Is a sustainable food strategy on Obama's menu?
December 30, 2008
By Derrick Z. Jackson
Boston Globe Editorial
A PRIUS in every garage and a farmers market in every neighborhood! This is our moment! This is our time for slow food! Or so, people hope from President-elect Obama.
Obama has raised hopes he will inspire Americans away from fool's gold-en arches and toward farmers markets and community supported agriculture (where people buy a share in a farm's annual harvest). Obama is the most healthy eater to enter the White House in a long time, unlike George H.W. Bush who castigated broccoli as he craved pork rinds, unlike ravenous Bill Clinton, who gained 30 pounds in his first presidential campaign, and unlike the junior George W. Bush, who, pun intended, butchered the meat of his message on food. He once said, "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family."
The grass-roots cavalry as well as wealthy food gurus want to see Barack and Michelle Obama become American Gothic, even creating a symbolic White House farm. Michael Pollan, author of the best-selling "In Defense of Food," wrote an open letter to the next president in The New York Times magazine decrying fossil-fuel-sucking, disease-promoting agribusiness, and calling for more support of local foods and farming that relies more on the sun than "Sunoco."
Read More
Apparently, there is very little creativity in the world of journalism these days. Now we have another one that has come out to tell their readers that you should support your local farmers, but not the bigger operations farther down the road that are “clinging to their corn and combines”. Writing in the shadow of Kristof’s “Secy. Of Food” piece, he also goes on to repeat that America’s food producers are responsible for such things as obesity and diabetes. I would imagine that agriculture must be responsible for people getting older too. People like Pollan, Kristof and this author need to be honest with their readers and ask for what they really want, not a Secretary of Food but rather, the Food Police.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Banning Carriage Rides
Animal rights group wants FI to end its carriage rides
PETA says holiday trips are rife with dangers for the horses
By Nathaniel Cary TRIBUNE-TIMES WRITER
Animal rights activists petitioned Fountain Inn to ban horse-drawn carriage rides after two cars collided into carriages during the city's recent Spirit of Christmas Past festival.
In each incident, cars hit carriages that were carrying passengers on a tour of homes decorated for Christmas. Car drivers were ticketed in each case.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals said it sent a letter via e-mail to Fountain Inn Mayor Gary Long that asks Long to push for legislation that would ban horse-drawn carriages in the city. Such a ban would protect the horses and prevent another accident, PETA said.
Long last week said neither he nor City Administrator Eddie Case had seen the letter.
In the letter, PETA states that "horses work in extreme weather conditions while walking on hard pavement, inhaling exhaust fumes, and dodging traffic, which can be terrifying to them. In addition, the dangerous element of having cumbersome carriages pulled by terrified, unpredictable animals on sometimes slippery, wet streets puts local cyclists, pedestrians, and motorists in harm's way."
In the first collision, Dec. 6, a driver of a Ford Mustang was ticketed for having an open container of beer and driving too close to the vehicle in front, according to a police report. Read More
It would seem to me that if the vehicles are responsible for these accidents, that maybe they should take these cars and their drivers off the road. It wasn’t the horse or carriage driver’s fault that someone was drinking and driving behind them. Why does PETA want to protect the people who are breaking the law by punishing those who are abiding by it. This is simply another stunt to stop people from being able to use animals for their intended purpose. Horses were not meant to be lawn ornaments. They are a natural resource meant for people to utilize.
PETA says holiday trips are rife with dangers for the horses
By Nathaniel Cary TRIBUNE-TIMES WRITER
Animal rights activists petitioned Fountain Inn to ban horse-drawn carriage rides after two cars collided into carriages during the city's recent Spirit of Christmas Past festival.
In each incident, cars hit carriages that were carrying passengers on a tour of homes decorated for Christmas. Car drivers were ticketed in each case.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals said it sent a letter via e-mail to Fountain Inn Mayor Gary Long that asks Long to push for legislation that would ban horse-drawn carriages in the city. Such a ban would protect the horses and prevent another accident, PETA said.
Long last week said neither he nor City Administrator Eddie Case had seen the letter.
In the letter, PETA states that "horses work in extreme weather conditions while walking on hard pavement, inhaling exhaust fumes, and dodging traffic, which can be terrifying to them. In addition, the dangerous element of having cumbersome carriages pulled by terrified, unpredictable animals on sometimes slippery, wet streets puts local cyclists, pedestrians, and motorists in harm's way."
In the first collision, Dec. 6, a driver of a Ford Mustang was ticketed for having an open container of beer and driving too close to the vehicle in front, according to a police report. Read More
It would seem to me that if the vehicles are responsible for these accidents, that maybe they should take these cars and their drivers off the road. It wasn’t the horse or carriage driver’s fault that someone was drinking and driving behind them. Why does PETA want to protect the people who are breaking the law by punishing those who are abiding by it. This is simply another stunt to stop people from being able to use animals for their intended purpose. Horses were not meant to be lawn ornaments. They are a natural resource meant for people to utilize.
Bio-Tech Is Working
Plenty of advancements in agricultural biotechnology worldwide in 2008
Dec 29, 2008 10:56 AM
Despite heavy spring rains and flooding that delayed the growing season in the United States, USDA is estimating increased production of corn and soybeans this year. This is due in part to the contribution of agricultural biotechnology which has helped improve farm yields since it was introduced in the U.S. in 1995.
This year’s corn crop is on target to be the second largest ever, behind only last year's record haul. The U.S. soybean crop is expected to be the fourth largest ever.
Reacting to concerns regarding crop shortages that sparked unrest in some countries and high prices for food in markets around the globe, many nations this year began to acknowledge the benefits that biotechnology offers agriculture.
In July, the United Kingdom’s former chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, stated, “There is only one technology likely to deliver the yield increases needed and that is agricultural biotechnology."
In October, Italy's Welfare and Health Minister, Maurizio Sacconi, called on the country to lift a ban on growing genetically modified crops. Read More
Technology, combined with ingenuity and work ethic of the American Farmer and Rancher, will be the key to doubling food production by the middle of this century. Technology in agriculture has been utilized for thousands of years. That is how a grass called corn looks like it does today. Why have we been able to utilize improvements in ag technology for centuries, but now it is evil? Agriculture shouldn’t be the one industry that isn’t allowed to enter the 21st century.
Dec 29, 2008 10:56 AM
Despite heavy spring rains and flooding that delayed the growing season in the United States, USDA is estimating increased production of corn and soybeans this year. This is due in part to the contribution of agricultural biotechnology which has helped improve farm yields since it was introduced in the U.S. in 1995.
This year’s corn crop is on target to be the second largest ever, behind only last year's record haul. The U.S. soybean crop is expected to be the fourth largest ever.
Reacting to concerns regarding crop shortages that sparked unrest in some countries and high prices for food in markets around the globe, many nations this year began to acknowledge the benefits that biotechnology offers agriculture.
In July, the United Kingdom’s former chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, stated, “There is only one technology likely to deliver the yield increases needed and that is agricultural biotechnology."
In October, Italy's Welfare and Health Minister, Maurizio Sacconi, called on the country to lift a ban on growing genetically modified crops. Read More
Technology, combined with ingenuity and work ethic of the American Farmer and Rancher, will be the key to doubling food production by the middle of this century. Technology in agriculture has been utilized for thousands of years. That is how a grass called corn looks like it does today. Why have we been able to utilize improvements in ag technology for centuries, but now it is evil? Agriculture shouldn’t be the one industry that isn’t allowed to enter the 21st century.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Food Producers First To Be Eyed
Budget-cutters eye measure that protects ag industry
Enterprise-Record
updated 6:56 p.m. MT, Sun., Dec. 28, 2008
California's ongoing budget battle could put both the agricultural industry and Butte County's coffers in the cross-hairs.
The actual target of the possible budget attack is a program referred to as the "Williamson Act."
Passed on the state level in 1965 and adopted by Butte County in 1968, the act is designed to encourage agricultural activities throughout California by offering farmers and ranchers property tax cuts.
In order to qualify for the tax break, growers and ranchers must sign a 10-year contract that guarantees the land will remain in agricultural production. Unless something happens, the contract is automatically renewed.
In essence, the Williamson Act does for the agricultural industry what the homeowners' property tax exemption does for households.
However, with the Legislature and the governor are scrambling to find ways to close a budget deficit that has grown to $42 billion, the Williamson Act subventions are on the block. Read More
Whether it’s on the county, state or federal level, it seems that when money gets tight, politicians start looking for a place to steal money from. Normally, money devoted to agriculture gets the first look. It’s partly because agriculture is a victim of it’s own success. In spite of government interference, the American Farmer and Rancher continues to feed this growing world and very few people can appreciate that fact.
Enterprise-Record
updated 6:56 p.m. MT, Sun., Dec. 28, 2008
California's ongoing budget battle could put both the agricultural industry and Butte County's coffers in the cross-hairs.
The actual target of the possible budget attack is a program referred to as the "Williamson Act."
Passed on the state level in 1965 and adopted by Butte County in 1968, the act is designed to encourage agricultural activities throughout California by offering farmers and ranchers property tax cuts.
In order to qualify for the tax break, growers and ranchers must sign a 10-year contract that guarantees the land will remain in agricultural production. Unless something happens, the contract is automatically renewed.
In essence, the Williamson Act does for the agricultural industry what the homeowners' property tax exemption does for households.
However, with the Legislature and the governor are scrambling to find ways to close a budget deficit that has grown to $42 billion, the Williamson Act subventions are on the block. Read More
Whether it’s on the county, state or federal level, it seems that when money gets tight, politicians start looking for a place to steal money from. Normally, money devoted to agriculture gets the first look. It’s partly because agriculture is a victim of it’s own success. In spite of government interference, the American Farmer and Rancher continues to feed this growing world and very few people can appreciate that fact.
Messing With The Bible's Message
'Green Bible' controversial
Published: Dec. 29, 2008 at 4:33 PM
PHOENIX, Dec. 29 (UPI) -- U.S. evangelicals say they are divided over a new "Green Bible" which embraces environmentalism and a need to protect the Earth.
The Green Bible, which has been endorsed by secular groups such as the Humane Society and the Sierra Club, shows people that "God is calling us to care for the world around us," said Rusty Pritchard, editor of Creation Care Magazine, a publication for evangelicals.
Other evangelicals are concerned the Green Bible will mislead Christians because it does not interpret Scripture literally, said James Taylor, a founding elder at Living Water Christian Fellowship in Palmetto, Fla.
"These groups don't have a religious focus; they have a desire to spread their environmental message," Taylor said of the essayists who contributed to the Green Bible, which contains a foreword from Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu.
An estimated 25,000 copies have been sold by HarperOne since the book's release in October, The Arizona Republic reported Monday. Link
Why do you suppose that secular groups such as HSUS and Sierra Club endorse this “green” bible? It’s because it helps further their agenda of a controlling what people eat and how they live. These groups don’t care about people going to church, they are only looking for donations to keep spreading their messages of veganism and environmental doom.
Published: Dec. 29, 2008 at 4:33 PM
PHOENIX, Dec. 29 (UPI) -- U.S. evangelicals say they are divided over a new "Green Bible" which embraces environmentalism and a need to protect the Earth.
The Green Bible, which has been endorsed by secular groups such as the Humane Society and the Sierra Club, shows people that "God is calling us to care for the world around us," said Rusty Pritchard, editor of Creation Care Magazine, a publication for evangelicals.
Other evangelicals are concerned the Green Bible will mislead Christians because it does not interpret Scripture literally, said James Taylor, a founding elder at Living Water Christian Fellowship in Palmetto, Fla.
"These groups don't have a religious focus; they have a desire to spread their environmental message," Taylor said of the essayists who contributed to the Green Bible, which contains a foreword from Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu.
An estimated 25,000 copies have been sold by HarperOne since the book's release in October, The Arizona Republic reported Monday. Link
Why do you suppose that secular groups such as HSUS and Sierra Club endorse this “green” bible? It’s because it helps further their agenda of a controlling what people eat and how they live. These groups don’t care about people going to church, they are only looking for donations to keep spreading their messages of veganism and environmental doom.
Temporary Ban Nearly Resolved
Mexico Meat Importers Say Ban On US Plants 'Only Temporary'
MEXICO CITY --A Mexican suspension of U.S. meat imports is "only temporary" and occurred for technical reasons, not food-safety issues or retaliatory reasons, Mexican meat importers said Friday.
Meat importers and other industry officials told Dow Jones Newswires that U.S. fears that the decision to ban imports from about 30 U.S. meat plants was in retaliation against a new U.S. country-of-origin labeling law, which Mexico has objected to, were ungrounded.
"The Mexican government has temporarily issued a ban on imports from these plants because they were shipping meat in bulk of over 50 kilograms, and that's against the Mexican regulations for meat shipments," said a person close to the Mexican Meat Industry Council. Read More
Anytime you hear that one of your largest customers isn’t happy, you should be concerned. That is exactly why Mexico’s suspension of meat imports caught everyone’s attention. I’m glad to see that it was mostly a technical issue and had nothing to do with food safety or the COOL laws.
MEXICO CITY --A Mexican suspension of U.S. meat imports is "only temporary" and occurred for technical reasons, not food-safety issues or retaliatory reasons, Mexican meat importers said Friday.
Meat importers and other industry officials told Dow Jones Newswires that U.S. fears that the decision to ban imports from about 30 U.S. meat plants was in retaliation against a new U.S. country-of-origin labeling law, which Mexico has objected to, were ungrounded.
"The Mexican government has temporarily issued a ban on imports from these plants because they were shipping meat in bulk of over 50 kilograms, and that's against the Mexican regulations for meat shipments," said a person close to the Mexican Meat Industry Council. Read More
Anytime you hear that one of your largest customers isn’t happy, you should be concerned. That is exactly why Mexico’s suspension of meat imports caught everyone’s attention. I’m glad to see that it was mostly a technical issue and had nothing to do with food safety or the COOL laws.
Monday, December 29, 2008
How Will Agriculture Fare in the Next Four Years
EPA nominee to face important decisions related to agriculture
Farmers should take notice. Lisa Jackson, President-elect Barack Obama's pick to run the Environmental Protection Agency, is "not shy about enforcement and regulation."
That's the assessment of Peter Furey, executive director of the New Jersey Farm Bureau.
Jackson ran New Jersey's state environmental agency until recently becoming the governor's chief of staff. Before that, she was at the EPA for 16 years in Washington and New York. Under Obama, she would be part of a three-person team who will oversee environmental policy.
The others are Carol Browner, who directed the EPA under the Clinton administration and will oversee climate-change policy out of Obama's White House; and Nancy Sutley, a deputy Los Angeles mayor who will run the White House Council on Environmental Quality.
Jackson pushed for new regulations on land use that affected farms, including restrictions near rivers. She grew up in New Orleans, has a master's degree in chemical engineering and knew little about farms when she took the state job. But Furey applauded her willingness to listen to business interests and said the Farm Bureau made headway with her by taking her on a farm tour. Read More
There is always a lot of uncertainty as to how regulations and policies may change when our country elects swears in a new President. In about three weeks, we will start finding out. Being involved in the political process isn’t fun for a lot of people in our industry, but it is a necessary evil. The world is run by those who show up and in today’s political climate, agriculture can’t afford to take a day off.
Farmers should take notice. Lisa Jackson, President-elect Barack Obama's pick to run the Environmental Protection Agency, is "not shy about enforcement and regulation."
That's the assessment of Peter Furey, executive director of the New Jersey Farm Bureau.
Jackson ran New Jersey's state environmental agency until recently becoming the governor's chief of staff. Before that, she was at the EPA for 16 years in Washington and New York. Under Obama, she would be part of a three-person team who will oversee environmental policy.
The others are Carol Browner, who directed the EPA under the Clinton administration and will oversee climate-change policy out of Obama's White House; and Nancy Sutley, a deputy Los Angeles mayor who will run the White House Council on Environmental Quality.
Jackson pushed for new regulations on land use that affected farms, including restrictions near rivers. She grew up in New Orleans, has a master's degree in chemical engineering and knew little about farms when she took the state job. But Furey applauded her willingness to listen to business interests and said the Farm Bureau made headway with her by taking her on a farm tour. Read More
There is always a lot of uncertainty as to how regulations and policies may change when our country elects swears in a new President. In about three weeks, we will start finding out. Being involved in the political process isn’t fun for a lot of people in our industry, but it is a necessary evil. The world is run by those who show up and in today’s political climate, agriculture can’t afford to take a day off.
Protecting Livestock Owners
Controversial animal bill at top of agenda
Chad Livengood • News-Leader • December 26, 2008
State Rep. Jim Viebrock plans to resurrect a controversial bill requiring a veterinarian to inspect farm animals suspected of being abused before authorities can impound the animal.
This will be the fourth straight year Viebrock has pursued reforms to the way state and local government authorities can seize animals from an owner when there are allegations of abuse.
Viebrock, R-Republic, said he intends to file the bill for the 2009 legislation session, which begins Jan. 7.
By bringing in an impartial state veterinarian from the Department of Agriculture to inspect an animal, Viebrock's bill aims to curtail abuse of the system by some animal rescue groups that reportedly inject themselves into alleged abuse cases for the chance to sell and profit from the animals. Read More
In instances of alleged abuse of livestock, there needs to be some common sense involved in determining if it’s true. Seizing someone’s livelihood based on nothing more than a “concerned citizen’s” uneducated opinion is definitely something that needs to change. Common sense legislation usually has trouble getting passed into law, but things like this should be a no-brainer.
Chad Livengood • News-Leader • December 26, 2008
State Rep. Jim Viebrock plans to resurrect a controversial bill requiring a veterinarian to inspect farm animals suspected of being abused before authorities can impound the animal.
This will be the fourth straight year Viebrock has pursued reforms to the way state and local government authorities can seize animals from an owner when there are allegations of abuse.
Viebrock, R-Republic, said he intends to file the bill for the 2009 legislation session, which begins Jan. 7.
By bringing in an impartial state veterinarian from the Department of Agriculture to inspect an animal, Viebrock's bill aims to curtail abuse of the system by some animal rescue groups that reportedly inject themselves into alleged abuse cases for the chance to sell and profit from the animals. Read More
In instances of alleged abuse of livestock, there needs to be some common sense involved in determining if it’s true. Seizing someone’s livelihood based on nothing more than a “concerned citizen’s” uneducated opinion is definitely something that needs to change. Common sense legislation usually has trouble getting passed into law, but things like this should be a no-brainer.
I Love Prime Rib For the Holidays
Good deeds stained with animal blood
Posted By DAN WILSON
"So while you're home today eating your sweet, sweet holiday turkey, I hope you'll all choke ... just a little bit."
-Kent Brockman, Channel 6 News
That charming little quote is from The Simpson's, and while I consider it to be one of the funniest shows on television, I honestly have no desire to see anyone suffer ... not even a little bit.
I would, however, like people to think about the choices they make and why they do the things they do, especially when it comes to the way we treat others in the pursuit of own individual interests.
Christmas easily comes to mind. It's a time of sharing, family gatherings and being thankful for what we have.
We spend the days and weeks leading up to Christmas looking for just the right gifts for family and friends, feeling all good inside about how nice and thoughtful we are. Perhaps we even do some volunteer work to ease the suffering of those less fortunate.
Then on Christmas Day, after all the presents are exchanged and the smell of homecooking fills the house, we take our places at the dinner table, say a little prayer, and feast on the slaughtered remains of some defenceless turkey, goose or pig.
In the name of peace, love and goodwill towards others we cause or sanction the unnecessary suffering and violent deaths of other animals, and think nothing of it. Read More
I’m always slightly amused when someone writes an article and manages to fit in every buzz word and sound bite that the animal rights crowd has to offer. This is the mentality that we are up against. Trying to give human qualities to animals is a very dangerous road for our society to go down. No one is more qualified to educate our country about the importance of using our natural resources than those of us in agriculture.
Posted By DAN WILSON
"So while you're home today eating your sweet, sweet holiday turkey, I hope you'll all choke ... just a little bit."
-Kent Brockman, Channel 6 News
That charming little quote is from The Simpson's, and while I consider it to be one of the funniest shows on television, I honestly have no desire to see anyone suffer ... not even a little bit.
I would, however, like people to think about the choices they make and why they do the things they do, especially when it comes to the way we treat others in the pursuit of own individual interests.
Christmas easily comes to mind. It's a time of sharing, family gatherings and being thankful for what we have.
We spend the days and weeks leading up to Christmas looking for just the right gifts for family and friends, feeling all good inside about how nice and thoughtful we are. Perhaps we even do some volunteer work to ease the suffering of those less fortunate.
Then on Christmas Day, after all the presents are exchanged and the smell of homecooking fills the house, we take our places at the dinner table, say a little prayer, and feast on the slaughtered remains of some defenceless turkey, goose or pig.
In the name of peace, love and goodwill towards others we cause or sanction the unnecessary suffering and violent deaths of other animals, and think nothing of it. Read More
I’m always slightly amused when someone writes an article and manages to fit in every buzz word and sound bite that the animal rights crowd has to offer. This is the mentality that we are up against. Trying to give human qualities to animals is a very dangerous road for our society to go down. No one is more qualified to educate our country about the importance of using our natural resources than those of us in agriculture.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Attacking the Amercian Food Producer
Not the cream of the crop
December 22, 2008
Boston Globe Editorial
CORPORATE farming is so politically muscular that the industry has its own pet Cabinet department. In tapping former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack this week to run the US Department of Agriculture, President-elect Barack Obama made a conventional choice. But what's needed is radical reform.
Vilsack's record gives little indication that he will take on the farm lobby, which has supported bloated subsidies and price supports for industrial-scale agriculture.
Family farmers were once the backbone of the US economy. Today, the interests of agribusiness diverge from the needs of the eating public. The department is charged with recommending a healthful diet, but that duty conflicts with the department's usual role of promoting what US farmers produce. An ever-pudgier populace needs to eat more fresh vegetables, but federal policy promotes massive production of a small number of grains. Read More
Almost unbelievably, this opinion piece in the Boston Globe suggests in the margins that agriculture isn’t really necessary anymore. With comments like “its own pet Cabinet department” and “were once the backbone of the US economy”, the author has no appreciation for the unprecedented food production ability of the American farmer and rancher. Is there any other country on this planet that you would trade food production abilities with?
December 22, 2008
Boston Globe Editorial
CORPORATE farming is so politically muscular that the industry has its own pet Cabinet department. In tapping former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack this week to run the US Department of Agriculture, President-elect Barack Obama made a conventional choice. But what's needed is radical reform.
Vilsack's record gives little indication that he will take on the farm lobby, which has supported bloated subsidies and price supports for industrial-scale agriculture.
Family farmers were once the backbone of the US economy. Today, the interests of agribusiness diverge from the needs of the eating public. The department is charged with recommending a healthful diet, but that duty conflicts with the department's usual role of promoting what US farmers produce. An ever-pudgier populace needs to eat more fresh vegetables, but federal policy promotes massive production of a small number of grains. Read More
Almost unbelievably, this opinion piece in the Boston Globe suggests in the margins that agriculture isn’t really necessary anymore. With comments like “its own pet Cabinet department” and “were once the backbone of the US economy”, the author has no appreciation for the unprecedented food production ability of the American farmer and rancher. Is there any other country on this planet that you would trade food production abilities with?
The Hormone Debate
EU Wants Sanctions Justified in WTO Beef Hormone Case
By Jennifer M. Freedman
Dec. 22 (Bloomberg) -- The European Union wants the U.S. and Canada to drop sanctions stemming from EU restrictions on imports of hormone-treated beef, saying the 27-nation bloc’s laws are now “fully in line” with World Trade Organization rules.
Today’s request for consultations comes two months after WTO appellate judges reversed most conclusions reached by a panel on the legality of the EU’s ban on hormone-treated beef and dismissed a finding suggesting that the bloc’s policies violate global trade rules.
“We are convinced that our legislation on hormones is fully in line with WTO law,” European Commission spokesman Peter Power said in a statement issued from Geneva. “The restrictions on hormone-treated beef are based on solid scientific evidence showing risks for human health.”
The WTO said in February 1998 that the EU moratorium on hormone-treated beef -- in place since 1989 -- wasn’t justified because the bloc hadn’t scientifically proven a cancer risk to consumers. When the EU failed to end the moratorium after a 15- month deadline, the U.S. and Canada were authorized to levy duties on European imports including Roquefort cheese, textiles, onions and dried carrots. Read More
In our travels speaking to groups across the country, one of the most requested pieces of information that we get is on hormones. In order for a person to get as much estrogen as there is in a birth control pill, they would have to eat over 3000 pounds of conventionally raised beef every day. The fact of the matter is that many vegetables have more estrogen in them than beef does. There is no such thing as hormone free in life. Hormones are required for life to function. Any food labeled as hormone free is a farce.
By Jennifer M. Freedman
Dec. 22 (Bloomberg) -- The European Union wants the U.S. and Canada to drop sanctions stemming from EU restrictions on imports of hormone-treated beef, saying the 27-nation bloc’s laws are now “fully in line” with World Trade Organization rules.
Today’s request for consultations comes two months after WTO appellate judges reversed most conclusions reached by a panel on the legality of the EU’s ban on hormone-treated beef and dismissed a finding suggesting that the bloc’s policies violate global trade rules.
“We are convinced that our legislation on hormones is fully in line with WTO law,” European Commission spokesman Peter Power said in a statement issued from Geneva. “The restrictions on hormone-treated beef are based on solid scientific evidence showing risks for human health.”
The WTO said in February 1998 that the EU moratorium on hormone-treated beef -- in place since 1989 -- wasn’t justified because the bloc hadn’t scientifically proven a cancer risk to consumers. When the EU failed to end the moratorium after a 15- month deadline, the U.S. and Canada were authorized to levy duties on European imports including Roquefort cheese, textiles, onions and dried carrots. Read More
In our travels speaking to groups across the country, one of the most requested pieces of information that we get is on hormones. In order for a person to get as much estrogen as there is in a birth control pill, they would have to eat over 3000 pounds of conventionally raised beef every day. The fact of the matter is that many vegetables have more estrogen in them than beef does. There is no such thing as hormone free in life. Hormones are required for life to function. Any food labeled as hormone free is a farce.
AR's Lose in Court
Court rejects animal-rights appeal
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Animal-rights advocates who accused UCSF of illegally spending state money on painful animal experiments have been rebuffed by a state appeals court, which said Congress has assigned oversight of the research to federal regulators, not state courts.
The federal Animal Welfare Act, which requires humane treatment of animals in federally funded research, can be enforced only by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, said the First District Court of Appeal in a ruling Friday. The court upheld a San Francisco judge's November 2007 dismissal of a suit by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.
The USDA's job is to strike a "somewhat delicate balance" between animal protection and the independence of research scientists, the court said. Allowing judges and juries to interfere with federally regulated experiments "might inject inconsistency and unpredictability into laboratory research" and discourage scientists from entering the field, Justice Timothy Reardon said in the 3-0 decision. Read More
Animal research that is done in a scientific manner and follows all the regulations in place benefits society immensely. Many of the diseases that are only seen in a history book are there because of our ability to first test on animals. This research has also allowed us to keep a healthier animal population as well. Allowing the courts to interfere with the rules already established for animal testing would only set us back in our efforts to continue making our planet healthier.
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Animal-rights advocates who accused UCSF of illegally spending state money on painful animal experiments have been rebuffed by a state appeals court, which said Congress has assigned oversight of the research to federal regulators, not state courts.
The federal Animal Welfare Act, which requires humane treatment of animals in federally funded research, can be enforced only by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, said the First District Court of Appeal in a ruling Friday. The court upheld a San Francisco judge's November 2007 dismissal of a suit by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.
The USDA's job is to strike a "somewhat delicate balance" between animal protection and the independence of research scientists, the court said. Allowing judges and juries to interfere with federally regulated experiments "might inject inconsistency and unpredictability into laboratory research" and discourage scientists from entering the field, Justice Timothy Reardon said in the 3-0 decision. Read More
Animal research that is done in a scientific manner and follows all the regulations in place benefits society immensely. Many of the diseases that are only seen in a history book are there because of our ability to first test on animals. This research has also allowed us to keep a healthier animal population as well. Allowing the courts to interfere with the rules already established for animal testing would only set us back in our efforts to continue making our planet healthier.
Monday, December 22, 2008
More Buzz on Sec. of Food
New administration: Secretary of food
Seattle PI Opinion Page
President-elect Barack Obama took a big step when he gave former Sen. Tom Daschle, his nominee for secretary of Health and Human Services, a broader mandate to coordinate health reform. For whatever reasons, the incoming administration has shied away from such a sweeping, intelligent approach to food policy.
We liked the call of columnist Nicholas Kristof for a secretary of food. We need a reformer charged with transcending the 19th- and 20th-century idea of a Cabinet officer serving the needs of farmers. With that perspective, it would be possible to unite producers, consumers and government in delivering diets that are healthy for the people, the land and the economy.
Talking to NPR's Renee Montagne, Pollan summed up why it is so important to get out of the limited mind-set favoring promotion of big agricultural-related corporations: "The food system is responsible for about a third of greenhouse gases. It is responsible for the catastrophic American diet that is leading 50 percent of us to suffer from chronic disease, and that drives up health care costs." Read More
There has been a lot of talk created by Kristof’s article calling for a Secretary of Food. This article quotes Michael Pollan and shows his true colors. He blames ag for producing a third of the greenhouse gasses and the chronic diseases. He is blaming you. His socialist tendencies also come out as he seems to want to scrap the idea of consumers being responsible for their food choices. People like Pollan and Kristof are telling the story of agriculture for you. If you disagree with them, you need to let consumers and politicians hear your views.
Seattle PI Opinion Page
President-elect Barack Obama took a big step when he gave former Sen. Tom Daschle, his nominee for secretary of Health and Human Services, a broader mandate to coordinate health reform. For whatever reasons, the incoming administration has shied away from such a sweeping, intelligent approach to food policy.
We liked the call of columnist Nicholas Kristof for a secretary of food. We need a reformer charged with transcending the 19th- and 20th-century idea of a Cabinet officer serving the needs of farmers. With that perspective, it would be possible to unite producers, consumers and government in delivering diets that are healthy for the people, the land and the economy.
Talking to NPR's Renee Montagne, Pollan summed up why it is so important to get out of the limited mind-set favoring promotion of big agricultural-related corporations: "The food system is responsible for about a third of greenhouse gases. It is responsible for the catastrophic American diet that is leading 50 percent of us to suffer from chronic disease, and that drives up health care costs." Read More
There has been a lot of talk created by Kristof’s article calling for a Secretary of Food. This article quotes Michael Pollan and shows his true colors. He blames ag for producing a third of the greenhouse gasses and the chronic diseases. He is blaming you. His socialist tendencies also come out as he seems to want to scrap the idea of consumers being responsible for their food choices. People like Pollan and Kristof are telling the story of agriculture for you. If you disagree with them, you need to let consumers and politicians hear your views.
Netherlands Deals With Activists
Netherlands to crack down on animal rights extremism
BRUSSELS, Dec. 22 (Xinhua) -- The Netherlands will set up a special police unit to address radical actions against individuals and companies by animal rights activists, the Home Affairs Ministry said.
The special team, which also includes members from the public prosecution department and the Dutch intelligence service, will try to prevent dangerous intimidation practices by extreme animal rights organizations, Home Affairs Minister Guusje ter Horst was quoted by local newspaper De Telegraaf as saying Sunday.
The decision followed repeated attacks on company or individual properties in the Netherlands by animal rights activists.
The latest one occurred early Saturday morning when two cars of a top executive of NYSE Euronext Amsterdam stock exchange, which were parked in front of his home in the western Dutch town of Wassenaar, were set on fire. Read More
We aren’t the only country in the world that are dealing with animal rights activists that are trying to kill people to convey their message. These criminals continue to threaten and intimidate executives and researchers that are engaged in animal testing that could eventually save your life someday. My challenge to these groups would be to only use products, including medical treatments that haven’t come about through the use of animals. There is no doubt their life span would be drastically shortened.
BRUSSELS, Dec. 22 (Xinhua) -- The Netherlands will set up a special police unit to address radical actions against individuals and companies by animal rights activists, the Home Affairs Ministry said.
The special team, which also includes members from the public prosecution department and the Dutch intelligence service, will try to prevent dangerous intimidation practices by extreme animal rights organizations, Home Affairs Minister Guusje ter Horst was quoted by local newspaper De Telegraaf as saying Sunday.
The decision followed repeated attacks on company or individual properties in the Netherlands by animal rights activists.
The latest one occurred early Saturday morning when two cars of a top executive of NYSE Euronext Amsterdam stock exchange, which were parked in front of his home in the western Dutch town of Wassenaar, were set on fire. Read More
We aren’t the only country in the world that are dealing with animal rights activists that are trying to kill people to convey their message. These criminals continue to threaten and intimidate executives and researchers that are engaged in animal testing that could eventually save your life someday. My challenge to these groups would be to only use products, including medical treatments that haven’t come about through the use of animals. There is no doubt their life span would be drastically shortened.
Oprah's Award
PETA Names Oprah Its "Person of the Year"
By ADAM BRYANTTV GUIDE
Continuing her way toward total world domination, talk-show queen Oprah Winfrey has been named "Person of the Year" by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
Winfrey was selected for using her talk show to bring light to issues important to the Norfolk, Va.-based animal rights group's mission, with episodes that have, for example, focused on puppy mills and the treatment of chickens and other animals in factory farms. Winfrey also went on a vegan diet for a week, and in April, dedicated an episode of her show to her late cocker spaniel Sophie, who died at age 13.
Winfrey has "used her powerful voice to defend those without one," PETA president Ingrid Newkirk said in a statemement. Winfrey, who was unavailable for comment, according to The Associated Press, will receive a plaque and a letter of appreciation.
Previous winners of the PETA award include U.S. Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia in 2007 and the founders of the San Francisco-based cleaning product company Method in 2006. Link
Even though Oprah realized that a vegan diet was impractical, all of her other activities won her PETA’s Person of the Year. And why wouldn’t PETA want to throw accolades at one of the most influential people in America. She is against American agriculture and likes dogs, what more could PETA want.
By ADAM BRYANTTV GUIDE
Continuing her way toward total world domination, talk-show queen Oprah Winfrey has been named "Person of the Year" by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
Winfrey was selected for using her talk show to bring light to issues important to the Norfolk, Va.-based animal rights group's mission, with episodes that have, for example, focused on puppy mills and the treatment of chickens and other animals in factory farms. Winfrey also went on a vegan diet for a week, and in April, dedicated an episode of her show to her late cocker spaniel Sophie, who died at age 13.
Winfrey has "used her powerful voice to defend those without one," PETA president Ingrid Newkirk said in a statemement. Winfrey, who was unavailable for comment, according to The Associated Press, will receive a plaque and a letter of appreciation.
Previous winners of the PETA award include U.S. Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia in 2007 and the founders of the San Francisco-based cleaning product company Method in 2006. Link
Even though Oprah realized that a vegan diet was impractical, all of her other activities won her PETA’s Person of the Year. And why wouldn’t PETA want to throw accolades at one of the most influential people in America. She is against American agriculture and likes dogs, what more could PETA want.
Friday, December 19, 2008
I had an interesting thing happen to me this week. Once in a while I read Wayne Pacelle’s blog on the HSUS website. It often times gives you a glimpse into their outrageous thinking and lack of knowledge about production agriculture.
The posting I read was about the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) and Wayne was trying to deflect the criticism of his organization that was published in a full page ad in the New York Times on December 11 by the CCF. CCF also launched a new website that chronicles the agenda and tactics of the HSUS. Apparently he couldn’t dispute the claims very well since he spent most of the time attacking CCF. He claims that there is no disclosure on CCF’s funding. I knew enough that CCF is a 501 c (3) which means they have to file financial reports with the IRS and those reports are available for public inspection. Keep in mind that these are the same reports that HSUS is required to file. No more, no less.
So I left a comment that said CCF had to file these reports and they were available for anyone to see. I also asked if Wayne wasn’t telling truth about this, what else should we be wondering about. After a day, my comment still wasn’t posted but I received an email from Bernie Unti, a Senior Policy Advisor at HSUS and Wayne’s special assistant.
His page long response was quite interesting, especially when he questioned my ability to think critically. After reading his email, it is quite apparent that their biggest fear is people who can think for themselves rather than falling in step with their group. It is also apparent that HSUS will not print or acknowledge on their blog when they receive comments contrary to their opinion.
If anyone ever tries to post a comment and has a similar situation, please let me know so we can post it on this blog. It’s probably your only chance of getting on the web.
Below is the response I received from Bernie.
The posting I read was about the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) and Wayne was trying to deflect the criticism of his organization that was published in a full page ad in the New York Times on December 11 by the CCF. CCF also launched a new website that chronicles the agenda and tactics of the HSUS. Apparently he couldn’t dispute the claims very well since he spent most of the time attacking CCF. He claims that there is no disclosure on CCF’s funding. I knew enough that CCF is a 501 c (3) which means they have to file financial reports with the IRS and those reports are available for public inspection. Keep in mind that these are the same reports that HSUS is required to file. No more, no less.
So I left a comment that said CCF had to file these reports and they were available for anyone to see. I also asked if Wayne wasn’t telling truth about this, what else should we be wondering about. After a day, my comment still wasn’t posted but I received an email from Bernie Unti, a Senior Policy Advisor at HSUS and Wayne’s special assistant.
His page long response was quite interesting, especially when he questioned my ability to think critically. After reading his email, it is quite apparent that their biggest fear is people who can think for themselves rather than falling in step with their group. It is also apparent that HSUS will not print or acknowledge on their blog when they receive comments contrary to their opinion.
If anyone ever tries to post a comment and has a similar situation, please let me know so we can post it on this blog. It’s probably your only chance of getting on the web.
Below is the response I received from Bernie.
Your Friend in Ag,
Troy
Hello, Troy,
The blog editor passed on your short comment to me for reply, and I am glad to provide one. There's a lot that could be said about CCF and its operations, but here's a useful link that says a lot of it: http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom#Funding <https://webmail.hsus.org/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom%23Funding> . You can find other sites to learn more about the group and its unusual history.
As you point out, the CCF has 501(c)(3) status, and files a 990. But as someone who reads it each year, I have never found it very enlightening. Who gets the salaries? What is the precise relationship to Rick Berman's corporate PR firm? What is the CCF's specific charitable purpose? Does Berman's company just collect money from big companies and channel it into the (c)(3) to carry out PR wars under the guise of being a charity, like the Boys Clubs or the Girl Scouts of America? Do you think that's really legitimate? I don't.
I would assume that as a rancher you have strong convictions about animal agriculture and the reforms that The HSUS has been trying to introduce since 1954. That's right, 1954, when the organization first formed to push for passage of the Humane Slaughter Act. There is nothing -- nothing -- new about our working on farm animals, something I hope that you will take care to point out when you write about us or go out and talk in public. In the same vein, there is nothing -- nothing -- new about our criticisms of intensive confinement agriculture. The HSUS has been critical of such methods since the 1970s. What's different now is that the broader society is coming to recognize the validity of our position, and the environmental, animal welfare, public health, and national security dimensions of food production are coming under greater scrutiny. Those who would oppose the reforms under way, and we must count the CCF among them, are swimming against the tide, and doing the nation harm in the longer run.
I'm deeply sorry that an apparently decent and rational person as yourself would accept without scrutiny the fast and loose approach to the facts taken by the CCF. Do you really believe, on the basis of the six degrees from Kevin Bacon game that CCF played in its recent NYT advert, that I am a terrorist or employed by a terrorist organization? That's an unbelievably coarse and malicious perspective to take in the post-September 11 era. They're scrambled up on the basics in respect to all seven of the seven "facts" in their latest fact sheet.
Personally, I think that the traditional producer has little to fear and much to gain from the reforms under consideration. I'm personally hopeful that we'll see the incoming administration appoint a Secretary of Agriculture who supports, humane, sustainable, and organic method of production throughout our national agricultural system.
Sincerely,
Bernard Unti, Ph.D.
Senior Policy Adviser
Special Assistant to the CEO
Exposing the True Agenda
Exposed: Activists’ Attacks on Meat Production Intensify
Written By: Alan Caruba
In 2006 the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) issued a report, “Livestock’s Long Shadow,” that was so full of absurd claims, dressed up to look like science, that I made a mental note to revisit the issue.
An ominous new angle to the issue of livestock production came with the FAO report, however, because activists claim worldwide beef production is a major contributor to present and future global warming harms asserted by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
As Krystle Russin noted in the September 2008 issue of of Environment & Climate News, “Global warming activists are putting agriculture firmly in their crosshairs, launching new efforts to restrict meat production and consumption.” The article noted, “Global warming activists say keeping livestock at a farm uses too much energy,” and observed, “the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations attributed 18 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions to livestock.”
The FAO complaint ignores an extremely important consideration, however, as the Pacific Research Institute reports: “Worldwide, livestock production provides livelihoods for 1.3 billion people, and particularly in developing countries, livestock are also a source of renewable energy for farming activities, and a source of organic fertilizer.” Read More
It’s always refreshing to see someone look at the blatant, baseless attacks on agriculture with a critical eye. Blaming the American Farmer and Rancher for global warming is absolutely ridiculous. We can barely grow a tree where I live, let alone have to cut down a rain forest in order to raise cattle. Marlo Lewis’ quote was dead on when he said that the global warming campaign is only meant to control people’s lives.
Written By: Alan Caruba
In 2006 the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) issued a report, “Livestock’s Long Shadow,” that was so full of absurd claims, dressed up to look like science, that I made a mental note to revisit the issue.
An ominous new angle to the issue of livestock production came with the FAO report, however, because activists claim worldwide beef production is a major contributor to present and future global warming harms asserted by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
As Krystle Russin noted in the September 2008 issue of of Environment & Climate News, “Global warming activists are putting agriculture firmly in their crosshairs, launching new efforts to restrict meat production and consumption.” The article noted, “Global warming activists say keeping livestock at a farm uses too much energy,” and observed, “the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations attributed 18 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions to livestock.”
The FAO complaint ignores an extremely important consideration, however, as the Pacific Research Institute reports: “Worldwide, livestock production provides livelihoods for 1.3 billion people, and particularly in developing countries, livestock are also a source of renewable energy for farming activities, and a source of organic fertilizer.” Read More
It’s always refreshing to see someone look at the blatant, baseless attacks on agriculture with a critical eye. Blaming the American Farmer and Rancher for global warming is absolutely ridiculous. We can barely grow a tree where I live, let alone have to cut down a rain forest in order to raise cattle. Marlo Lewis’ quote was dead on when he said that the global warming campaign is only meant to control people’s lives.
No honeymoon for Vilsack with animal rights group
By Janie Gabbett on 12/19/2008
President-elect Obama's appointment of former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack was met with a round of congratulatory statements from the agricultural community, but at least one animal rights group decided to forgo the honeymoon.
"Vilsack has an uneven track record when it comes to farm animals and fighting factory farming," said Gene Baur, president and co-founder of Farm Sanctuary, a self-described farm animal protection organization, in a statement.
"He has supported some animal protection measures and has at times stood up to Big Ag, yet he has also taken actions that are not in the best interest of farm animals and rural communities," Baur added, noting that during his tenure as governor of Iowa, the state saw a proliferation of massive hog farms.
"This is not a time for us to be complacent, but a time to remind Vilsack that USDA was founded as the people's department, not the factory farmers' department," he added. Link
As was to be expected, Vilsack is already taking heat from the animal rights crowd. I mentioned earlier this week when his name was announced that the new Secretary would be under a lot of pressure from people that want to eliminate production agriculture, and particularly animal agriculture. Two days after being announced, it has started.
By Janie Gabbett on 12/19/2008
President-elect Obama's appointment of former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack was met with a round of congratulatory statements from the agricultural community, but at least one animal rights group decided to forgo the honeymoon.
"Vilsack has an uneven track record when it comes to farm animals and fighting factory farming," said Gene Baur, president and co-founder of Farm Sanctuary, a self-described farm animal protection organization, in a statement.
"He has supported some animal protection measures and has at times stood up to Big Ag, yet he has also taken actions that are not in the best interest of farm animals and rural communities," Baur added, noting that during his tenure as governor of Iowa, the state saw a proliferation of massive hog farms.
"This is not a time for us to be complacent, but a time to remind Vilsack that USDA was founded as the people's department, not the factory farmers' department," he added. Link
As was to be expected, Vilsack is already taking heat from the animal rights crowd. I mentioned earlier this week when his name was announced that the new Secretary would be under a lot of pressure from people that want to eliminate production agriculture, and particularly animal agriculture. Two days after being announced, it has started.
EU Wants More Labels
Increasing consumer awareness of welfare
News 19 December, 2008
By Jack Davies
(Note: This story is from the European Union)
ANIMAL welfare labels should be introduced across all meat and dairy products to help improve standards on the farm, a Government advisory panel claimed this week.
Publishing its opinion on Government policy instruments, the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) recommended a new labelling system would encourage farmers to pay greater attention to animal welfare.
Overall, the report concluded Government instruments to protect animal welfare are appropriate, but advises more work could be done at a consumer level to promote welfare.
Read More
Any type of labeling system like this will only result in higher priced food. And with the European Union already unable to feed itself, this new recommendation has the potential to increase the problem. HSUS continues trying to convince Americans that we need to follow the European model of food production. And that model consists of higher priced food, more imported food, and a devastated farming economy.
News 19 December, 2008
By Jack Davies
(Note: This story is from the European Union)
ANIMAL welfare labels should be introduced across all meat and dairy products to help improve standards on the farm, a Government advisory panel claimed this week.
Publishing its opinion on Government policy instruments, the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) recommended a new labelling system would encourage farmers to pay greater attention to animal welfare.
Overall, the report concluded Government instruments to protect animal welfare are appropriate, but advises more work could be done at a consumer level to promote welfare.
Read More
Any type of labeling system like this will only result in higher priced food. And with the European Union already unable to feed itself, this new recommendation has the potential to increase the problem. HSUS continues trying to convince Americans that we need to follow the European model of food production. And that model consists of higher priced food, more imported food, and a devastated farming economy.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Vilsack Selected
Obama to Pick Tom Vilsack To Lead USDA
By Philip Rucker and Dan Morgan
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, December 17, 2008; A15
Former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack, a strong proponent of ethanol who made a brief bid for the presidency in 2007, will be named today as President-elect Barack Obama's nominee for agriculture secretary, a senior Democratic official said.
Obama is expected to announce Vilsack and Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), his pick for interior secretary, at a news conference in Chicago, as he races to round out his Cabinet before a Christmas vacation. Vilsack, 58, will lead a sprawling federal bureaucracy charged with overseeing farm subsidies, land conservation, food safety and hunger programs.
Both environmentalists and food industry leaders reacted positively to the choice of Vilsack, a political centrist.
"We're encouraged by it," said Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group. "He thinks we need to reform the subsidy system, he recognizes the importance of the food programs, and he's very good on conservation." Read More
We can finally lay all the speculation on who our new Ag Secretary will be. Gov. Vilsack appears to be the pick and he will be under a lot of pressure to oversee major reforms in the department. Many people would like to see USDA leave it’s original purpose, which was to make sure farmers and ranchers in this country were given the tools to provide enough food and fiber to support our population, to one that forces producers into unrealistic production practices. Be prepared to get involved in this argument.
By Philip Rucker and Dan Morgan
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, December 17, 2008; A15
Former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack, a strong proponent of ethanol who made a brief bid for the presidency in 2007, will be named today as President-elect Barack Obama's nominee for agriculture secretary, a senior Democratic official said.
Obama is expected to announce Vilsack and Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), his pick for interior secretary, at a news conference in Chicago, as he races to round out his Cabinet before a Christmas vacation. Vilsack, 58, will lead a sprawling federal bureaucracy charged with overseeing farm subsidies, land conservation, food safety and hunger programs.
Both environmentalists and food industry leaders reacted positively to the choice of Vilsack, a political centrist.
"We're encouraged by it," said Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group. "He thinks we need to reform the subsidy system, he recognizes the importance of the food programs, and he's very good on conservation." Read More
We can finally lay all the speculation on who our new Ag Secretary will be. Gov. Vilsack appears to be the pick and he will be under a lot of pressure to oversee major reforms in the department. Many people would like to see USDA leave it’s original purpose, which was to make sure farmers and ranchers in this country were given the tools to provide enough food and fiber to support our population, to one that forces producers into unrealistic production practices. Be prepared to get involved in this argument.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)