was flowing almost as fast as the milk. The dairyman was losing nearly $100 per cow each month because the price for 100pounds of milk fell to $11, well under the $18cost of production.

It was bad. People had to borrow money just to make ends meet, says Howrigan. Prices have recovered some, though not enough to pay down the new debt, he says.

These are tough times for Americas 60,000-odd dairy farms, thanks to a decade-long deflationary trend in prices and a particularly severe downturn last year, Bloomberg Businessweek reports in its May 31 issue. Industry sales fell 30percent in 2009, to $24.1billion, from the year-earlier period, according to the Agriculture Department.

Congress, which spent $350million on emergency dairy price supports last year, has taken notice. So has the Justice Department, which is scrutinizing the market power of the biggest dairy cooperatives and food companies to assess the effect on prices.

Along with the USDA, Justice Department officials will hold a June 25 hearing in Madison, Wisconsin, on dairy market concentration. Meanwhile, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission is reviewing complaints of price manipulation in the spot cash market for cheddar cheese, which also affects the price of milk.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND USDA ANNOUNCE SCHEDULE AND PANELISTS FOR AGRICULTURE WORKSHOP IN ALABAMA

Note:  Because this is a public hearing, no attempts can be made to force you to “sign in”.  You have a right to enter, to speak and be present.  Besides: the whole place will be under surveillance and your picture will be taken as you enter and during the meeting and you will be biometrically scanned and recorded and put in the system anyway for later identification.   All this aside, you will note in pargraph *3 that you are required to “sign-up” in advance if you wish to attend.  Turns out its not a free and open to the public meeting after all.  Marti

__________________________________________________

USDA: NEWS RELEASE 

United States Department of Agriculture . Office of communications. 1400 Independence Avenue, SW  Washington DC 20251-1300. voice (202) 720-4623. Email: oc.news@usda.gov. Web: http://www.usda.gov

Release No. 0266.10

Contact : USDA Office of Communications (202) 720-4623

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND USDA ANNOUNCE SCHEDULE AND PANELISTS FOR AGRICULTURE WORKSHOP IN ALABAMA

Poultry Workshop to be Held at the Ernest L. Knight Reception Center at Alabama A & M University

WASHINGTON, May 14, 2010 – The Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) today announced the schedule and panelists for the second joint public workshop on competition and regulatory issues in agriculture, which will be held on May 21, 2010, in Normal, Ala., at the Ernest L. Knight Reception Center at Alabama A & M University. The workshop, the second of five, will focus on the poultry industry.

The workshops, which were first announced by Attorney General Eric Holder and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack on Aug. 5, 2009, are the first joint Department of Justice/USDA workshops ever to be held to discuss competition and regulatory issues in the agriculture industry. The goals of the workshops are to promote dialogue among interested parties and foster learning with respect to the appropriate legal and economic analyses of these issues, as well as to listen to and learn from parties with experience in the agriculture sector. Attendance at the workshops is free and open to the public.

*The general public and media interested in attending the Alabama workshop should register at: www.aamu.edu/saes/FAS/DOJ_USDA/

FDA: Failure to produce parity prices voids their authority; and so do unlawful acts of legislative and agency fraud

Marti Oakley w/ Paul Griepentrog  (c) copyright 2010

All Rights Reserved. Contact ppj.gazette5@gmail.com for permission to reprint or distribute in any form. 

_____________________________________________

Although the administrative agencies may seek to derive authority through the Emergencies Powers Act vis- a -vis:  Wickard v. Filburn their failure to procure parity prices voids their authority.

“What is being attempted here is the creation of a fiction of law which the FDA will attempt to enforce under the color of law, all the while knowing they have neither legal nor statutory authority to do so.  The assumption is of course, the public is totally unaware that this is an unlawful action and will simply comply out of ignorance of their rights.”

___________________________________________

This is the opening volley by the government whose intent it is to totally bypass S.510 and HR 2749 and implement what these attorney’s listed below must know to be a legal fraud on the American public. The stage show that has been ongoing regarding the passage of these two fake food safety bills and numerous others has been conducted to divert attention away from the actual project being finalized under the Obama “Food Safety Working Group”.  This group is in no way concerned with food safety, but rather with attempting to create a crisis where none exists then to exploit it for corporate profiteers.

__

FDA Authority to Regulate On-Farm Activity

Vanessa K. Burrows

Legislative Attorney

American Law Division

Summary

http://www.producesafetyproject.org/admin/assets/files/0022.pdf

Summary Recent concerns regarding fresh produce contaminated with E. coli or Salmonella have brought attention to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)’s regulatory authority. Some advocates have requested new FDA food safety regulations, including rules that would regulate activity on farms. One question is whether the FDA has the authority to regulate on-farm activities. H.R. 1108 and S. 625, which would authorize the FDA to regulate tobacco products, would limit the FDA’s authority to regulate activities on certain tobacco farms. However, it appears that the FDA has the authority to regulate at least some on-farm activities related to other food products under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Public Health Services Act.  In 2004, the FDA issued a proposed rule governing safety procedures for shell eggs, which would be its first comprehensive on-farm regulation. Legislative proposals, including H.R. 912, H.R. 3624, H.R. 5620, H.R. 5904, H.R. 6581, S. 2077, and S. 3385, also address the FDA’s role on farms._____________________________________

What was omitted from the above summary, was that the FDA did not at any time ever possess the Constitutional authority to interfere with or to regulate private agricultural commerce and trade, and does not, even now, possess such authority.  Furthermore, any enabling statute must conform to Constitutional authority and provisions to be valid. 

The FDA, and the O’Neil Institute for National and Global Health Law, along with numerous other titled and compensated professionals, working group partners and special interests, assembled by the Obama administration assumed there were none to few of us out here, aware of this lack of lawful authority; we are aware. 

More than 80 Groups Urge FDA and USDA to Change U.S. Position on Food Labeling

Naomi Starkman
Consumers Union
nstarkman@gmail.com
917.539.3924-c

Position Will Create Problems for American Producers to Label Products GM/GE-Free Upcoming International Codex Meeting to Discuss Food Labeling, May 3

Yonkers, NY—Consumers Union, the nonprofit publisher ofConsumer Reports, and more than 80 farmers, public health, environmental, and organic food organizations today sent a letter to Michael R. Taylor, Deputy Commissioner for Food at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and to Kathleen Merrigan, Deputy Secretary at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), expressing serious concerns that a proposed U.S. position on food labeling would create major problems for American producers who want to label their products as free of genetically modified (GM)/genetically engineered (GE) ingredients.  A copy of the letter can be found online: this is a pdf.

OBESITY CONSPIRACY: The U.S. Government Scandal that’s Really Making You Fat

Live link: MERCOLA.com

The Root of the Problem

I believe many of our society’s chronic health problems could be resolved if attention was paid, at the highest levels of government, to the root problem – our agricultural subsidies.

If growers of subsidized fresh vegetables were in a clear majority, you might start to see some fine advertising campaigns promoting the consumption of those veggies…

Unfortunately, the Department of Agriculture is deeply entrenched with the agri-business, and current legislations protect the profits of these large industries at the expense of public health.

E.coli & the Gulf Oil Spill: Lessons to be Learned

John W. Munsell, Manager

Foundation for Accountability in Regulatory Enforcement (FARE)

Miles City, MT

“Force the Source”

_____________________________________

If USDA’s Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) were assigned the responsibility to investigate the current oil spill in the gulf, and provide solutions, they would be as follows:

1. 1.     Louisiana, Mississippi, and other states are responsible for the environmental degradation because they allowed contaminants to enter their boundaries.
2. 2.    Petroleum is a contaminant only when it arrives at the destination, namely, the coastlines.  Prior to its arrival, petroleum is a relatively harmless minor irritant.
3. 3.    Louisiana, Mississippi and other states must implement corrective actions to prevent future recurrences.
4. 4.    BP is not liable for this impending catastrophe, because (a) BP is producing a legal commodity, and (b) all liability for this catastrophe must be assumed by the destination states.

Any sensible person would discredit the four statements above,

Corruption: USDA Looks Out Only for Self Interests

Friday, April 30, 2010 by: Aaron Turpen, citizen journalist
See all articles by this author
Email this author

(NaturalNews) The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) was created in 1889 and has the stated mission of providing for the health and safety of American agriculture while promoting good agricultural practice. It has devolved into an organization whose primary purpose appears to be to protect and defend Big Agribusiness and the profits it brings while ignoring the safety and health concerns it causes.

The latest in the saga of corruption and conflicts of interest to beset the U.S. government`s agricultural oligarchy is President Obama`s appointment of Islam Siddiqui as chief agricultural negotiator for the U.S. trade representative.¹ Siddiqui was appointed in a sidestepping maneuver that went around Congress, despite serious concern expressed by citizens, small farm advocates, and organic growers.

Siddiqui is not new to the government game. He was undersecretary in charge of the marketing and regulatory programs of the USDA`s organic labeling standards. These are the same standards that allowed genetically modified (GMO) crops, irradiated foods, and worse to be labeled as “organic.” He also worked hard to convince the European Union to accept both hormone-treated beef and GMO crops.

He is obviously no friend to healthy, natural, beneficial foods.

Cows On Drugs

(NY Times 4-17-10)    Op-Ed Contributor   By DONALD KENNEDY  Published: April 17, 2010  Stanford, Calif.

Donald Kennedy, a former commissioner of the United States Food and Drug Administration, is a professor emeritus of environmental science at Stanford.

____________________________________

NOW that Congress has pushed through its complicated legislation to reform the health insurance system, it could take one more simple step to protect the health of all Americans. This one wouldn’t raise any taxes or make any further changes to our health insurance system, so it could be quickly passed by Congress with an outpouring of bipartisan support. Or could it?

S.510 Fake food safety bill: Feeding America poison one law at a time

by: Marti Oakley (c)copyright 2010 All Rights Reserved

____________________________________

“Our food system is not broken as some claim.  It is not dangerous, it is not rife with disease, it is not a threat to anyone and there is no terrorist in a cave somewhere “over there” plotting and planning on how to defecate in a field of spinach just to make a few American’s sick.  If bio-terrorism were an actual threat from foreign agents, they must all be employed by the US government which is currently operating or overseeing more than 600 bio-weapons labs across the US including on every university campus. “

_________________________________________

S.510, “FDA Food safety Modernization Act” is a misnomer.  This bill should be more aptly titled “Making America Sick Through Adulteration of Food” act.  Calendar No. 247, S.510 came out of committee and into the Senate on March 3, 2010.  While I am tempted to go through this latest attack on the public, line by line, suffice it to say that it is nothing more than another hyped up reaction to a created crisis that could have been easily taken care of had anyone actually been doing the jobs they are paid to do.

Here’s the problem with our food system in the US: the government refuses to keep its damn nose out of it.  For years we have had to endure the USDA and FDA regulations, codes, rules and other obstacles erected as barriers to commerce and to the agricultural production that has been the back bone of our economy.  A nation is only as successful as its farmers and ranchers; the ability of a nation to feed itself is the greatest deterrent to recessions and depressions.  And by farmers and ranchers I don’t mean industrialized corporate farming for massive profits while we defile everything in sight. 

For every one dollar spent in agriculture, an estimated seven dollars is generated in the over all economy.  We need our farmers and ranchers; we don’t need bloated bureaucracies laden with desk jockeys who have nothing better to do than to create ever increasing and burdensome rules, regulations, statutes and codes that even they themselves cannot decipher and most times can’t even remember.  USDA currently has more than 16,000 rules, regulations and other nonsense on the books. 

Wisconsin: A legal response to an illegal action

by: Paul Griepentrog (c)copyright 2010 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

__________________________________

Testimony to the Assembly Committee on Agriculture regarding AB 279

Voluntary Premises Registration

Whereas this committee has deemed it prudent to hold hearing on this issue at such a late date is in and of itself questionable.  However the Judicial evolution of this issue has brought to light the immediate fact that the presumption of premises registration as a method of disease control to be false and misleading if not outright fraud. 

I wonder why all US milk is banned in Europe?

Live Link:  MERCOLA.com

On March 18, the New York Times ran an editorial titled “Honest Food Labels.” In this article, Dr. Hamburg publicized letters to about 17 or 18 companies, accusing them of masking undesirable ingredients in their products.

She also emphasized the importance of providing information that consumers can rely on.

“Very, very unfortunately, however, she has totally failed to take any such action with regard to two of our major dietary staples; milk and meat,” says Eptein.

“She has excluded milk and meat from undesirable ingredients, and in so doing, she has created the impression that they are safe.

… About 20 percent of our milk is genetically engineered. Technically this is known as rBGH, the small r stands for recombinant, BGH, is bovine growth hormone… This [milk] contains very high levels of a natural growth factor known as IGF-1…

IGF-1 stands for Insulin-like Growth Factor 1. So growth factor 1 is a natural growth factor and is responsible for normal growth but when you drink rBGH milk, you have very, very high levels of this natural growth factor.

When you drink it, the IGF-1 survives digestion and is readily absorbed from your small intestine, into your blood.

Increased levels of IGF-1 have been shown to increase risks of breast cancer and we have about 20 publications showing this; risk of colon cancer [shown] by about 10 publications; prostate cancer by about another 10 publications.

KCA asks ag groups to band together against NAIS

HIGH PLAINS/MIDWEST JOURNAL

Kansas 4-23-10

With USDA agreeing to discard its policy on animal disease traceability and the National Animal Identification System, Kansas Cattlemen’s Association contacted several other Kansas animal agriculture groups and asked them to support state legislation that would oppose mandatory NAIS.

Kansas Cattlemen’s Association, through its membership policy, supports disease control and participation in a workable disease program. However, in the past several years, USDA has promoted a cost-prohibitive and ineffective NAIS that producers have adamantly opposed. With USDA shifting its focus to providing workable guidelines and allowing individual states to establish disease programs, KCA took the lead to encourage support for state legislation that would oppose mandatory NAIS.

KCA contacted Kansas Livestock Association, Kansas Farmers Union, Kansas Farm Bureau, and Kansas Rural Center asking for support as KCA addresses the Kansas legislature to encourage state lawmakers to pass legislation making mandatory NAIS illegal. KCA looks forward to each group’s response and working as a coalition to advocating for the interest of Kansas producers.

Meat, poultry industries await new antitrust rules

Live Link: Food & Water watch

By CHRISTOPHER LEONARD (AP) – 6

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — Federal regulators are set to release the most sweeping antitrust rules covering the meat industry in decades, potentially altering the balance of power between meat companies and the farmers who raise their animals.

Activists, farmers and meat industry officials have been anxiously awaiting the new rules, which will be released this spring for public comment and are set to take effect this summer. The regulations are seen as a kind of litmus test for the Obama administration and how far it will go in regulating competition in the meat industry.

Monsanto…….when will the courts move to stop this threat to the world food supply

by: Marti Oakley (c)copyright 2010 All Rights Reserved

______________________________________

The idea that the contamination world-wide from genetically altered crops seems never to end;  Monsanto employees, both current and former now residing in specially created offices in the Obama Adminsitration and at least one former Monsanto attorney holding a seat on the Supreme Court it would appear the deck is stacked against not only farmers, but also consumers.

Although three lower courts have struck down Monsanto’s appeals to have GE Alfalfa approved for use, it appears an appeal to the Supreme Court scheduled for April 27, 2010 could pave the way for the use of what is widely viewed as the greatest threat to natural crops in decades.

Tester introduces Meat Safety and Accountability Act

Everyone:

Please find below a Press Release issued by Senator Jon Tester this Wednesday, announcing his introduction of the “Meat Safety and Accountability Act“, aka “The Traceback Bill“.  If it passes, USDA would be forced to trace back to the slaughterhouse of origin of enteric bacteria, namely E.coli and Salmonella.  USDA has publicly admitted that it will NOT perform Tracebacks when agency-collected samples of ground beef are determined to be contaminated with E.coli.  Instead, USDA will only do tracebacks when E.coli-laced meat causes an outbreak.

Sen. Johanns Speaks Out Against A Mandate On The National Animal Identification System (NAIS)

Editor’s Note: Past Sec. of Agriculture, now Senator Mike Johanns was the chief NAIS enforcer fighting for a mandatory NAIS just a couple years ago. He was charged with cutting the first deals with Farm Bureau, the Holstein Assn USA Inc, National Pork Producers Council, Indian tribes, the American Angus Assn and every state department of agriculture, providing “grants” to enroll their producer’s premises in NAIS — over one hundred million dollars.

His repentant pleadings and demands for the complete death of NAIS is clear. Seldom does a Senator define their views with this detail and clarity.

Now, for the first time, his presentation is the exact position of the US livestock producer. Finally, a clear defined true picture is offered by a USDA insider who promoted NAIS with his whole heart, then with no notice, resigned, realizing NAIS was devastating to USDA and the producer. This is the voice of experience.

We compliment Senator Johanns for his honesty, at this time.

A Summary and Wrap Up of the Iowa Ag Competition Hearings

ANTI_TRUST & COMPTETITION POLICY BLOG

Posted by Peter Carstensen     March 15, 2010

“Little was said about dairy (the subject of a session in Wisconsin in June), poultry contracts (subject of a session in Alabama in May) or the status of Capper-Volstead”

The DOJ-USDA Session on Agricultural Competition–March 12, Ankeny, Iowa

Farmers were instrumental in forcing the adoption of the Sherman Act and they remain one of the most interested and commitment constituencies for antitrust. The turnout at the session was substantial with estimates of the audience ranging from over 650 to more than 800. As one speaker put in, “I have never seen so many people interested in antitrust law except lawyers getting CLE credits.” Another sign of interest is that interested parties have filed more than 15,000 comments related to these workshops (available at the DOJ web site).

Attorney General Holder and Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack each emphasized a commitment to competition and to addressing competitive issues in markets involving agriculture. This is the first real cooperation between the agencies each of which has significant actual or potential authority to affect competition. Also present was a representation of the CFTC who signaled that agency’s commitment. Conspicuously absent was the FTC which has authority over retail grocery issues as well as all processed food production except meat and dairy products. When, after several comments about competitive issues resulting from retailer and general grocery manufacturer buyers power, the question of FTC absence was addressed the organizers said the FTC would be “invited” to the final meeting in DC in December. Informal conversation suggested to me that the FTC has signaled disinterest in these proceedings. I hope that is not true as it would mean a major gap in enforcement.

SECRETARY VILSACK ANNOUNCES DETAILS AND OBJECTIVES OF USDA’S OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL MARKETS

What the hell is the USDA, a dysfunctional and non-relevant agency, unable to perform or meet its basic functions doing in environmental markets?  This is nothing more than a smoke screen for seizing agricultural lands and property under the guise of environmental concerns.  And how can they rationalize the biodiversity goal when they have helped facilitate and end biodiversity via their collusion with bio-pirates such as Monsanto?   Marti

____________________________________________________

WASHINGTON, March 10, 2010–Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack today announced new details about the functions and objectives of USDA’s Office of Environmental Markets (OEM). OEM, now part of USDA’s Natural Resources and Environment mission area, will work to carry out USDA’s climate and rural revitalization goals by supporting the development of emerging markets for carbon, water quality, wetlands and biodiversity.

“Environmental markets leverage private investments that result in cleaner air, improved water quality, restored wetlands, and enhanced wildlife habitat,” said Vilsack. “These markets have the potential to become a new economic driver for rural America, exactly what we need to support a bold, creative future for America’s farmers, ranchers and rural communities.”

Who’s protecting farmers and consumers from GE contamination? Not USDA

Live link:  Center for Food Safety

 

USDA has released for public comment its draft environmental impact statement (EIS) on Monsanto’s genetically engineered, Roudup Ready alfalfa, and unfortunately, USDA has not done its job. USDA has ignored the real-life concerns of non-GE alfalfa farmers, dairies, exporters, retailers and consumers. Despite public outcry, USDA’s determination is to once again approve GE alfalfa without any limitations or protections for consumers, the environment, or farmers’ right to sow the crop of their choice without fear of contamination and rejection of their products. Incredibly, USDA claims that consumers don’t care if organic and conventional farmers’ crops are contaminated!

In 2006, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) sued the Department of Agriculture (USDA) on behalf of farmers and others for its illegal approval of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready alfalfa and won, banning GE alfalfa until the USDA fully analyzed its impacts on the environment, farmers, and the public. However, the resulting EIS is woefully inadequate, leaving farmers and consumers unprotected while Monsanto goes on with business as usual.

This is the first time the USDA has done this type of analysis for any GE crop, so the final decision will have broad implications for all GE crops and for the future of organic agriculture—that is why it’s so important that USDA hear from YOU. USDA is only accepting comments on this EIS through March 3, 2010, so please take action today!

Tell USDA that protecting farmers and consumers is its job and demand they reject approval of Monsanto’s GE alfalfa!

Tell me more

Geo-Accounting: Why NAIS and other farm to fork plans will never die

by  Marti Oakley (c) copyright 2010 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

___________________________________________________

Somewhere in 2004, when USDA began openly talking about the National Animal Identification System (NAIS), a simultaneous effort was already underway in each state to buy access to state agricultural agencies via cooperative funding agreements wherein the incorporated state Ag agencies contracted with the USDA to implement the USDA business plans. 

What NAIS was never really about was the ability to trace back disease in animals, as a system was already well established and in place in every, state.  What the USDA was and is still after is the ability to gain control over every aspect of food production whether it is animals or crops.  Instrumental in that plan is geo-accounting. 

Take Action Against Monsanto’s GE Alfalfa

Obama USDA Poised to Approve Monsanto’s Genetically Engineered Alfalfa

Don’t believe Monsanto’s green-washing. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs), aren’t meant to feed the world or survive the evermore frequent droughts and floods brought on by global warming. GMOs are designed to sell Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup and the patented “Roundup Ready” genes now spliced into millions of acres of corn, cotton, soy, canola, sugar beets and alfalfa. A 2009 study showed that, in 13 years, Roundup Ready crops increased herbicide use by 383 million pounds.

Old NAIS vs. New NAIS: No Way! No How!

by Marti Oakley (C) 2010 copyright ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 

________________________________________________

The good news is the federal government has abandoned its original National Animal Identification System (NAIS).

The bad news is they just gave it a new alphabet name; National Institute for Animal Agriculture (NIAA).

Under US Code & Title, Agricultural dictates are listed as non-positive law, as is Commerce.  What this means is that although they have written corporate codes, statutes and regulations and they can site them as existing……these same codes, regulations and statutes are not enforceable by the federal government as they are not in the enumerated powers of the federal government.  This renders them “non-positive”.  And this is why government has created autonomous agencies which are incorporated and for-profit.  These corporations then write the necessary rules and regulations and buy access to the states via cooperative agreements with state agencies, also incorporated and operating for-profit.  Its corporate contract business.

Note to horse lovers: No NAIS..not now..not ever!

There are a few people left that don’t know how disliked a government enforced animal ID is.  The people at www.thehorse.com are using a poll to help them understand the appreciation, or lack of it, for old NAIS, or the “new NAIS.”

 

If you have an opinion go there, and down the left side of the page is the poll.  You can click on it to vote and you will see the results in about a minute.

 

The horse people have had consistent inducement from the thoroughbred assn and the American Horse Council who have both taken bribes from the USDA to sign up members.  As a result the horse people do not fear the “new NAIS” as much as other livestock owners.  Even though the computer requirements would drag people to the ground on continuous enforcements every time they loaded or unloaded a horse, the horse people still don’t understand how fast it would kill their equine events.

 

When I voted it was 59% No, 30% yes and 10% confused.  That was the highest yes poll in the history of NAIS and the highest confused.

 

Encourage others to vote.  They only had 1100 votes at 4:PM.  Thanks, Darol

Colorado ranchers cheer as feds back off on livestock ID system

The Denver Post

By Monte Whaley

02/16/2010

Colorado farmers and ranchers are cheering a U.S. Department of Agriculture decision to back off plans for a controversial national animal identification system aimed at stemming livestock disease outbreaks.

Lee Swenson, executive director of the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union, which represents about 4,000 farmers and ranchers in Colorado, Wyoming and New Mexico, said many of the union’s members feared the National Animal Identification System would add to government waste, while doing little to prevent disease and ensure food safety.

USDA says “contact us”! NOT!

  

Jackass Alert #1  … Richard Odom of State of Virginia-USDA

 

 

 

 

Good Morning Richard Odom ~~~

We are aware that you are actively involved in promotion of NAIS or some form of animal ID and that you and your state have received $2,723,196 from 2002 to 2007 with an estimate of approximately a similar amount since then (see attached).  We understand you draw a salary, health care and retirement from the animal ID dole.

Workshops to Explore Competition and Regulatory Issues in the Agriculture Industry

Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Justice Department and USDA Set Dates for Workshops to Explore Competition and Regulatory Issues in the Agriculture Industry
Workshops to Be Held in Alabama, Colorado, Iowa, Washington, D.C. and Wisconsin.
The current schedule for the workshops is as follows: March 12, 2010 – Issues of Concern to Farmers – Ankeny, Iowa

This event will serve as an introduction to the series of workshops, but also will focus specifically on issues facing crop farmers. Specific areas of focus may include seed technology, vertical integration, market transparency and buyer power.

FFA Enrichment Center
1055 Southwest Prairie Trail Parkway
Ankeny, Iowa

The Department of Justice and USDA asked for comments in advance of the workshops.
All comments received are publicly posted. Comments taken here.

 Additional updates and information, including agendas and speakers, will be posted on the Antitrust Division’s events website or: here

Neither DATCP or the State of Wisconsin can adopt International Standards in the form of Codex Alimentarius

 by: Paul Griepentrog (c) copyright 2010 All Rights Reserved

________________________________

______________________________________________________

Sen.Decker@legis.wi.gov

Dear Senator Decker,

Just a note to remind you that neither DATCP or the State of Wisconsin can adopt International Standards in the form of Codex Alimentarius, in so far as International Standards can only be adopted by Federal authority pursuant to the Supremacy Clause which reserves the right of international treaty to the Fed.

The bill does nothing to stop adulterated honey either dilute with corn syrup or contaminated by antibiotics.  In fact if Codex standards were effective why wasn’t contaminated Chinese honey kept from entering the country in the first place.  Where were  the FDA and USDA when this occurred.  Instead of dealing with the failed agencies which would include DATCP for allowing it into the state you seek to force Wisconsin producers to bear the burden for the failure of the aforementioned administrative agencies.   Why hasn’t DATCP ordered the removal of contaminated products?  Is it that it’s easier to burden the state’s producers than to deal with Walmart and the big chain stores?

I await your reply.

Paul Griepentrog

Letter from Sen. Decker:

Brutality of Horse Slaughter Exposed

The Humane Society of the United States

Shocking images of extreme suffering released by USDA

The Humane Society of the United States

USDA

Documents recently released by the United States Department Agriculture (USDA) contain shocking images of the extreme suffering of horses transported to U.S.-based slaughter plants.

Animals’ Angels, a Maryland-based animal protection organization, obtained the photos as the result of a Freedom of Information Act request related to 2005 violations of the Commercial Transport of Equines to Slaughter Act at the former Bel-Tex horse slaughter plant in Kaufman, TX.

Graphic Injuries and Mistreatment

The photos were taken by USDA officials charged with monitoring the horses upon arrival at the slaughter plant. While some of the photos depict graphic injuries obviously suffered in transport to slaughter (eyeballs hanging off, bruised and bloodied faces, severely injured and missing legs), others show horses who were clearly mistreated by their owners prior to being purchased for and transported to slaughter.

“For far too long, the availability of horse slaughter has allowed unscrupulous horse owners and breeders to use slaughter auctions as a dumping ground for their “excess” horses. It is time for the horse industry to take responsibility for its horses—for their entire lives—instead of hiding behind a foreign owned industry that preys on our companion animals,” said Keith Dane, director of equine protection for The Humane Society of the United States.

In its 1996 Farm Bill, Congress gave the USDA authority to regulate the transport of horses to U.S. based, foreign-owned slaughter plants. The final rule, which was not published until 2001, included a phase out of the use of double-decker trailers to transport horses directly to slaughter.

However, a loophole in the law allows horses to be transported to any other destination, such as auctions, feed lots or intermediary points, on these cramped, dangerous trailers, meant for shorter neck species like cattle and pigs. When forced to travel on these trailers, horses cannot balance properly, causing them to suffer serious injuries, and sometimes death, before arriving at the slaughter plant. Many of the USDA photos depict injuries typical of horses forced to travel on double-decker trailers—severe head injuries, gaping hindquarter wounds, and leg injuries.

Transportation Horrors 

We told ya so! They are just going to rename and re-tool NAIS and keep right on rolling$$

Opposition note~~~~

The writer does not understand the numbers, that $2 billion more beef is imported annually than is exported by the USA.  Beef exports are not a significant concern for any beef grower.    Also Hoof & Mouth does not affect the quality or safety of the gound beef or milk.  Get it together before you write.   It is totally understandable that bureaucrats in Wisconsin want NAIS —want it real bad.  (See attached) The Wisconsin Livestock Identification Consortium and Wisconsin Dept of Ag Trade & Consumer Protection love the NAIS bribe/grant funding and will fight to keep it.  So far USDA has doled out $12,181,982 to them.  Is there any reason on God’s snow covered earth that they want the funding to stop because some beef producers don’t like NAIS????  Does everyone understand who the players are and who wants what???   Darol Dickinson   Dairy Talk

USDA’s ID Decision Leaves U.S. Vulnerable

2/12/2010

By Jim Dickrell

Critics of USDA’s National Animal Identification System (NAIS) were celebrating last week after the Ag Department announced that it was going back to square one on NAIS. But this may be a case of being careful what you wish for.

In its announcement Feb. 5, USDA says it wants to develop a new, more flexible framework for disease traceability incorporating the four following tenets:

• Federal animal ID rules will only apply to animals moving interstate.

• The program will be administered by states and Tribal Nations to provide flexibility.

• The program will encourage the use of lower cost technologies, including freeze and hot brands.

• The program will be implemented transparently through federal rulemaking.

Conflicts of interest: Revoking the corporate charters of state agencies

by: Marti Oakley (c)copyright 2010  ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

One issue seemingly untouched by the all the legal eagles out there who claim to be defending independent and family ranchers and farmers is, the conflict of interest with intent to benefit between the state corporations (in every state) operating as “Departments of Agriculture” and private and individual farmers and ranchers who are being prosecuted and persecuted as these state owned corporations are empowered to make their own laws to benefit their own interests and to enforce those laws with full knowledge that constitutional rights and protections have been fraudulently eliminated for the sovereign individuals.

The intent to benefit needs to be examined in depth.  Who will benefit and who has benefited should be paramount in revoking the corporate charters of autonomous corporations operating under the guise of “state agencies”.  We are forced to fund through taxation, these private corporations which operate fraudulently as state agencies.  In addition, as corporations these fraudulent state agencies may conduct business for profit with other corporations to the detriment of the people.  As corporations they have only one duty:  to make a profit; Even if it means destroying you and your livelihood to do it.

In researching for a remedy, I came across this Tort action.  While it may not be the answer, it should provide a foundation for suing state and agencies, agents and operatives.  It could also be extended to sue your legislature for failing to honor their oaths of office and defend your constitution and rights.  After all, none of this happened with out their knowledge and consent.  But then, your state government is a corporation too, so go figure.

Tort of Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage

The elements of that tort of are: READ MORE

NAIS ~COMING SOON, MANDATORY INTERSTATE REQUIREMENTS

By Darol Dickinson & Russ McAfee

Dr. W. Ron DeHaven is CEO of the American Veterinary Medical Assn.

 DeHaven’s Audio: “Click Here”

USDA Sec. Vilsack announced during the morning of Feb. 5 that NAIS was over, ended, no more.

His customary emotionless announcement was fairly brief, but the detailed USDA Factsheet (Click here for factsheet) released simultaneously required seven pages of small print describing the animal ID “will do’s” and “won’t do’s”–all of which will be enforced at some future date in a to-be-determined manner.

The New York Times reported this based on information from an “unidentified USDA informant.”

At once thousands of emails flew from around the globe with nearly as much excitement outside the US as the home land.

Ranch and cattle producers smiled and nodded.

But it seems the victory may be short lived.

USDA Signals NAIS is Dead

While USDA and Vilsack claim this program is scrapped the truth is it will simply be renamed and trotted out as “new and improved” and the program will roll on.  There is no way USDA is going to forfeit the theft of agricultural lands and property on behalf of the coporate federal government.  Just my thoughts.  Marti

USDA Signals NAIS is Dead

“Independent cattle producers must remain directly involved in the development of this new program to ensure that it does not infringe upon their rights and privileges as did NAIS.”