Remember Proposition 2 in California, where voters approved a new law that improved the standards under which farm animals are confined? Similar scenarios have popped up in Michigan, Arizona, Florida, Maine, Colorado and Oregon, but Ohio had other plans. Instead of ensuring that their collective voices will be heard on issues pertaining to the treatment of livestock, this week voters in Ohio opted for a constitutional measure that will place the decision making power with a 13-member board instead. The board, according to Alan Johnson of The Columbus Dispatch, "would have far-reaching powers to set standards for livestock and poultry care, food safety, supply and availability, disease prevention, farm management and animal well-being. It would have minimal legislative oversight."

Critics question what place the board has in the Ohio Constitution, along with only two other boards: the Board of Education and the Board of Workers Compensation. They also point to the hastiness of the issue's navigation through the legislature — immediately following the Humane Society of the United States' (HSUS) announcement to move forward in the state with a ballot initiative to set minimum space allotments for confined animals.

American Farm Bureau president Bob Stallman calls it a victory for farmers, but HSUS president and CEO Wayne Pacelle calls it a dirty trick on the part of agriculture giants. What do you call it?    

I received this action alert yesterday from The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. We have until September 28 to tell the USDA to base Conservation Stewardship Program application approval on environmental outcomes, not on when a conservation practice is implemented. See below:

Since the 1930s, we've been paying farmers to produce corn, wheat, rice and cotton. What if we paid farmers for producing healthier soil, cleaner water, climate change mitigation and greater bio-diversity instead? That's the "Big Idea" behind the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP). Pay farmers to produce environmental outcomes that contribute to the public good.

Sustainable and organic farming advocates have an important, urgent opportunity to help shape the implementation of this working lands conservation program. The USDA has requested comments on the administrative rules that will govern implementation of the new CSP.  

The USDA is considering giving a higher rank to CSP applications proposing the adoption of new conservation practices vs. the maintenance of existing practices. Current rules give equal weight to existing and proposed conservation practices. Please tell the USDA that CSP applications should be ranked on the basis of environmental outcomes and not on the basis of when a conservation practice is implemented.  

The USDA has posed a specific question for comment:  Should the program give greater weight and therefore a higher rank and a higher likelihood of acceptance into the program to applications proposing new conservation practices? Or should existing and new practices be given equal weight?  

The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and other conservation programs pay farmers to adopt new conservation practices. The CSP, however, is unique among working lands conservation programs. The CSP rewards farmers who are already farming at a high stewardship threshold and provides an incentive to maintain those high stewardship standards.  

If a farmer has previously adopted advanced conservation measures and systems, the program is designed to reward that behavior and help pay for continued active management and maintenance of those systems and practices. Farmers should also be expected to and be rewarded for adopting new practices. But CSP ranking and payments should be keyed to environmental outcomes and not on when conservation activities are adopted.

CSP design and regulation should equally balance the benefits of both existing and new practices with the primary measure being the environmental benefits secured by the total conservation system regardless of the timing of adoption of various parts of the system. This is essential to making CSP a program that recognizes and rewards the multiple benefits of sustainable and organic farming systems.  

Comment letters can be as short or as long as you want. Put your comments in your own words, and raise the points most important to you. You can submit a comment from the National Sustainable Agriculture website, or you can email comments directly to the USDA at CSP2008@wdc.usda.gov.  
 
If you send your own email:  Be sure to identify the Docket Number at the top of your letter:  RE:  NRCS-IFR-09004. Address your comment letter to: Mr. Gregory Johnson, Director, Financial Assistance Programs, US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 5237-S, Washington, DC 20250-2890. Be sure to identify yourself by providing your name and contact information. You may also mail your letter to this address if you prefer not to email it. The deadline is September 28.

For decades, we’ve relied on antibiotics to treat infection. In a scary turn of events, however, we’re finding that when used improperly, these drugs are ineffective or can even worsen the problem by creating “superbugs” — bacteria that have become antibiotic-resistant. 

Probably the most egregious example of improper antibiotic use comes from the livestock industry. Some 70 percent of total antibiotic use occurs in the livestock industry to speed growth and ward off disease, and some in the medical community are warning that we’re headed for disaster. Antibiotics are routinely used whether the animals are sick or not — breaking the first and most important rule of protecting antibiotic efficacy. 

Enter Rep. Louise Slaughter’s H.R. 1549/S.619: The Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act of 2009. The bill is designed to prevent the agricultural use of antibiotics important to human health unless the animals are sick. 

Livestock organizations such as the United States Cattlemen’s Association state that if passed, American producers could no longer compete with foreign markets and our meat would have to be imported. Opponents claim that at the very least, meat prices would skyrocket to offset the increased costs experienced by producers. 

Supporters of the bill maintain that antibiotic resistance adds millions to healthcare costs — $4 to $5 billion per year, according to The Pew Charitable Trusts. The group also states that 300,000 hospitalizations and 5,000 deaths are caused by food contaminated by dangerous pathogens and bacteria such as Salmonella and E. Coli each year, and these bugs are becoming increasingly antibiotic-resistant. 

What do you think?  Do you support this legislation? Let us know your thoughts.

Photo by iStockphoto

If you’ve ever found yourself thinking that we’re overly critical of factory farms, take a moment to read this nauseating profile of Smithfield Foods’ hog farms from Rolling Stone magazine. 

Author Jeff Tietz reports that “Smithfield estimates that its total sales will reach $11.4 billion this year. So prodigious is its fecal waste, however, that if the company treated its effluvia as big-city governments do — even if it came marginally close to that standard — it would lose money.” That’s a lot of poop, people. 

The article goes on to tell about farms littered with pig carcasses (as many as ten percent of factory-farm hogs die before slaughter due to the conditions in which they live, according to one study), and about people succumbing to the fumes from hog waste lagoons. Lagoons, which, according to Tietz, contain a combination of toxic substances such as ammonia, methane, hydrogen sulfide, carbon monoxide, cyanide, phosphorous, nitrates and heavy metals (not to mention  your typical gut-wrenchers: salmonella, cryptosporidium, streptocolli and giardia). 

If, like any good capitalist, you want to send Smithfield a message by avoiding its products, here’s a list of brands that sell their meat. What is Paula Deen thinking, ya’ll?

Photo by iStockphoto/Bruce Works

ISTOCKPHOTO/ROYCE DEGRIE

The USDA has proposed a rule to require all farms and ranches where animals are raised to be registered in a federal database under the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) for existing disease control programs. The draft rule covers programs for cattle, sheep, goats and swine. It also sets the stage for the entire NAIS program to be mandated for everyone, including anyone who owns even one livestock animal (for example, a single chicken or a horse). Learn more about the legislation in The Truth About the Animal ID Plan.

It’s critical that the USDA and Congress hear from the hundreds of thousands of people who will be adversely affected by the NAIS program. This includes not only animal owners, but also consumers who care about local and sustainable foods, taxpayers who object to wasteful government programs and advocates for a safer food system.

STEP 1: Submit comments to USDA online or by mail. The comments must be received by the USDA by March 16, 2009. 

Submit comments on the federal regulations website (click on the yellow balloon under “add comments”). 

Or mail two copies of your comments to the USDA at the address below. Clearly state that your comments refer to Docket No. APHIS-2007-0096. (See the sample comments at the end of this post.)

Docket No. APHIS-2007-0096
Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS
Station 3A-03.8
4700 River Road Unit 118
Riverdale, MD 20737-1238 

STEP 2: Send a copy of your comments to your representative and senators. 

You can find who represents you and their contact information at www.congress.org. 

BACKGROUND

The USDA has been working for over five years to force NAIS onto American animal owners. NAIS is designed to identify and track each and every individual livestock and poultry animal owned by family farmers, hobby farmers, homesteaders and pet owners across the country.

The USDA claims that NAIS is a disease tracking program, but has refused to provide any support for its claims. In reality, NAIS will:

• Replace states’ existing, well-functioning disease response and brand inspection programs with an untested, expensive and unreliable system
• Impose high costs and government surveillance on every farmer and animal owner for no significant benefits, and will likely force many small producers out of business 

NAIS does nothing to improve food safety for consumers or prevent animal diseases. This program is a one-size-fits-all program developed by and for big Agribusiness. NAIS will increase consolidation of our food supply in the hands of a few large companies and put the brakes on the growing movement toward local food systems with its high costs. 

Despite promises to the contrary, the USDA’s new proposed rule would make portions of the system mandatory for thousands of people in every state. Anyone who participates in federal disease control program for cattle, sheep, goats or swine will have their premises registered. The NAIS Premises Identification Number (PIN) will become the only form of premises identification acceptable for USDA animal health purposes, with no opt-out provision. 

The proposed rule would also limit official Animal Identification Numbers to the NAIS-compliant 840-numbering system, laying the groundwork for future regulations that would limit the types of tags that can be used. 

The proposed rule is not final yet. You can help stop NAIS by visiting the Federal Registry and making a comment. Visit their website and click on the yellow balloon under “add comments.” And don’t forget to send a copy of your comments to your elected officials, letting them know how you feel about NAIS. 

The grassroots movement has already successfully stalled the USDA’s plans for NAIS, which originally called for the entire program — premises registration, animal identification and tracking — to be mandatory by January 2009. The proposed rule is an opportunity to get thousands of objections in the formal record, and have an even greater impact. It is imperative that people speak up to protect our right to farm and our food supply! 

FOR MORE INFORMATION 

Go to www.FarmAndRanchFreddom.org or contact Judith McGeary, (512) 243-9404 or Judith@FarmAndRanchFreedom.org.

Read more about NAIS and how it will affect small scale and sustainable farms in The Truth About the Animal ID Plan. 

SAMPLE COMMENTS 

Date: ____________________ 

Docket No. APHIS-2007-0096
Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS
Station 3A-03.8
4700 River Road Unit 118
Riverdale, MD 20737-1238 

Re: Docket No. APHIS–2007–0096

I urge the USDA to withdraw its proposed rule to implement portions of the National Animal Identification System (NAIS), Docket No. APHIS-2007-0096.

I am a _____________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________

[State who you are — for instance, are you a farmer, consumer, or horse owner — and why this issue matters to you.] 

The proposed rule mandates the NAIS Premises Identification Number (PIN) as the sole means of identifying properties for USDA animal health purposes. The proposed rule also mandates the use of the NAIS numbering system (i.e. the “840 numbering system”) for ear tags using official animal identification numbers. Tags using other numbering systems would be required to be linked to a NAIS PIN.

The draft rule is seriously flawed for multiple reasons:

1.  Does not substantiate the alleged benefits to animal health: The USDA makes general claims about the benefits of identifying locations where animals are kept, but the agency does not address the ability of existing programs to meet this purpose, nor how the proposed rule would improve the capability to identify locations.
2. Ignores the costs and burdens: The proposed rule would substantially increase costs for livestock owners and taxpayers. Costs include the development and maintenance of a massive database; purchase of 840-numbered tags by animal owners; changes by state agencies to make existing programs consistent with the rule; and increased federal government intrusion into the lives and daily activities of farmers and other animal owners.
3. Violates individuals’ religious beliefs: Amish, Mennonite and some other individuals have religious objections to the universal numbering system under NAIS.
4. Creates disincentives for people to seek veterinary care for their animals and participate in existing disease control programs: The proposed rule lists four animal disease programs —tuberculosis , brucellosis, scrapie and Johne’s — and will also impact others. These programs include provisions for veterinary care through vaccinations and testing. Animal owners who object to NAIS may avoid participating in these programs, thereby increasing health risks to the public and farm operations.
5. Adds to the confusion: This rule is the latest in a series of ambiguous and often contradictory documents that the USDA has issued on NAIS. This has created enormous confusion over the intent of the USDA and problems for both animal owners and state agencies.

The proposed rule is a significant step towards implementing the entire NAIS program. Thus, the agency should address the fundamental question of whether it should be implementing NAIS at all. In addition to the problems with the draft rule listed above, there are many additional objections to the entire NAIS program:

1. USDA’s assertions that NAIS will provide benefits for animal health are not supported, and actually contradict basic scientific principles.
2. High costs for animal owners and taxpayers: These costs include: (1) the development, maintenance, and update of massive databases; (2) the costs of tags, most of which will contain microchips; (3) the labor burdens for tagging every animal; (4) the paperwork burdens of reporting routine movements; and (5) the costs of enforcement on millions of individuals. 
3. Impracticality: The databases to register the properties, identify each animal, and record billions of “events” will dwarf any system currently in existence.
4. Waste of money: The USDA has already spent over $130 million on NAIS implementation, but has yet to develop a workable plan for the program.
5. Diverts resources from more critical needs such as disease testing, disease prevention through vaccination and improved animal husbandry practices, and disease detection in currently uninspected livestock imports.
6. Damage to food safety efforts: NAIS will not prevent foodborne illnesses, such as E. coli or salmonella contamination, because the tracking ends at the time of slaughter. Food safety is better served by focusing on programs such as increased testing for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE or Mad Cow), improved oversight of slaughterhouses and food processing facilities, and increased inspections of imported foods. Programs such as NAIS that burden small, sustainable farmers will hurt efforts to develop safer, decentralized local food systems
7. Discourages involvement in farming or animal husbandry: Because of costs and government intrusion, some people will choose not to stay in farming or go into farming. This will result in less competition, greater reliance in foreign imports and poor quality at higher prices.

I urge the USDA to withdraw the proposed rule to implement portions of the National Animal Identification System, Docket No. APHIS-2007-0096.

Sincerely,

Name: ___________________________________
Address: _________________________________
City, State Zip: _____________________________

Additional Comments:

The Ethicurean, a fantastic blog about sustainable eating (eth•i•cu•re•an n. Someone who seeks out tasty things that are also sustainable, organic, local and/or ethical), contained an eyebrow-raising post yesterday: A report from the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy found that many widely consumed food products containing high fructose corn syrup also contain mercury. The connection? HFCS is manufactured with an ingredient that is sometimes still produced in outdated industrial chlorine plants that rely on mercury-based technology. The ingredient (caustic soda) becomes contaminated and in turn contaminates the syrup. 

Researchers tested 55 products and found mercury in nearly one-third of them, including Hershey’s Chocolate Syrup, Nutri-Grain Strawberry Cereal Bars, Jack Daniels Barbeque Sauce and more. 

The full list of tested products and results: http://www.healthobservatory.org/library.cfm?refID=105040 

The report from Environmental Health: http://www.ehjournal.net/content/pdf/1476-069x-8-2.pdf 

Wondering how you’ll live without Hershey’s Syrup? Here’s some comic relief from the guys who brought you King Corn. It’s a hilarious spoof of those ridiculous HFCS ads that were sponsored by The Corn Refiners Association.

A familiar scene: You’re standing at the refrigerated case in the supermarket, staring at a carton of eggs and trying your best to remember if it was “free range” or “cage free” that most benefitted the birds and produced the healthiest eggs. Good news: Sustainable Table has created a handy wallet-size reference card to eliminate the confusion surrounding the multitude of meat label claims we’re faced with these days. Just print and fold the card, and be sure to have it with you when grocery shopping to help you decipher the true meaning behind claims like natural, hormone-free, artisan, grass-fed and many more. 

Not sure what the label “biodynamic” means, if anything? Just whip out your glossary card and decide for sure if it truly is a premium product that’s worth that premium price tag.  

Happy shopping!

DON BAYLEY/ISTOCKPHOTO

The next president of the United States will have a lot on his plate. Energy, the economy, foreign relations, healthcare … these may be the main dishes on the current political agenda menu, but it would be a very bad idea to overlook another that seems to be simmering on the back burner: food policy. 

Many thanks to Michael Pollan, who pointed this out in an excellent letter published in The New York Times Magazine. In it he urges the president-elect to consider a food garden on the White House Lawn and rethink the subsidies that are shaping the current landscape of industrial agriculture. He urges our future “farmer in chief” to decentralize our food system, thus increasing the security and safety of our food. Most importantly, he identifies the connection between a sound food policy and high-profile issues such as healthcare, energy independence and climate change. 

Take a look! This is a comprehensive plan from someone who really knows their stuff.

Photo by ISTOCKPHOTO/Melih Kesmen

Everyone has their own opinion of the new farm bill, also known as the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008. But most of us will concede that while outrageous subsidy payments to the largest of producers once again evaded cuts, drawing further indignation from the World Trade Organization (and prompting threats of trade sanctions against us), the legislation contained some heartening support for many environmental and conservation initiatives. 

Was that all just a ploy to divert our attention from the subsidies and get the bill passed? That may be the case — the Environmental Working Group reported recently that Congress is now planning to introduce a bill that will cut millions in funding for these conservation-related programs, on a state-by-state basis. Click here to see whose slice of the pie is shrinking, and by how much.

OK, we know all about the genetically engineered corn, rice and soybeans, but a GE cow? It’s true, the FDA is taking public comment on the regulation of altering animal DNA in an attempt to increase their resistance to diseases such as BSE and produce healthier food products, such as meat with increased levels of omega-3 fatty acids. That doesn’t sound that bad, does it? But wait, that’s not all: Scientists also want to alter animals’ genetics to make them more susceptible to diseases that affect humans (such as cancer) for the purpose of research. How about a hypoallergenic pet? That’s also on the table. Need an organ transplant? We’ll have an animal that’s been engineered for that, too. They’re even wanting animals to produce human pharmaceuticals such as insulin. 

If these animals are approved for the food system (they’re not, yet), the FDA states plainly that it will not be required to label the products that contain them. 

Read more about the proposal and make your comments here.  

Soon, you’ll be seeing a new label on fresh meat, poultry, fish, fruits and vegetables, peanuts and certain nuts in your supermarket. Country of origin labeling will be mandatory beginning Sept. 30, with a few exceptions. Click here for a report from Consumers Union that includes the good and bad news about the new rule, as well as which products require labels and which do not. What do you think? Victory for consumers everywhere, or pointless strain on processors?