Home

Manipulating Mankind

Leave a comment

Reprinted with permission of the author

by John Munsell | Aug 10, 2010

 “There is something fascinating about science.  One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.”  — Mark Twain

__________________________________________


If only Mark Twain were alive today, he would have a field day commenting on what the U.S. Department of Agriculture considers to be “scientific”.  

Subsequent to the Jack In The Box E. coli outbreak in 1993, USDA desperately and hurriedly implemented the current Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) protocol of deregulated meat inspection.  HACCP was originally invented by Pillsbury, focused on the production of consistently safe food for NASA and the Army.  Pillsbury’s HACCP required “Kill Steps” during food production, meaning that the food had to be subjected to a kill step such as fully cooking or irradiation, effectively killing all pathogens.  Pillsbury’s HACCP system was truly based in science, and creates safe food.

USDA intentionally changed the Pillsbury protocol, but of course, retained the right to classify its HACCP imposter as allegedly being “science-based”.  USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) demands that all federally inspected plants implement USDA-style HACCP.  Thus, FSIS requires that HACCP be used for all raw meat and poultry, which by definition does not utilize kill steps, but still qualifies for USDA-style HACCP. More

Meat, poultry industries await new antitrust rules

Leave a comment

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. More

Report shows less beef production, growing exports

Leave a comment

www.naisSTINKS.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

DROVERS INDUSTRY NEWS  1-20-10

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

NAIS has won the award for 2009’s most DASTARDLY USDA IDEA

Leave a comment

 
 NAIS has won the award for 2009’s most DASTARDLY USDA IDEA. In Ag Sec Vilsack’s listening sessions, designed to find some common ground of appreciation for the USDA brain child, the bribe-riddled NAIS found accumulations of increasing retch with each of 16 town hall style meetings. Livestock people increased dislike with each interpretive spin from USDA. Although the livestock press, USDA state veterinarians and USDA universities defend full-blown NAIS, livestock producers were not willing to relinquish their meager profits for the red tape of a new government enforcement program.
When NAIS was not palatable federally, the USDA split the troops and provided over $150,000,000 in incentives for each state to take NAIS as a state enforcement project. When that costly idea slammed head-on to more resistance, in court and otherwise, now the USDA troops are dividing more. NAIS surveillance is becoming mandatory for certain disease studies. To try and forget the flawed thought of NAIS, new names are now being invented like “animal ID”, “information systems”, “food safety”, “animal health emergency management”, “animal security” and a host of other invented terms, just to sell the same old NAIS enforcement.
Beyond the millions spent to swallow NAIS, now many more millions are being spent to huddle government employees around new brain schemes to sugar-coat livestock surveillance enforcements. The article below is filled with costly processes that will be paid for by livestock owners and create more government jobs.
At a unique time in the history of agriculture production, when cost of goods are increasing, profits are reducing, the USDA is working at mach-speed to increase red tape and cost of doing business. Now, here it comes again, “One Health.” More

Ohio: Issue # 2 creates unlimited, uncontolled power to Livestock Care Standards Board

Leave a comment

IMG_0003We agree with and support the premise of issue 2 but not as a constitutional amendment.

The same objective to thwart PETA and HSUS could have been accomplished by including the key words “agricultural best management practices for such care and well-being” in section 900 of the Ohio Revised Code. This we do support.

Our problem with this constitutional amendment is the excessive power it places in the hands of a 13-member group of non-elected bureaucrats. This constitutional amendment places in the Board’s hands the power to mandate whatever they choose, and it is the Department of Ag that will implement and enforce those decisions of the Board. (see the text of proposed amendment at  The text of the amendment includes “consider factors that include, but are not limited to,” which gives the Board authority far beyond the scope of its stated purpose. In the text “agricultural best management practices for such care and well-being” is the part that will thwart HSUS and their cronies. “Biosecurity,” “disease prevention,” “animal morbidity and mortality data,” “food safety practices,” and “the protection of local, affordable food supplies” are already covered in Ohio Revised Code. More

Ohio Issue 2: Cementing Corporate Agribusiness

1 Comment

A full copy of the proposed assault on the Ohio constitution is attached at the end of this article.  Thanks to www.ohioacts.org for compiling this comprehensive statement on what this proposed coup against Ohio sovereign citizens will actually do.

Tell a Friend 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

T046942A Ohio Issue 2: Cementing Corporate Agribusiness

 Issue 2 on the November ballot is an industry attempt to change the Ohio state constitution, establishing a “Livestock Care Standards Board” that would have unchecked power to establish standards for livestock and poultry. Technically the product of the Ohio General Assembly, the ballot issue is heavily backed by groups representing major agribusiness interests, including the Ohio Farm Bureau and The Ohio Pork Producers Council.

While masquerading as an attempt to improve food safety and animal welfare, Issue 2 in reality is an attempt by big industry to preempt statewide initiatives like the recent Proposition 2 in California,2 which phased out problematic animal production practices like battery cages for chickens. In effect, the proposed Livestock Care Standards Board would give a dozen political appointees broad and unchecked power to decide rules on animal welfare, potentially reshaping regulations on how animals are raised, tracked or traced.  READ

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ppjg-48 Commentary by:  Marti Oakley with Paul Griepentrog

It appears as a result of the massive backlash against the seizure of the US food production and supply as outlined in Hr 2749 which passed the House on July 30, 2009, the corporate agricultural producers who thought they had it in the bag, who were going to be handed total control of US food production and supply as a result of political cronyism, aren’t quite getting what they wanted as fast as they anticipated. More

%d bloggers like this: