Here Come FDA Compost Technicians; Flagstaff, AZ, Feels Urgency for Food Sovereignty Ordinance; Hershberger Trial Update
“Take peanuts. To be safe, I want them tested as they leave the fields. I want them processed at temperatures high enough to kill salmonella. I want to store them covered so birds can’t contaminate them with their droppings. I want them tested before they are released to stores. These sorts of things will now be law.”
Dr. Richard Besser, chief health and medical editor, ABC News, on the Friday evening national news describing new rules issued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to implement the Food Safety Modernization Act, passed in January 2011.
I don't know much about producing peanuts, and it could be that the procedures Besser has long lusted for (he spent 13 years with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control before arriving at ABC News) are good ones for mass producing roasted peanuts. But the underlying message of his report on the new FDA rules is unfortunate--closely regulating farms in the fields is a good thing, and processing the hell out of foods to kill any possible pathogens is a good thing.
Nearly three years ago, I asked in a blog post on the then-proposed new national food safety regulations a question I thought sounded provocative, but was likely far-fetched: “How does the idea of consulting a ‘technician’ sound in connection with producing your own compost?”
That “technician” will likely be stopping by many farms much sooner than even I might have imagined. The FDA in its summary of the new rules (published yesterday) it plans for implementing the Food Safety Modernization Act for produce says one of five highlights is this, affecting “biological soil amendments” (bet you didn’t know the new name for compost is a “biological soil amendment”): “Biological soil amendments of animal origin, such as composted manure, may contain pathogens of public health concern. To address this, the rule proposes reasonable time intervals between the application of a biological soil amendment of animal original and crop harvest. The proposed rule also has provisions pertaining to the handling and storage of biological soil amendments of animal origin.”
Very small farms will have three or four years to comply, depending on their sales, and there are no exemptions. In the meantime, the FDA is seeking additional funding to hire all those inspectors and technicians who will be coming around, looking over things, helping make sure your farm’s compost conforms with government regulations. Haven’t you been wondering when your government would send friendly helpers around, give you something of substance on all those taxes you pay? Maybe you want to welcome them with a glass of raw milk and cookies.
**
Food activists in Flagstaff, AZ, must have seen the new FDA rules coming. In the days before the issuance yesterday of the proposed new FDA rules, they had expressed fears about the Food Safety Modernization Act as the basis for their proposed food-sovereignty ordinance. The proposed ordinance would exempt Flagstaff (town of 69,000) farms and other food producers that sell directly to individuals from state and federal rules, like the Food Safety Modernization Act.
Similar ordinances have been passed from Maine (where seven towns have adopted) to Santa Cruz, CA. The Maine ordinance has been challenged by the state in a legal suit against farmer Dan Brown of Blue Hill.
According to one supporter of the Flagstaff proposal, “The wording in the Food Safety Modernization Act is often vague and open to interpretation. To what extreme it will be enforced is anybody’s guess. Many cities and towns across the country (from Utah to Maine) have already decided it best to take preemptive action and pass Food Freedom Ordinances. The goal is to send a strong message to the FDA and other agencies that they value food freedom and organic farming. If a Food Freedom Ordinance is passed in Flagstaff, it will let the FDA and other agencies know that Flagstaff believes its citizens have the very basic right to grow, sell and consume the food of their choice.”
Now that the Food Safety Modernization Act is taking shape, will other towns feel a sense of urgency to similarly act to fend off those friendly FDA compost technicians?
**
A Wisconsin judge yesterday set May 20 as the new trial date for raw milk farmer Vernon Hershberger. The trial had been scheduled to begin this Monday, but fierce pre-trial wrangling between the Wisconsin Attorney General and Hershberger's lawyers forced the judge to put the trial off. He said he needs time to decide various issues, most notably, a contention by Hershberger that denying an expert witness on behalf of raw milk represents an interference with his religious freedom; Hershberger has argued he was constrained from legally challenging the state's 2010 shutdown of his food distribution, and its assertion as part of the shutdown that raw milk is a health hazard, by his religious principles.
This site's mission is to provide news and analysis about food rights and raw milk. Increasingly, our access to privately available food is under attack by government and industry forces that seek to impose their choices on us. The Complete Patient seeks to provide up-to-date information and encourage the development of community to maintain traditional food acquisition options.
Oppressive times....
Again,the soil will be tested for the presence of microbes considered to be "pathogens". The absurd idea that limiting the diversity of microbes in compost or soil will make it more healthy needs to be challenged. If there was no role for the organism to play in the decomposition process it would have no energy source.It is there because there is a role for it to play in the decomposition process.It is helping to purify the decaying organic matter in the soil.
There is an important test that should be done on the compost before it is applied to the soil.
http://elkhorn.unl.edu/epublic/pages/publicationD.jsp?publicationId=1052
" Herbicide analysis of soils can be done, but is often expensive and may not reveal whether your crop will be injured. An inexpensive and effective way to measure whether herbicide carry-over may affect your crop is a bioassay.
The Bioassay
Biological assays, using test plants similar to the field crop to be grown, are practical and can be done with simple equipment available in most homes or offices. The bioassay does not provide an exact measure of the amount of herbicide present in the soil, but it can show you whether enough remains to harm sensitive crops. "
Plant material like straw that is used in compost may contain enough herbicide carry-over to be detected in a bioassay.
miguel
http://www.motherearthnews.com/sustainable-farming/gene-logsdon-holy-shi...
The author of the above article writes, “The take-home message is this: Manure is a valuable resource, not a waste product. And it’s time we start demanding that it’s treated as such. He argues that we should not be trying to get rid of manure — we should be harvesting it, doing our best to maintain its nutritive value, and using it wisely on our farms and gardens. “It is, in fact, not possible to have the kind of garden farm society that is now developing without comprehensive knowledge about managing manure,” Logsdon writes.”
Ken
The fact that Vernon didn't challenge the shut down doesn't make it legal. Besides the fact that the challenge is obvious to the court and to everyone involved, Vernon challenged it every time DATCP stepped foot on his property.
As far as establishing a law to assure the safety of peanuts, testing them for pesticides, herbicides, and novelty organisms is sufficient. I do not want them however processed at high temperatures, irradiated, or sprayed with toxic chemicals such as benzene in order to kill so-called harmful bacteria such as salmonella.
Although he may agree with some of the recommendation for “biological soil amendments”, I don’t think that consulting a technician who is obsessed with regulating microorganisms is what Gene Logsdon had in mind when he wrote his book, “Holy Shit: Managing Manure to Save Mankind ”.
Ken
To quote the following article: "Government agencies, which are supposed to inspect and stop adulteration, fail because of corruption and inadequate support."
I would add to that, the fact they also have severely distorted priorities for many reasons ranging from personal vendettas to industry pressures. How they can justify spending our tax dollars in these difficult economic times on massive, disproportionate campaigns against little guys that have never been proven to cause anyone to be sick, is beyond me.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/01/02-9
Maybe we should avoid food from India though I love their flavors?
"Research concluded that 51 per cent of all food items have pesticide residues" ... "And these poisons have consequences for our health."
I also wonder what the percentage of American food?? I would bet it's above the global average.
May 20 is the Vernon Hershberger trial date. May 7 is the pre-trial date. March 18 is the date for the hearing on the religious freedom issue. Pete Kennedy, Esq. Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund
The more and more I see the emerging raw milk markets grow and the more I see the FDA slamming raw milk....the more I realize that market forces will change policy and even the employees that live and work at the FDA will be changed if they fail to evolve, when consumers dollars speak the direction.
I just finished reading a FDA website that is dedicated to the attempted re-education of consumers. Yes...the FDA is in the business of trying to educate consumers about how horrible raw milk is. I am the only name and OPDC is the only dairy that is named in the entire 20 page anti raw milk treatis. I guess I should feel honored by being singled out. The FDA even acknowledges that OPDC has a food safety plan.....that is a break through!! This all shows progress. Before...they just ignorred me and denied our existance. We are making serious progress!!
My favorite quote said that "PARSIFAL did not study raw milk"...and that PARSIFAL is misquoted by the raw milk establishment as supportive science behind raw milk. The FDA says....PARSIFAL is about farm fresh milk and not raw milk....do they think we are idiots!!!
This is such an extreme abuse of respected science and truth....it just makes me chuckle. When lies are this big, it clearly shows how desparate and how close to the Dead Milk Cliff....that the FDA is.
from a news article about raw milk in New Zealand - "Studies of children raised on farms suggest raw milk protects against allergies and asthma.
Massey University has just begun a $1.2-million study into the potential health benefits.
“What we are going to do in this study is to assess whether raw milk exposure in an urban sample of children also protects against allergies and asthma,” says Professor Jeroen Douwes"
Thanks, Very Much, Gordon!
Can you send me a link to that article?
I have a professor friend who does field studies focused on children with allergies and asthma and I believe she will be interested in seeing this.
Best!
USDA National organic program already has standards for compost:
• §205.203(c)
(c) The producer must manage plant and animal materials to maintain or improve soil organic matter content in a manner that does not contribute to contamination of crops, soil, or water by plant nutrients, pathogenic organisms, heavy metals, or residues of prohibited substances.
Animal and plant materials include:
(1) Raw animal manure, which must be composted unless it is:
(i) Applied to land used for a crop not intended for human consumption;
(ii) Incorporated into the soil not less than 120 days prior to the harvest of a product whose edible portion has direct contact with the soil surface or soil particles; or
(iii) Incorporated into the soil not less than 90 days prior to the harvest of a product whose edible portion does not have direct contact with the soil surface or soil particles;
“(c) The producer must manage plant and animal materials to maintain or improve soil organic matter content in a manner that does not contribute to contamination of crops, soil, or water by plant nutrients”???
How in the hell are we suppose to prevent “contamination of crops, soil or water by plant nutrients” when the whole purpose behind the addition of plant and animal material is for the sake of “maintaining or improving” soil organic matter content, thus “INCREASING” the amount of available nutrients in the soil in order to nurture growth of crops!
Gene Logsdon in his book “Holy Shit” emphasizes a need for us to have a “less fearful attitude toward our bodily waste”. He states, “We take into our mouths the most delectable and fragrant foods, but as they make their extreme and intimate way through our bodies, we assimilate some of the “good” nutrients in them and what is left turns into what we consider repulsive corruption. Some of what we assimilate may be more corrupting to our bodies than what we eliminate, but anyway the very second our excrement exits our bodies we wouldn’t touch it with a vaulting pole. As I said earlier and will probably say again, If shit were white and smelled like roses, our problems with waste management would be over.”
He also states, “Our fear of feces is so great that even in very respected journals and books, you will find protectors of the public health insisting that every last spec of feces be eliminated from any possible contact with human activity or our very lives are in danger.”
Indeed our fears are what prompt us to adopt the above foolish standard referenced by user2389 above, which will further undermine overall good heath.
Ken
You have to ask yourself why the fda would want what is more or less sterilized fertilizer? Is that an oxymoron?! Well, part of the reason could be because our bodies need all those little critters in the poop, in order for you and I and everyone to be healthy. Critters travel, if they didn't no one would ever get sick from something viral, right? Well, some of those critters are carrying important stuff in their luggage.
Tending the Body's Microbial Garden: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/19/science/studies-of-human-microbiome-yi...
Human beings need those little beasts.
B12 is only made by bacteria.
What the folks in Flagstaff are doing is vitally important. The local food ordinances we drafted and passed in Maine reclaim and reassert our authority as citizens to govern our own local food systems. They reject the authority of regulatory agencies to define us, our food and our patrons.
People are working at the local level all across the country, revitalizing granges and rediscovering powerful latent mechanisms to ensure that local farms and good food will prosper. In Maine, we are hearing from several counties in CA, townships in PA, individuals in VA, university researchers and classes looking to set up these boundaries around our communities. I think readers of this blog might be interested in reading Wendell Berry's Conserving Communities, which lays out much of what many farmers and food eaters are doing to rebuild rural communities. He lays out the importance of coming together in a community to help ourselves and that the 'party of local community' will supplant the very partisan party system we have now.
We can move much more quickly and effectively on the local level than in the state houses and federal levels that have been clogged with corporate influence.
Three cheers for Flagstaff!
Organic Nitrogen
In addition, organic N (manure N tied to organic compounds) is more stable than N applied as commercial fertilizer. A significant fraction of manure N is stored in an organic form that is slowly released as soils warm and as crops require N. Commercial fertilizer N is applied as either nitrate or an ammonium (easily converted to nitrate). Nitrate-N is soluble in water and mobile. These forms contribute to leaching during excess precipitation (e.g., spring rains prior to or early in growing season) or irrigation. Manure N’s slow transformation to nitrate is better timed to crop N needs, resulting in less leaching potential. In fact, manure N is a natural slow-release form of N.
I really don't understand why the fda is concerning themselves with poop, er, biological soil amendments - they are less than concerned about the FOOD they're supposed to be in charge of controlling, never mind the poop aspect.
They received a bunch of money, they want more money, but no one there even understands food safety, at all. [quote]: "Basically, if making the food safe is too difficult, the FDA does not bother enforcing their safety policies." [end of quote] Read about it here: http://occupycorporatism.com/fda-finally-implements-2011-food-safety-sta...
What a joke. No wonder their brains don't process the difference between food safety and food rights.
Next they'll be banning manure just like they've tried to with raw milk. Probably for the same reasons.
If fluoride isn't considered a contaminate then why call nitrate a contaminate. Infants can't use city water because of added fluoride. Solution don't use powdered baby formula.
The absolute JUNK they put into baby formula nowadays makes fluoride seem safe in comparison. Seriously. One of my newest day care infants is using a "specialty" formula called Alimentum. It's $36 for a small container (that's here in my neck of the woods anyhow) and if you get a chance, go to a search engine, find and read the ingredients. If you could only smell this stuff once it's mixed with water (and I use filtered water). It stinks soooo bad it literally makes me gag. I wouldn't feed it to a dog I didn't like. Makes me shiver to think of that poor baby's stomach trying to make use of any of the crap that's in that can. And this is a baby that supposedly has numerous allergies and yet they have her on this formula that has everything but the kitchen sink in it, so exactly what is she allergic to? I've asked the parents but they seem like blank pages. They have no real clue, but some doctor told them to use it, so they do. Amazing what people will believe, as long as it comes from someone in a white coat.
http://abbottnutrition.com/products/similac-expert-care-alimentum
If the infant has dairy allergies, then this crap won't help. Ingredients have milk derivatives.
Corn Maltodextrin is a sugar so it has 35% of this plus 15% sugar leaving a total of 50% sugar? Lets start the babies off with altered weight status... idiots who allow this crap. And I haven't even touched on the other additives.
When they brought her to me they claimed she was allergic to dairy (cow) milk, soy, and certain minerals. I've never heard of anyone being allergic to minerals, but that's exactly what they said to me. Now, the dad is a lab tech for a local allergist so it's my belief that he's horribly indoctrinated into the current allopathic medical system up to his eyeballs and beyond. His is a terribly pure form of ignorance, I'm afraid.
It is my personal belief that the "fish oils" (DHA, ARA, etc.) added to these formulas are rancid and do nothing for a child's health. But the formula companies were touting it as being good for babies eyes and brain development. Uh-huh. Well, I don't believe that but young parents sure do. I don't see that advertising on the front of the formula containers anymore, imagine that. There was a study done and reported on about the Alpina Oil and how bad it is. I think Mercola or WAPF or someone like that reported the study because you won't see it in mainstream media, for sure. Nevertheless, young parents still believe it's something useful and good. Arg.
But as you say, corn maltodextrin?? I mean really, there are about four different forms of sugar added to this particular formula, the fake fish oils, soy oil, safflower oil - all rancid most likely. It's disgusting. It literally smells like a chemical bomb went off in my sink when I pour leftover formula down there. I've gotten so I don't do that because it stinks up my whole kitchen. I pour it outdoors. Can't wait until spring to see what DOESN'T grow there!
If that kid is "allergic" to soy and milk, s/he shouldn't be consuming that formula as it contains those items, along with the other toxins.
It will be interesting to see what doesn't grow where you've been dumping that junk.
Yeah, I know she shouldn't (well NO baby should be consuming that junk, ideally, right?) but when I questioned the parents about it they said it was the only thing that agreed with her. Really?? I wonder how they knew that because she was only a month old when I started watching her - how many things could they have tried and given it enough time to know? It makes absolutely no sense at all, but now you understand my statement about the Dad being fully enmeshed in the allopathic world. He probably ran the labs himself so he knows what she's allergic to, and yet rather than trying fresh goat milk or something, they turn to a formula that seems to contain everything she's allergic to, according to the tests. It just doesn't add up, but these are NOT people who would be open to the idea of goat milk or anything that wasn't "from a doctor". Yesterday when the Dad brought her to me he had Johnson's baby powder in one hand and Aquaphor in the other (for her butt) - because "the doctor told them to do this" - but why I don't know. Two of the worst products I can think of to use on a baby. He wanted me to put it on her as a protective thing, she didn't even HAVE a sore bottom. So THAT doesn't make sense either, but I did it anyway. When he brought her this morning she's all broken out on her bottom, (as I predicted to my DH). Hmm. So now it's my fault that she' sore. See, I just can't win with these people, which is why after almost 25 years of this, I'm ready to retire. Doing things prophylactically is the allopathic idea of prevention, but they fail to realize the junk they're using isn't going to help. If I seem frustrated it's because I am! They buy into all this modern medicine crapola but then when it turns out badly they are mystified and don't know where to turn, nor can they understand how it can be that these things which are "medical doctor promoted" don't work. Well, gaaawwwwly.
I have an old friend who used to do in-home day care, she did it for 25-30 years. She is so glad she retired from it. I tried it way back when in my early 20s...not for me. UGH the misconceptions people have. Had to look up Aquaphor, as I didn't know what it was...basically vaseline, yuck. I can only imagine if doing what the MD said and it causes a horrific outcome, how they would feel, probably don't question anything. So sad for the baby.
When I started watching *infants only*, which was about eight years ago after giving up toddler care because I hurt my back, I only did it because there were so many "at risk" babies who needed care. But then it blossomed into watching any infant and we were off to the races, whether I wanted to be or not, it seems. People were clamoring for smaller, in-home based infant care because they didn't like the idea of organized day care with all ages permitted. I would imagine germs were a part of the reason, but I think just a smaller setting was the ultimate goal. Especially for first-time parents. When I have my intial interviews with people I usually try to weed out the chronically doctor-oriented folks because we tend never to get along very well.
I remember an old proverb from growing up in Portugal: "Never ask a barber if you need a haircut."
This would be something to keep in mind when dealing with doctors too, or most any situation in life. Expertise can be a dangerous thing, especially for those who don't know better.
What a great axiom!
To me it just seems like such a shame that today's physicians don't undertake to study at least SOME nutritionally oriented things. They certainly must know that it plays a huge part in our development, from birth (and even before) to grave. But they treat it as a second-class idea, or they tend to treat those of us who are concerned about nutrition as if we're still a bunch of hippies from the 60's. What needs to happen is doctors need to start thinking outside the box and take it upon themselves to learn a little about the past and how things were handled before all the pills came on the scene. Native Americans survived pretty well, considering; early doctors knew how to connect the dots because they HAD to, but today that kind of thinking is treated like hocus-pocus. If those folks hadn't learned how to survive the best they could, none of us would be here. And they managed to do it without insurance companies, MRI's (and all the rest of the tests relied on so heavily), or any other *nanny* type interference. Wouldn't it be nice . . .
The paperwork alone in today's world is enough to choke a horse, and it's just plain ridiculous. There's a reason for all that "keeping track", and it's not a good one for you and me.
Thought some of you might be interested in this article and vid from Baylen Linnekin.
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
"Executive Director Baylen Linnekin Discusses FDA's Proposed Food Safety Regulations in National TV Appearance"
http://www.keepfoodlegal.org/content/executive-director-baylen-linnekin-...
Here's another good article concerning the fdUH, walmartians and GE foods. Long, but good. The title is "Are Wal Mart and Big Food Lobbying the FDA for a GMO Labeling Law?"
http://www.alternet.org/food/are-wal-mart-and-big-food-lobbying-fda-gmo-...
David, I'd like to see the court record that shows "the state's 2010 shutdown ... and its assertion as part of the shutdown that raw milk is a health hazard".
Also just discovered some things about the legal charges.:
Vernon Hershberger is a dedicated family farmer who is farming on his own private land in Wisconsin (known as the Dairy State). Thirteen months ago Vernon was charged with four misdemeanor counts for alleged violations of the Wisconsin food and dairy code. "On December 5, 2011, the state of Wisconsin filed criminal charges against ... Vernon Hershberger on four misdemeanor counts for violations of the state food and dairy code. Hershberger was charged with operating a retail food establishment without a license, operating a dairy farm as a milk producer without a license, operating a dairy plant without a license and violating a holding order issued by the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP).":
http://www.realmilk.com/case-updates/vernon-hershberger/
I just discovered this evening that these "criminal charges" are a "legal impossibility".:
Black's (Fifth) shows:
"legal impossibility. As defense to criminal charge, this defense occurs when actions which defendant performs ... would not constitute crime."
Crimes are categorized in numerous ways. I think anyone who has the most basic understanding of this would agree that the legal charges (that have been presented against Vernon by the above State agency) are for "statutory crimes". According to the Bouvier Law Dictionary: "The statutes of a state define crimes in that state." If it is not defined in the state statutes as a crime then it is not a crime in that state. Again from Bouvier's - "Statutes declaring certain behavior criminal must accord with the constitution governing their enacting legislature." Is there a Wisconsin statute in accord with it's constitution that essentially criminalizes farming on one's own private land? If so I very much would like to see that statute!
Another critical consideration is that the full understanding of the (apparently simple) sentence concerning "that state" (quoted form Bouvier) requires certain knowledge of the Law that reveals exactly what "that state" consists of. Does the State of Wisconsin consist of land that includes that which is privately owned by Vernon Hershberger? There should be no assumptions ever made about what a state is, what a state has jurisdiction over and what the tangible reality is upon which a state's jurisdiction is based on and especially when we read the above line quoted from Bouvier's!
If a state DE CLAREs in it's state constitution that the officers of that state are required to subscribe an oath or declaration in support of the Constitution of The United States (as the supreme law of the land in that state) then that is the most significant clue as to what the state consists of. The only way to have the United States Constitution as "the supreme law of the land" within a state is for that state to have land that is owed by or under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the United States. Is all of Wisconsin land owned by the United States or subject to the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the United States? All the people living in Wisconsin need to know this! (Article IX in the Wisconsin Constitution addresses Property of the State.) It will be people who are living in Wisconsin who will make up the jury, if there is a trail against Vernon.
I was inspired to search the term: "impossibility" in two of my law dictionaries and glad I did! After reading both Black's and Bouvier's I am convinced that the charges against Vernon Hershberger are a legal impossibility and that on that basis alone they should be dismissed.
This defense appears to be the most directly pertinent to the charges. IMO this defense squarely responds to the charge (without any evasion) and tells the truth about the impossible nature of the charge against the accused. In Vernon's case there is also the issue of the fact that there is no contract with the state to perform anything at all! The lack of a contract also makes the charge a legal impossibility, IMO.:
http://curezone.com/blogs/fm.asp?i=2028026