Response to President of the American Farm Bureau: We Love Our Smartphones But What about Smart Food [GMO’s]

Really – because walking on the sidewalk involves risk, and eating genetically modified (GMO) foods also involves risk, consumers should eat GMO foods and not be concerned! That is just an odd argument, as is the American Farm Bureau President Bob Stallman’s other contention – that because consumers embrace cell phone technology they should also embrace genetically modified food technology because, I guess, they are both new technologies.

There is no doubt that the ability to genetically modify life forms is a new and revolutionary technology but like other revolutionary technologies it promises both great benefits and carries great risk. Think of nuclear fission. For the time being the risk of worldwide nuclear war is less than when I was young but megalomaniacs still dream of the power they would wield if they had just one little bomb. Meanwhile nuclear proponents continue to promise low cost electricity, which is true, if we don’t count the costs of babysitting the residues for a million years.

Computing and internet technology has exciting possibilities and many of us, including me, are already completely dependent upon a laptop and an internet connection. But new revolutionary technologies all offer great benefits and potential great risk. Computing power and information freely flowing through the air and bouncing from satellite to satellite gives governments the power to monitor what we are doing, and saying, and whom we are doing and saying it with. History tells us that despots seize and keep power by spying on their citizens and using that information to instill fear and control. Computers and the internet provides huge benefits but if we are not careful, great risk too.

So far the benefits of genetically modified foods have been highly over hyped. One can certainly see the possibilities of food crops more resistant to drought and able to fix their own nitrogen but so far the genes that have been modified and commercialized have been about selling more herbicides and monopolizing the market for seeds. The roundup resistance traits may be convenient for farmers but not necessarily beneficial to consumers. The yields of GMO crops have not been greater than conventionally bred seeds and once all things have been considered, profits are not any better.

What is different because of GMO technology is the control exerted by a handful of corporations as they drive to eliminate competition. Monsanto, the leading GMO firm, has been particularly ruthless in controlling farmers and manipulating the market for its seeds and herbicides. Competition has been eliminated and we can no longer consider the plant science research coming out of the Universities to be truly independent. Science and the public good was the founding ideals of the Land Grant University system but now the scientists are dependent upon research grants from the handful of GMO dominating firms. I am sure the researchers believe that they are truthful in their findings, but I am not so sure that they are actually independent or neutral – so can we trust the assurances that the GMO foods are safe?

Then too we have the troubling issue of ethics. Can one own a life form? Who is responsible if that life form escapes and interbreeds with other crops and wild life forms mixing genes and causes harm? How do you even compensate or mitigate such a disaster? You might say the corporate owner of that life form would hold the liability for harm, but corporations exist to minimize responsibility so that is scant reassurance.

There is little so intimate and personal to daily life as deciding what you eat. If people are suspicious of consuming GMO foods, than I for one say more power to them, because they should not be made unwitting Guinea Pigs for some self-serving corporate behemoth. So Mr. Stallman, I do understand that your job as President of the American Farm Bureau is to shill for multi-national agriculture corporations, and that this is the reasoning behind your lame defense of GMOs and behind your lobbying to overturn Country of Origin labeling. But the act of choosing the food that you and your family eats is vitally important, so, please be careful in what you consume. Your health might depend upon it.

Gilles Stockton
Stockton Ranch
Grass Range, Montana
406 428-2183
gillesstockton@gmail.com

Posted in General Advocacy | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Response to President of the American Farm Bureau: We Love Our Smartphones But What about Smart Food [GMO’s]

Trolley and Carcass Rails – Taking people where they want to go…

“Farmers create the wealth, everyone else does the laundry.” – Tina Owens’ (childhood friend) Great Grandfather

Near entrance to Queen Victoria Market

Four million people live in Melbourne Australia. Like most places, most are running around frantically trying to make a living (Doing the laundry). News commentators and politicians promote the misleading good news of the stock markets while lecturing about the need for more austerity, less borrowing, and more personal responsibility. Like in the U.S., people wonder, and hope for a government that works and better times.

And, as in most places, wealth has never been so concentrated in the hands of so few. Chinese money is coming in, evidenced by the many building cranes in the city center – now a major point of wealth extraction. Like in the U.S., there is much economic activity, with less and less real wealth creation.

The two biggest retailers, Coles and Woolworths, with their multinational accomplices, JBS and Cargill, continue to steal livestock, extracting valuable and critical resources from passive farmers, their farms, and their communities. Lacking market access, cattle have been shot or left to die in the remote and drought stricken northern Australia — an opinion poll in the local paper asks readers if Australia’s GrainCorp should sell to ADM (aka: A Dreadful Monster)?

“Big business stole our loaf of bread. We’re fighting over the crumbs.”

Carcass rails still hang - in hopes of reuse.

Could the unused carcass rails represent a return path to prosperity, healthier farms, and better food?

The one hundred thirty year old Queen Victoria Market is bustling with shoppers and merchants of many kinds. Small farmers, looking to make a simple living, are connecting with eaters searching for good food.

Unlike the century old city trollies (over 430 km of rails), which are still taking people where they want go, the old  carcass rails that once brought meat from the farmer to the consumer, are present, but are idled and silent. Some of the meat shops, now selling boxed beef, remain. The abattoirs are gone, driven out of business by the market power of the big meat packer/retailer cartel. Perhaps with a little more awareness and help, things could change?

Mike Callicrate

UPDATE:

ADM’s $2 Billion GrainCorp Bid Blocked by Australia

Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. (ADM)’s A$2.2 billion ($2 billion) takeover of GrainCorp Ltd. (GNC) was blocked by Australia, prompting a record drop in shares of the east coast’s biggest crop handler and a slide in the local currency.

“This proposal has attracted a high level of concern from stakeholders and the broader community,” Treasurer Joe Hockey said today, ruling U.S.-based ADM’s A$12.20 a share bid isn’t in the national interest. “Now is not the right time for a 100 percent foreign acquisition of this key Australian business.” (MORE)

Posted in General Advocacy | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Trolley and Carcass Rails – Taking people where they want to go…

Storybook Plutocracy, By Thomas Frank

The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America
George Packer

Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2013

November 21, 2013 — George Packer’s The Unwinding is a minor masterpiece of the social-disintegration genre—a beautifully written, clinically observed story of the slow-rolling economic transformation that has, over the last 30-odd years, made vast parts of America into a destitute wasteland while lifting a fortunate few to a kind of heaven on earth. Following the lives of a handful of characters, Packer manages to bring together such varied phases of the disaster as the deindustrialization of Youngstown, Ohio, and the epic boom and bust in Florida real estate—he takes us, in other words, from a landmark disaster of the Carter years to a vision of bony cows wandering among abandoned suburban houses during the Obama administration. He tells us what life is like on an auto-parts assembly line; how money gets its way in Washington; and what it sounds like when a Tea Party leader contrives to kill a public-works proposal that would put her unemployed engineer husband back to work.

The book is intimate with failure but also with the libertarian ebullience felt by society’s winners. It presents an astonishing cast of characters: desperate Wal-Mart associates; firsthand observers of Wall Street’s political power; billionaire TV talkers convinced of the righteousness of the self-help gospel. Weirdly, just about everyone in the book seems to lose money in real estate. But for all their misfortunes, Packer’s people are never hopeless; they are strivers and activists and self-taught prodigies who have figured it all out—or who think they have figured it all out. Here, for example, is Packer’s description of how, after nursing quiet misgivings about the great American FUBAR, a North Carolina truck stop owner came to an epiphany one night:

He was seeing beyond the surfaces of the land to its hidden truths. Some nights he sat up late on his front porch with a glass of Jack and listened to the trucks heading south on 220, carrying crates of live chickens to the slaughterhouses—always under cover of darkness, like a vast and shameful trafficking—chickens pumped full of hormones that left them too big to walk—and he thought how these same chickens might return from their destination as pieces of meat to the floodlit Bojangles’ up the hill from his house, and that meat would be drowned in the bubbling fryers by employees whose hatred of the job would leak into the cooked food, and that food would be served up and eaten by customers who would grow obese and end up in the hospital in Greensboro with diabetes or heart failure, a burden to the public, and later Dean would see them riding around the Mayodan Wal-Mart in electric carts because they were too heavy to walk the aisles of a Supercenter, just like hormone-fed chickens.

I admire the understated horror that runs through passages like this one, and there are many of them in The Unwinding, as Packer reports on the slow decay of the industrial Midwest, or describes the moment when a good political soldier finds out that the investment banks of America are “technically insolvent,” or tells us about the newspaper reporter who stumbles upon the big story behind the housing bubble only to discover that nobody cares about journalism anymore.

How many books have been published describing the destruction of the postwar middle-class economic order and the advent of the shiny, plutocratized new one?

This is a powerful and important work, but even so, I can’t help but think that it has arrived very late in the day. Ask yourself: how many books have been published describing the destruction of the postwar middle-class economic order and the advent of the shiny, plutocratized new one? Well, since I myself started writing about the subject in the mid-1990s—and thus earned a place on every book publicist’s mailing list—there have been at least a thousand, not counting the various management texts and libertarian sermons in which the advent of that new economy is not awful but magnificent! Glorious! An ideal toward which humanity must strive with our every muscle!

Let’s list some of them. There are the “Greats”: Paul Krugman’s The Great Unraveling, David Stockman’s The Great Deformation, Niall Ferguson’s The Great Degeneration, Timothy Noah’s The Great Divergence, Robert Scheer’s The Great American Stickup, and Tyler Cowen’s The Great Stagnation, which should probably be included despite the author’s ultimate optimism.

There are the “Ages,” such as Jeff Madrick’s Age of Greed, Thomas Edsall’s The Age of Austerity, Sean Wilentz’s The Age of Reagan, and The Age of Turbulence, which gets honorable mention because of the great success enjoyed by its author, Alan Greenspan, in screwing the world. There are the “American” tragedies: The Betrayal of the American Dream, The Looting of America, Third World America, and Why America Failed. There are nightmares of falling, like Freefall and Falling Behind. There are weird echoes from one title to another, for example from James K. Galbraith’s The Predator State to Charles Ferguson’s Predator Nation; from Donald Barlett and James Steele’s America: Who Stole the Dream? to Hedrick Smith’s Who Stole the American Dream?; and (please note that I am not complaining here) from my own What’s the Matter With Kansas? to Joan Walsh’s What’s the Matter With White People?

There is the scream-therapy approach—Beyond Outrage, Greedy Bastards. There is the voice of cool reason: The Shock Doctrine, Winner-Take-All Politics. There are the clever titles—Down the Up Escalator—and the genius titles, like Matt Taibbi’s Griftopia. And there are, finally, the classics of the genre, like Tom Geoghegan’s Which Side Are You On? (from 1991) or Christopher Lasch’s Revolt of the Elites (from 1995) or the granddaddy of all inequality reporting, the New York Times’ Downsizing of America (a high-profile series that ran in the paper of record in 1996).

Two things need to be said about this tsunami of sad. First, that the vast size of it, when compared to the effect that it has had—close to nothing—should perhaps call into question the utility of journalism and argument and maybe even prose itself. The gradual Appalachification of much of the United States has been a well-known phenomenon for 20 years now; it is not difficult to understand why and how it happened; and yet the ship of state sails serenely on in the same political direction as though nothing had changed. We like to remember the muckraking era because of the amazing real-world transformations journalism was able to bring; our grandchildren will remember our era because of the big futile naught accomplished by our prose.

The other point I want to make is that, with a few exceptions here and there, the components of this genre have been pretty damn dull. Only a few authors have bothered to approach the disintegration of America in an innovative way. There is Barbara Ehrenreich, who worked crappy jobs incognito to write Nickel and Dimed. There’s Jeff Madrick, who tried to capture the spirit of the last few decades through short biographies of financiers and politicians in Age of Greed. And then there was Deer Hunting with Jesus by Joe Bageant, a wrenching, Agee-style account of red-state poverty that received virtually no attention in the United States.

George Packer aims high with The Unwinding. His plan is to mold the raw material of journalism into the form of a classic of modernist fiction, John Dos Passos’s U.S.A. trilogy, which was published in stages from 1930 to 1938 and sought to render the experience of an entire era in prose. In those days, Dos Passos was most famous for his stylistic innovations: he told the story of the country not only by following the lives of fictional characters—all of them either failures or frauds, dragging each other down the road to hell—but also with chapters made up of artfully arranged song lyrics and newspaper clippings; profiles of famous people, told in blank verse; and a “Camera Eye” section, in which the author related his own experiences in a stream-of-consciousness style. In short, the idea was to replicate the new, documentary technologies of the ’30s in a work of art.

This struck a lot of other novelists as a great idea back then. Norman Mailer, for example, adapted the techniques of U.S.A. for The Naked and the Dead, published in 1948. George Packer doesn’t adapt, however; he simply uses those techniques in exactly the way Dos Passos did. He gives us text from popular songs mashed up with headlines and bits of political speeches. The short biographies of the people who made our screwed-up world are here, too, and so are the narrative chapters, which follow three real people through their sometimes-awful lives in the same emotionless voice that Dos Passos used. Packer’s prologue, for its part, is a straight-up homage to the prose poem that begins U.S.A., in which Dos Passos wrote that Americans were only saved from solitude by the transcendent “speech of the people.” Packer comes to the same conclusion, almost exactly: “In the unwinding, everything changes and nothing lasts, except for the voices, American voices.”1

Why has Packer written such a heavy-handed homage? Maybe because our period is similar to the ’30s. Maybe because elegy and lyric, written without hope for a political rescue, are the appropriate means to describe the disintegration of middle-class America. After all, how many more books screaming about some Great Disaster being worked on the American Dream do we need? What kind of chart can an author or a blogger or a columnist present that would make the slightest bit of difference anymore? The truth is that journalism is almost completely irrelevant. And so maybe only art matters.
Photography, the movies, and sound recordings were Dos Passos’s concerns; ours would certainly include TV, the Internet, social media, maybe even Big Data.

But lifting an entire artistic formula from a novel that was popular 75 years ago seems like a peculiar way to proceed with this mission. For one thing, Dos Passos wanted to create a prose analog of the popular technology of his time (photography, movies, sound recordings), and obviously the technology has changed since then. The right way to pay homage to the great author is not to imitate his exact stylistic innovations in the manner of The Best of Bad Hemingway, but to revise it for our own age, to consider how the speech and rhythms and fatuities of our own technological time might be rendered in prose. Photography, the movies, and sound recordings were Dos Passos’s concerns; ours would certainly include TV, the Internet, social media, maybe even Big Data.

For another, Packer completely excludes from his careful imitation of Dos Passos the one element of U.S.A. that is still read and admired today: the first-person “Camera Eye” chapters. It’s a telling omission. Maybe Packer didn’t want to indulge in the narcissism of memoir—which might indeed have been unsightly in a book that is concerned so heavily with poverty and failure—but it also means that the author’s own voice is absent from the book.

Instead, this narrative of woe is told in the trademark New Yorker tone of writerly distance, almost as a form of ethnographic observation. Packer’s characters have opinions, of course—lots of them. But Packer himself seems to have very few. He tells us how Americans cope with the withdrawal of industry from their region, how they live when the only jobs they can get are at Wal-Mart, how they look when they’ve lost all their teeth. Even the period of “unwinding” itself, which has brought on the plutocratization and impoverishment and corruption that the book documents, is initially presented as just another bend in the stream of history, no different, really, from any other:

The unwinding is nothing new. There have been unwindings every generation or two: the fall to earth of the Founders’ heavenly Republic in a noisy marketplace of quarrelsome factions; the war that tore the United States apart and turned them from plural to singular; the crash that laid waste to the business of America, making way for a democracy of bureaucrats and everymen. Each decline brought renewal, each implosion released energy, out of each unwinding came a new cohesion.

Let me be blunt here: this is hollow stuff. To believe that everything will reverse itself spontaneously and yield a “new cohesion” because of some imaginary cycle of history is pure superstition. It’s a kind of middlebrow dialectic, in which the sad is eternally balanced by the happy and everything always works out in the end. Worse, it’s a species of reassurance little better than a motivational poster. Hang in there, baby—Friday’s coming!

But I believe there’s a strategy to all this. Add this oddly hopeful dialectic to the author’s way of presenting these disastrous lives without comment—as though they’re just things Americans did and said in the first decade of the 21st century—and you begin to see that these two features are what make this book suitable for a polite audience. Until now, to write about the pauperization of America has always been a political deed. This is because what Packer calls “the unwinding” was not an act of nature; it was a work of ideology. It is something that has been done to us by public officials that a lot of us voted for. Draining out this aspect of the genre is Packer’s accomplishment, the move that separates his book from the thousand similar efforts that I mentioned above. It is, strictly speaking, what makes his contribution eligible for the National Book Award while an equally transcendent book like Deer Hunting with Jesus is ignored by bien-pensant critics and prize juries alike. Packer says what dozens of others have said before, but he does it in a way that everyone can see is “art”; in a way that avoids giving offense.

Packer says what dozens of others have said before, but he does it in a way that everyone can see is “art”; in a way that avoids giving offense.

And here’s the real artifice of it all: there is simply no way Packer believes this stuff himself. He is not an indifferent or detached observer, any more than Dos Passos was. The act of describing, say, the family of luckless Floridians that the author follows from one disaster to another—this alone marks him as someone who cares, someone who doubts the official line. These people are the casualties of the coming order, whatever we ultimately choose to call it, and an author truly dedicated to that noble civilization-to-be would never bother with their story of woe and failure, whether their experiences are characteristically American or not. Indeed, for the great thinkers of the new dispensation, Americanness is itself a suspect category, a relic of the past that the holy market is quickly erasing.

To summarize: George Packer has smuggled a work of far-reaching social criticism into the mainstream by means of a thick novelistic smokescreen that has fooled almost everyone into believing they’re in the presence of art. My critical reaction to this ruse: Nice going, George Packer. If that’s what it takes to make people listen, then more power to you.

The Unwinding is a powerful piece of work, a triumph that will last long after the follies of these days have passed away and all the billionaires have entombed themselves in their icy nitro-freezers, waiting for some future civilization that loves billionaires even more than ours to come and thaw them out so they can romp and rule all over again. Reading the book makes you ache for the democracy you love, watch horrified as it dashes itself, out of a mad narcissism, against the walls of the canyon.

One of John Dos Passos’s famous passages about the “speech of the people” comes toward the end of the third volume of U.S.A., where he describes the political fight against the men “who have turned our language inside out who have taken the clean words our fathers spoke and made them slimy and foul.” And though Packer never rises to that rhetorical level, the same feeling comes through. Again and again in The Unwinding we meet characters who witness the orgy of fraud in the housing market, on Wall Street, in Washington—who watch as society’s greatest rewards are handed out to its biggest crooks—and, as Packer writes of Elizabeth Warren, were brought to “radicalism, like many conservatives …, by seeing the institutions that had sustained the old way of life collapse.” And although Packer doesn’t take the obvious next steps that Dos Passos does, there is nothing to stop his readers from arriving at Dos Passos’s conclusion: that “our storybook democracy” is long gone; that “America our nation has been beaten.”

Posted in General Advocacy | Comments Off on Storybook Plutocracy, By Thomas Frank

FSIS’ AMBIGUITY FOR INSPECTORS’ DUTIES UNDER HIMP

I read with interest your HIMP article entitled “A Flying Leap” in the November issue of Meatingplace. I have a few comments, and will conclude with one request for you.

You make the comment on page 28 “Current poultry inspection is based on a system in which federal inspectors examine carcasses on the slaughter line by sight, touch and smell”. This refers to antiquated inspection which relied on organoleptic methods, i.e., sensory, which cannot detect the presence of invisible bacteria. This sensory inadequacy was the primary justification for the agency’s mid-90’s HACCP mandate, which jettisoned organoleptic inspection in favor of “Science-Based” inspection, which was primarily described as microbiological testing which is capable of detecting invisible pathogens.

Also on page 28 your article stated “What frustrates USDA officials is that a lot more is known today about how to detect and deter pathogens…” Admittedly, microbiological testing can detect those pesky and invisible bugs. A statement found in the first column on page 36 also refers to the value of testing. It states the value of HIMP “…….so that our inspectors can focus on those tasks that are scientifically proven to improve food safety”. A statement in column 3 of the same page quotes Dr. Hagen as stating “An inspector could have three days per bird and he still couldn’t see salmonella”. I’ve not witnessed any detractors who would claim that microbial testing has fewer benefits compared to organoleptic observation.

At this point however, FSIS’ intentions for HIMP inspectors’ involvement in microbial testing is quite imprecise. A statement in column 3 on page 32 states “USDA’s detailed explanations of why and how these changes are beneficial are mostly missing from online blogs and opinions expressing outrage over the proposal”. But the next paragraph on page 32 explains FSIS’ expectations of HIMP inspectors, comprised of the following:

1. HIMP provides inspectors more time to look (organoleptic) for food safety concerns.

2. Offline inspectors can collect product samples, amongst other things.

3. “FSIS would require all [HIMP] plants to have written programs to prevent carcass contamination by enteric pathogens and fecal material……” This is blatantly misleading, since every USDA-inspected plant has by necessity already incorporated this into their HACCP Plans. Preventing contamination is the very reason for our already existing Hazard Analyses, establishment of CCP’s, and our multiple pathogen intervention systems which are already fully described in our HACCP Plans, Sanitation Plans, and Prerequisite Programs. USDA’s “missing sound bite” cannot claim this advantage under HIMP.

4. “Offline verification inspectors would then review the plant’s records and test results to verify it is maintaining process control”.

#’s 2 & 4 above are worth our intensive scrutiny. #2 indicates that inspectors can “collect product samples”. FSIS makes a casual reference to sampling, lacking an aggressive, proactive commitment to the primary scientific value which is embodied by microbial testing. #4 then refers to inspectors’ review of plant’s test results.

Have you noticed through the plethora of agency public statements on HIMP that FSIS has adroitly avoided stating that HIMP inspectors would commence an appreciably greater incidence of FSIS-conducted microbial samples? One agency response seen recently is that budgetary concerns have limited the incidence of microbial sampling available to FSIS. But, the very first paragraph in your article refers to the $90 million saved by the termination of 800 inspectors, gratis HIMP. Now more than ever, FSIS will enjoy access to redirected finances which should enable the agency to proactively access the value derived from one aspect of scientific inspection, namely, microbial analyses.

On October 2, Dr. William James published a Meatingplace blog entitled “Why the new HIMP system should go forward in poultry plants”. I responded several times, primarily requesting an agency revelation of precisely how many microbial samples FSIS might collect under HIMP. Finally, Dr. James attempted to somewhat answer my question by stating “Since a huge part of the budget goes to on-line inspection, once these functions are reduced FSIS can afford to redirect resources to other activities like laboratory analyses”. Once again, it appears FSIS “might” dedicate additional funding to increased product sampling.

My concern is this: FSIS is making no definitive statements about the degree (if any) of increased agency-conducted microbial sampling at HIMP plants. Thus, in future years, if ongoing outbreaks and recurring recalls of HIMP products occur, and the public requests the results of agency-conducted microbial sampling, the public will be surprised at the relative paucity of FSIS sampling. They may also discover no increase, or very little increase in FSIS sampling at HIMP plants compared to pre-HIMP days. FSIS can then respond that it never promised to increase its sampling, but merely stated that HIMP would free up inspectors to move off-line and spend more time in alternative activities, possibly including product sampling. Why would FSIS desire to know the truthful incidence of pathogen-contaminated meat? If the truth were fully discovered, the agency would be forced to implement meaningful enforcement actions, which it is loathe to do at large slaughter facilities.

Increased sampling would be contrary to FSIS promises to the industry in the mid-90’s when discussing the agency’s role under the about-to-be introduced HACCP system. The agency repeatedly made the following public statements about its role under HACCP:

Under HACCP, FSIS would embrace a “Hands Off” role at meat & poultry plants.

Under HACCP, the agency would no longer police the industry, but the industry would police itself.

Under HACCP, FSIS would disband its previous command and control authority.

Under HACCP, FSIS would not have the authority to tell plants what must be in the plants’ HACCP Plans. All plants would be authorized to write their own HACCP Plans customized to fit the precise needs of each individual plant.

Now, FSIS is telling us that HIMP inspectors will be freed from previous duties to more closely scrutinize plants’ HACCP records, prerequisites, etc to determine if the plan makes sense. Not exactly “Hands Off”, as well as authorizing the agency to mandate changes in individual HACCP Plans and related plans, a total rejection of the agency’s initial promise to not police the industry.

Thus, this is not merely a problem of FSIS’ unwillingness to precisely identify the degree of agency sampling it conducts at HIMP Plants, but it also brings into question the utter disingenuous of the agency’s pre-HACCP promises, aka as lies. I am not suggesting FSIS embrace deregulation, which I strongly oppose. I do oppose however the agency’s unethical Bait & Switch tactics. FSIS found itself painted into a corner because of its 4 promises, and is gradually reassuming its pre-HACCP rights.

The very last sentence in your article quotes Dr. Hagen as stating “If you had the opportunity to save a life, to spare a mother or father from the agony of having a child in the hospital, wouldn’t you jump at the chance?” The universal answer is a ubiquitous YES! Dr. Hagen is insinuating that anyone with concerns about the agency’s HIMP program could care less if children are sickened and hospitalized. The agency has thus degenerated to a dismissive ridicule of anyone who has the audacity to discuss potential problems within FSIS’ HIMP program. While we all want to keep children out of hospitals, the questions remains as exactly HOW FSIS intends for HIMP to accomplish this laudable goal. History has likewise shown that when FSIS is backed into a corner, lacking answers to potential criticism, the agency concludes “Well, OUR system is science-based”, hiding behind HACCP’s skirt, intimating that FSIS critics do not rely on science.

My request of you is that Meatingplace communicate with FSIS, requesting a precise explanation of the amount of microbial sampling the agency will mandate of its inspection force at HIMP plants. I guarantee that even if the agency responds, its answer will be aloof, circuitous, and imprecise. This is exactly why Dr. William James couldn’t provide a precise answer, and he should know, as he worked for FSIS for 28 years. He knows how the agency can blithely ignore erudite questions from Meatingplace, because FSIS is unaccountable for its actions. How dare anyone question the agency’s “scientific” acumen and allegedly pro-public health motives?

John Munsell, Manager
Foundation for Accountability in Regulatory Enforcement (FARE)
Miles City, MT
November 16, 2013

Posted in General Advocacy | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on FSIS’ AMBIGUITY FOR INSPECTORS’ DUTIES UNDER HIMP

HSUS Members Give Nebraska Farmer Standing Applause at Annual Meeting

Farmer Kevin Fulton serves on The HSUS's Agriculture Council for Nebraska. The growing network of statewide advisory groups helps develop markets for higher-welfare products.

Farmer Kevin Fulton serves on The HSUS’s Agriculture Council for Nebraska. The growing network of statewide advisory groups helps develop markets for higher-welfare products.

Talk at The HSUS Annual Membership Meeting
By Kevin Fulton | October 18th, 2013

Good morning! I’d like to thank The HSUS leadership for giving me this opportunity to convey my thoughts today. I’m truly honored to be a part of this great organization. And I’d also like to personally thank Wayne for not only being a great friend but for taking the risk of handing me a microphone—because he knows I always give the uncut version on how I see the world no matter who the audience is!

I’m going to narrow my focus today to what I consider one of the most important issues we face as an organization, and that is factory farming and the extreme confinement of farm animals. As most of you know, the magnitude of this problem is enormous. We are talking about billions of animals that are kept in inhumane conditions on factory farms. To me, it’s disgraceful and even offensive that we call these operations “farms.”

It’s crucial that we never lose sight of the fact that the animals on these factory farms have only one good day in their lives, and that’s the day the misery ends for them. That’s unacceptable, and we need to work to change this!

It’s also critically important to have farmers and ranchers not only involved in our organization, but at the forefront in the battle against factory farming. That goes right along with the HSUS policy statement on farm animals which states:
“The HSUS supports farmers and ranchers who give proper care to their animals and practice and promote humane and environmentally sustainable agriculture.”

It’s also important to understand that we as farmers cannot farm sustainably unless we have animals in the equation. But more importantly, those animals need to be spread out across the landscape rather than in some confinement facility. This symbiotic relationship is one of the most basic laws of Mother Nature – that’s Ecology 101. I think that Wayne summed it up perfectly in one of his recent presentations when he said we need more farmers and we need them giving more attention to animals, and we need the animals back on the land. I couldn’t agree more.

I’m proud to be the chairman of the first ever HSUS State Agriculture Council which was formed in Nebraska. I’m proud of the other farmers that are a part of this council and I’m proud of what we represent. This was an idea that I presented to Wayne when he visited my farm back in 2010.

I told Wayne that we needed farmers in some type of advisory role in the organization and suggested we form an agriculture council, as we were taking a real beating in the Midwest farm states. We were being severely demonized and misaligned. We desperately need to gain credibility on these issues. It was rough out there. And I mean really rough!

How bad did it get? Well, in one TV news story I was referred to as the most controversial farmer in the state. But why? WHAT is so controversial about a farmer promoting the humane treatment of farm animals? Aren’t we supposed to be the caretakers? But the reality is, that is controversial in my industry. I think that tells you how far we have strayed from the basics of animal husbandry with our current system of food production.

Then, the Governor vowed to kick all our ass’s out of the state (his words, not mine). As some of you know, I called the Governor’s bluff. In one TV interview, I guaranteed he would not be kicking my hind-end anywhere or anyhow. And my family would not be leaving! And then other supporters did the same with letters to the editor and personal letters. Jocelyn Nickerson, our Nebraska State Director, made it real personal when she marched into the Governor’s office carrying her new baby in her arms and asked why he wanted to kick her family out of the state.

I was even pulled over one night for speeding on a desolate NE highway and hassled by a state highway patrolman for being “that farmer that brought HSUS to Nebraska.” We ended up in a pretty heated debate and I’ll never understand how I got off with just a warning—cause I said a couple of things that weren’t real flattering! Maybe he knew that our staff attorney Jonathan Lovvorn was in my corner? But the point is, I didn’t bring the HSUS to Nebraska. They were there long before I became a member and they’ll be there long after I’m gone. I just challenged the status quo in the agriculture industry, which has been running unchecked for years. You see, The HSUS is not some bureaucrat wearing a suit and tie from Washington D.C. I am HSUS! And you are HSUS!

Coming up with the idea of forming an agriculture council was the easy part. Implementing this idea was going to take someone with some real expertise and political savvy. That person would be Joe Maxwell who was hired as Director of Rural Development and Outreach shortly after Wayne’s visit to Nebraska and our town hall meeting. Joe is a farmer and experienced politician from “Mussoouuuraaa.” Due to his leadership we now have agriculture councils in 4-5 states along with numerous other projects in progress to help family farmers like myself. The farmers and ranchers on these councils are masters when it comes to understanding the principles of animal husbandry which seems to elude many farmers today. I couldn’t be prouder of these farmers and the way they have courageously stuck their necks out to stand up for animals. I’d like to thank Joe Maxwell and all the HSUS leaders for their continued support. I’d also like to introduce other farmers here in the room, Mike Callicrate from Colorado and Warren Taylor from Ohio.

I think it’s important that you all understand what we are really fighting for:

We are fighting for the freedom for farmers to stay on the land and farm in a sustainable and humane manner. And that’s not easy in today’s industrial climate. Freedom to farm without being a serf to Monsanto or Tyson Foods. Freedom that would allow our children to follow in our footsteps as my three young children want to do.

We are also fighting for consumer freedom (not to be confused with the Center for Consumer Freedom) which has nothing to do with any form of freedom. But rather freedom for transparency so you can know how your food is produced and what practices are being used so you can choose accordingly.

Most importantly, it is about freedom for the animals. Freedom for a chicken to be a chicken, for a sow to be able to behave like a pig, and for a cow to graze in a pasture as Mother Nature intended. How can we deny animals of these basic rights?

Without farmers on the front line we have limited credibility in these battles. That’s just the reality of the situation. The game changes when we have farmers on our side. Our opposition’s only hope is to continue to frame this as “the poor farmer vs. all you radical animal rights activists who are interfering with our sanctimonious mission to ‘feed the world!’ How dare you!” That’s a weak defense for a faction that is struggling to justify their inhumane practices. We are not the radical ones! We’re reasonable minded people who understand that as humans we have a responsibility to stand up for those creatures that do not have a voice! Let me tell you what radical is. Radical is putting a sow in a gestation crate! Radical would be cramming 8 hens in a tiny battery cage.

Every time we announce the formation of another state agriculture council, and every time we invite Wayne to speak at an event promoting sustainable agriculture, a powerful message is sent to the agriculture industry and it resonates far and wide, and their anti-agriculture rhetoric becomes weaker and weaker.

Some of us may come to this table with different motives, and that’s fine, but we must work together towards our common goals. I realize I come from a different world than most of you. But, I don’t care where you’re from, what your occupation is, or your social status, or what your dietary protein choices are. We all need to stand together to win the battle against factory farming!! We are HSUS, and we WILL win this fight! Thank you!

“I Am HSUS; I Am Nebraska”: Kevin Fulton Takes on Factory Farming
Compassionate farmer helps form state agricultural council to advise The HSUS
All Animals magazine, November/December 2012

Posted in General Advocacy, HSUS | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on HSUS Members Give Nebraska Farmer Standing Applause at Annual Meeting