|
livestock 
Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 08:12:11 AM PDT
|
|
Don Huber wrote another letter, which he sent to heads of agriculture in other countries. He wrote about why he sent the first letter to Vilsack, and then included more data, including lots of published data. See below.
|
|
There's More...
:: (6
Comments, 2234 words in story)
|
|
Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 18:04:10 PM PDT
|
|
After weeks of silence about the Don Huber letter to the USDA that exposed some troubling preliminary research about Roundup and/or Roundup Ready GMOs, there is some news. It came in the form of a long and detailed write-up by Steven McFadden on his blog, The Call of the Land (McFadden has a book out by the same name). You can find the original blog post by McFadden here but I have reposted it, with his permission, below. Note what he says below, that Huber's letter was NOT intended to go public, and it was leaked. When it was leaked, Huber was unavailable for answering questions or interviews with the media due to a heavy travel schedule. It looks like he'll now be more available and outspoken.
|
|
There's More...
:: (3
Comments, 3215 words in story)
|
|
Sat Feb 26, 2011 at 12:55:15 PM PST
|
|
There's a new post on Food Safety News about a formidable team of Purdue scientists who think Huber (who authored a letter to Tom Vilsack raising preliminary findings of problems with glyphosate or Roundup Ready crops) is full of baloney. Their reasoning sounds quite plausible to me (a non-scientist) and I can say for sure that, scientifically, this is WAY out of my league. So what do we non-scientists (who rely on the integrity and intelligence of scientists to understand these issues) make of it?
I still say I want to hear from Huber himself. Let him speak to the media on why he wrote the letter, and let him answer these claims.
What we need to remember here is that ANY time a scientist criticizes biotech, they get attacked. Whether or not their claims are true. In fact, I would say: the more credible the scientist and the claims, the bigger the attack. I pulled out my copy of the book Food, Inc. by Peter Pringle (totally unrelated to the movie) to review some of the past episodes. See below for more.
|
|
There's More...
:: (36
Comments, 1092 words in story)
|
|
Thu Feb 24, 2011 at 18:12:09 PM PST
|
|
Earlier this week, I posted a letter that makes some pretty serious claims about problems with Roundup and/or Roundup Ready crops. As I made clear, this is preliminary research, so it's certainly not solid enough to believe as fact. The letter was sent to Tom Vilsack prior to the deregulation of GE alfalfa because the preliminary data was disturbing enough that the letter's author, Dr. Don Huber, felt the evidence we have in hand is enough to justify delaying the deregulation of GE alfalfa until we have more information.
Now there are some questions arising about the letter. A few people even suggested it is a hoax. So I will share what I know, along with my own perspective and knowledge on GMO safety, which will hopefully give you a barometer to determine whether or not you find me a credible source on this.
First of all, my close friend Judith McGeary, the person who first posted the letter online, personally confirmed with Dr. Huber that he did write the letter and send it to Tom Vilsack. So that much is not a hoax. However, many people are asking who is doing the study and where is the data they have thus far? And that information is not available publicly at the moment. Huber has not yet spoken to the media about his letter, although I believe he will in the near future.
The safe thing to do is to wait until the study is done and published in a journal, the data is public for review, and the researchers behind the study are known. For all we know, as the study continues, this preliminary conclusion will be disproved. Or perhaps the study will be completed, and then a peer reviewer will notice a major flaw in the study. That said, Huber's reputation is pretty solid and it seems that he felt there was enough credibility in the evidence he saw and enough urgency that he wrote this letter and made the issue public.
Personally, I usually disregard studies or claims that GMOs cause this disease or that. I am not a scientist, but I have common sense. I'll believe a claim about GMOs when a credible scientist - or, preferably, several - believes it. Internet rumors are just that.
I also don't believe that there is anything inherently dangerous about GMOs. Simply because something is genetically modified does not make it dangerous or harmful. But it DOES mean that we need to study the heck out of each GM variety of seed before we commercialize it and put it into the food supply. And we should do that because we know quite well by now that containment of a GMO is impossible. Once a GMO is out there, it's out there. If you screw up once, it's game over.
What's more, we need independent science on GMOs - and we do not have that. Not right now. And when scientists DO come forward with anything negative about GMOs, they are attacked. That needs to stop. Why would I believe Monsanto's word that its money-making product is safe anymore than I believe BP's word that its drilling won't cause an oil spill? Monsanto stands to gain a ton of money on each GMO they commercialize, and I have anecdotal evidence of intimidation of scientists by Monsanto from a trusted source. (I would need to get his permission to repeat what he said publicly to really make an accusation, so take my "anecdotal evidence" for what it's worth.)
Right now, I have no interest in eating something that has not had independent science performed by scientists who felt safe and secure to publish their findings without being attacked. Nor do I want to eat something that the biotech companies refuse to even label. If you're so proud of it, label it so I know I'm eating it.
What I do tend to believe are the very logical stories that come out about GMOs - if they come from a credible source. That is, it's easy to understand why Roundup Ready crops increase Roundup use. It's not terribly hard to imagine that Bt crops, which produce a insecticide in every cell, might kill insects (beyond just the targeted pest species). Nor is it a stretch to believe that Roundup resistant weeds are emerging and that farmers will need to spray a stronger, more toxic herbicide in addition to Roundup to get rid of them. Based on all of that, and given what I've read from scientists like Jack Heinemann, I think there is an awful lot of evidence that agroecology can accomplish what we are trying to accomplish with genetic engineering more successfully, with better impacts on the environment, and without as much risk.
So, given all that, do we believe the Huber letter? First of all, I do not think anyone should take it as more than it is: evidence of an alarming preliminary finding that merits more research. Nothing more. But Huber himself seems rock solid and very credible. If he thinks this is a big deal - as he put it, an "emergency" - then there's reason to believe it is. I'll be interested to hear what he has to say once he speaks out about this. And I'll keep an eye out for the finished study, once it's published.
|
|
Discuss
:: (20
Comments)
|
|
Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 14:54:30 PM PST
|
|
A bombshell has been quietly dropped on the website of the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance. I should disclose, upfront, that the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance (FARFA) is founded and run by my close friend Judith McGeary. Said bombshell is an open letter written by Dr. Don Huber, professor emeritus at Purdue University, to Tom Vilsack, presenting a finding of a correlation between either glyphosate or Roundup Ready crops and a new, previously unknown organism that may be the cause of animal miscarriages and infertility.
As the letter, printed below, notes, this research is still preliminary. However, Huber, who has 40 years experience working as a scientist for "professional and military agencies that evaluate and prepare for natural and manmade biological threats, including germ warfare and disease outbreaks," believes this should be treated as an emergency until more research can confirm or disprove these initial findings.
Needless to say, the recent deregulation of GE alfalfa is something to think about, because that will dramatically increase the use of Roundup on animal feed and the feeding of Roundup Ready crops to our livestock. There is more to be said on this, but I want to tread carefully and stick to facts that I can confirm, so stay tuned.
|
|
There's More...
:: (77
Comments, 826 words in story)
|
|
Fri Sep 10, 2010 at 06:15:07 AM PDT
|
|
Crossposted from the Worldwatch Institute's Nourishing the Planet.
This is the second part in a two-part interview with Steve Osofsky, Director of Wildlife Health Policy for the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS). In this first part of the interview, Osofsky explains Transfrontier Conservation Areas (TFCAs) and how small-scale farmers can benefit from the conservation of wildlife. To read the first part of this interview see: Finding Common Ground to Improve Livelihoods and Conserve Wildlife.
What role do Transfrontier Conservation Areas (TFCAs) play in the relationship between wildlife and food systems?
 Let me first just explain what TFCA's are. If you look back at the colonial era when many of the southern African colonies or protectorates were looking for economic traction- one of the obvious sources was the export of beef. And we talked about how foot and mouth disease, a virus that is naturally harbored by the African buffalo, is a constraint to exports. The Europeans don't want foot and mouth getting into their animals. It's happened-you may remember in the UK , the multi-billion dollar losses, the farmers committing suicide, when foot and mouth got in. And actually right now there is an outbreak coming to an end in Japan and they are still not sure where that virus came in from. But it's an economically important disease.
So from that context, going back to the late 1950's and early 1960's you can understand why fences were put up to separate wildlife and livestock. They were creating disease-free areas so that beef could be exported safely to markets like Europe which were providing good prices for many, many years. At that time, tourism was really not a major activity - there was some trophy hunting by the elite but it wasn't an economic driver.
(Continued below)
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 1614 words in story)
|
|
Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 13:13:43 PM PDT
|
|
Friday, some 2000 farmers, ranchers, and people who are otherwise involved in agriculture showed up in Colorado at a hearing held by the Department of Justice. The Obama administration sent its bigwigs (Secretary Vilsack and Attorney General Eric Holder), and many who attended were able to give public comments. At the core of the hearing was the so-called "GIPSA rule" - a proposed rule from the USDA that would ensure more fair competition in the livestock industry. (A lot of the details here are very "inside baseball" to the industry, but it seems that the basic gist of the GIPSA rule is that many anti-competitive practices that are now legal will no longer be.) Obviously those who are benefiting from the system as is do not WANT the system to be more fair. (I wrote about some of the dirty tactics used by beefpackers to screw individual producers at the link.)
Predictably, the American Meat Institute (AMI) came out with a statement after the hearing, claiming that economies of scale calls for larger (and thus, fewer) slaughterhouses and that the concentration in the beef industry has not increased since 1995 (which is patently false... the top 4 firms had 76% of the market in '95 compared ton 83.5% in 2005, and there have been more mergers and consolidation since then.).
On the other side of the spectrum, R-CALF USA came out with a statement today saying "independent beef producers who want some refereeing in the marketing game... No one in my circles wants a handout - just a chance to market their cattle in an open and transparent market." and "That is all these many hard-working people, the foundation of Rural America, desire: Enforce the rules."
I watched some of the hearing, when attendees were given 2 minutes apiece to make public comments. There was some support for the GIPSA rule, and some were opposed. Many seemed to come from Republican backgrounds and they just wanted the government to keep its hands out of their business, whether or not that is in their own best interest. It seems like, while some have pragmatic business reasons for opposing the GIPSA rule, others are ideologues who want the government uninvolved on principle, even if that means the big beefpackers can swindle them until they lose their family farms. Some said the solution is more free trade agreements (Colombia and Panama) and rigging up the Food Pyramid to tell Americans to eat more red meat.
I enjoyed the title used by the Center for Rural Affairs in their write-up of the event: "Cowboys vs. Packers in Colorado... But Not Football."
You can see a few more articles here:
Greeley Tribune: Ranchers differ on proposed meat industry regulations
The Coloradoan: Farmers seek fairness at ag workshop
Denver Post: Polar-opposite views on cattle rules rounded up at ag meeting at CSU
I think an important part of the workshop to review will be what was said by the panels, and that will be available online at some point. Also, I hope someone kept a tally on the comments - how many were for the GIPSA rule, how many opposed, and was the split down the line between Cowboys vs. Packers, or not?
Transcripts and video of Friday's hearing will be available at the link, although they are not up yet.
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 06:00:00 AM PDT
|
|
Today's a BIG day for anyone who eats, although most people aren't aware. The U.S. Dept of Justice is holding one of their historic workshops about competition in agriculture, this one focusing on livestock. And EVERYONE is there. It's gonna be a crazy time.
For a bit of background, I would refer folks to check out some of the stuff put together by R-CALF, like this PDF on livestock market consolidation. They are fighting a big bunch of monkey business thrown at them by big beefpackers that should probably be illegal, if it isn't already. A few tactics they are up against are posted below, from another R-CALF briefing document.
|
|
There's More...
:: (2
Comments, 759 words in story)
|
|
Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 13:00:49 PM PDT
|
|
When I finished reading Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer, I felt sick to my stomach. And that's the way one should feel about any accurate account of the way most meat is produced in this country. That said, I don't want to lead would-be readers of this book to say "I don't want to know" and then avoid reading such a complete and nauseating account of where most meat comes from. If you eat meat - especially if you eat meat you didn't raise and slaughter yourself - it is your responsibility to read this book.
More below.
|
|
There's More...
:: (4
Comments, 1286 words in story)
|
|
Fri Jun 18, 2010 at 21:01:35 PM PDT
|
The USDA has come out with a new proposed rule and - based on the reaction it has gotten thus far - it's a big fucking deal. In a good way. Here's how the AP described the new rule:
The rules would place the sharpest limits on meat companies since the Great Depression, drastically lowering the bar that farmers and ranchers must meet to sue companies whom they accuse of demanding unfairly low prices.
The rules would dictate how meatpackers buy cattle on the open market, and prohibit them from showing preference to big feedlots rather than buying from small producers.
They would also limit the control chicken companies have over the farmers who raise birds for them. The companies couldn't require farmers to take on debt to invest in chicken houses, for example, unless farmers were guaranteed to recoup 80 percent of the cost.
The law would also make it easier to file suits under the Depression-era Packers and Stockyards Act by stating that farmers don't need to prove industrywide anticompetitive behavior to file a lawsuit under the act.
Sen. Feingold, a longtime champion for fair competition in agriculture, has already come out praising this rule in a statement I've included below. South Dakota Senator Tim Johnson praised the rule as well, as did R-CALF USA. You can see the USDA's press release about this here and the actual rule itself here.
|
|
There's More...
:: (7
Comments, 874 words in story)
|
|
Sun Mar 14, 2010 at 06:45:41 AM PDT
|
|
This is the final section of the Farm FAQ, about livestock and poultry.
You might notice that in this and in the other sections there are some repeats. I'm planning on putting this up on the web as well and will be placing links in the document with a main menu up top, which is one of the reasons for the repeats.
People reading the farm FAQ will usually be doing so in conjunction with the subscriber survey/application, so details about crops grown and further information on the meat animal aspects of the farm are covered in more detail there.
|
|
There's More...
:: (12
Comments, 1855 words in story)
|
|
Sun Mar 14, 2010 at 06:15:06 AM PDT
|
|
Here's the next installment in the Farm FAQ. It's on the plant crops.
Looking foreward to your comments and ideas for improvement.
|
|
There's More...
:: (1
Comments, 903 words in story)
|
|
Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 19:25:52 PM PST
|
|
Hi all,
As I said in today's Pot Luck, I spent the day writing a farm FAQ. The reason I did this is to add transparency to the farm for the benefit of my subscribers and anyone else who's interested in how I farm.
I think I have a pretty good handle on the thing, it sorta turned out a bit bigger than I'd anticipated though. Well, there's a lot involved....
Anyway, I'd appreciate if anyone has any ideas as to how I could improve the FAQ, anything you'd ask if you were a potential subscriber, or anything that I've already covered that I could cover better.
This is the first part of the FAQ, General Information
Looking foreward to any input anyone might have.
|
|
There's More...
:: (15
Comments, 654 words in story)
|
|
Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 17:02:11 PM PST
|
PAMTA Senate Briefing
H.R. 1549 - Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act (PAMTA)
Steve Ells Remarks
March 2, 2010
Thank you for joining us today, and for giving me the opportunity to speak on this important issue. I'm Steve Ells, and I am the founder, chairman and co-CEO of Chipotle Mexican Grill, a national chain of about 1,000 restaurants that is changing the way people think about and eat fast food.
We are doing this in a lot of ways, but none more important to me than our quest to serve the best tasting food we can, made from ingredients from more sustainable sources. We call this commitment "Food with Integrity."
|
|
There's More...
:: (3
Comments, 1059 words in story)
|
|
Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 16:24:14 PM PST
|
|
Four organizations representing farmers, ranchers, and consumers issued a press release (shown below) praising the USDA for dropping its National Animal ID System. Those groups are Food & Water Watch, the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance, the National Family Farm Coalition, and R-CALF USA (Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America). They say that NAIS "was created by industrial livestock and meatpacking interests to shift the burden of animal disease problems onto the backs of family farmers instead of corporate agribusinesses" and "The imposition of NAIS would have severely hindered the recent movement towards more sustainable local food systems."
Furthermore, Food & Water Watch said that NAIS did not address the root cause of our food safety and animal disease problems:
"Now that the USDA has realized that the proposed NAIS was unworkable, it's time for the agency to turn its attention to an effort that would actually protect consumers," said Patty Lovera, assistant director for Food & Water Watch. "USDA should start improving the testing of meat in slaughterhouses where many of our food safety problems occur, and fix their inspection policies to make sure that contaminated meat is traced back to the slaughterhouses were it was produced."
|
|
There's More...
:: (1
Comments, 502 words in story)
|
|
|
|
|
|
