Eat Local KC

Monsanto Tries to Ban rBGH Labeling in Kansas

A new bill, SB 595, has been introduced in the Kansas Senate. While it's primary purpose is to prevent the labeling of dairy products as being "rBGH free" (Monsanto's genetically engineered hormone injected into dairy cows) it actually covers any food. The following analysis of the issue is provided by Rick North of the Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility and Craig Volland of the KC Food Circle & Kansas Sierra Club CAFO Committee.

Rick North of the Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility:
SB 595 bans two types of labels. The first is a label based on composition of the food product that can't be confirmed through lab analysis. There is no current commercial lab test that can detect rBGH. Therefore, this would knock out labels such as rBGH-free, rBST-free, or Does not contain artificial hormones.

The current industry standard requires that farmers sign an affidavit swearing that they don't use rBGH. The second provision in the bill knocks that out. In both instances, the bill makes an illogical leap that just because something isn't demonstrated by a lab test or is sworn to by affidavit or other sworn statement, then its misleading. This would knock out any production-related labels, such as "Our farmers pledge not to use rBGH (rBST, artificial hormones)."

Monsanto is getting clobbered in the marketplace. Dairy after dairy is going rBGH-free, all over the country. We estimate that at least one third, and probably 40-50% of all fluid milk sold in the U.S. is rBGH-free, and its going higher all the time. This is costing Monsanto millions of dollars and they are pulling out all the stops to reverse the trend. Their strategy is simple prevent consumers from knowing whether dairy products are rBGH-free or not by censoring label information.

Whats even more incredible about this bill is that it would appear to cover ANY food, not just dairy products. This is beyond what weve seen in bills/rules weve been fighting in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Indiana. I'm not even sure it's intended to go that far. There are all kinds of food labels that can't be verified by lab tests state of origin, country of origin, bottled water claims (such as spring-fed or from a particular location) and (possibly) organic, to name a few.

Craig Volland:
I believe this bill would also ban the label "free range" for meats which is critically important to small farmers in Kansas who sell direct to eaters or to restaurants. That's because it is verified to our customers by testimonial or affidavit, not certification. Also, depending on how they define "agricultural product" ti could snag baked goods and jams and jellies, for example, that use some or all organically grown inputs but the processer may not, her- or himself, be certified organic.

Regardless of the science, this is, fundamentally, a consumer right- to- know issue. Also Monsanto has a long history of intimidating farmers with lawsuits (ie. Percy Schmeiser case) and otherwise attempting to get their way through undue governmental influence.  Because of their power and influence, product labeling is one of the few ways a consumer can exercise freedom of choice in this matter. Missouri growers may be seeing this shortly in the Mo. legislature.

Action against the Kansas bill must be swift because the Senate must act on it in the next week or so to abide by certain rules to get it through the Kansas House before the session ends.

Please call you state reps immediately and object to this bill. It's your right to know what is in (or not) your food. Monsanto has already failed to get this objective past the FDA at the national level, this new effort is a state-by-state attempt to circumvent that ruling and prevent consumers from being able to know if their dairy products contain growth hormones.

The Center for Food Safety has an automated letter set up to make voicing your opinion easy. Or, please feel free to use this text for your email:

Dear Senator John Vratil and Representative Tim Owens,

I vehemently oppose the passage of SB 595, which has been introduced in the Kansas Senate. It's primary purpose is to prevent the labeling of dairy products as being "rBGH free" and to keep consumers from being able to make choices regarding the food we consume. The FDA denied this effort by Monsanto to ban rBGH-free labeling at the national level, and I oppose Monsanto's attempt to get around the ruling by going state-by-state.

Consumers have a right to know what is in their food, how it has been produced and where it has been produced. Yet through efforts like this, Monsanto and others deny consumers a fundamental right to choose and to understand what is in the food we eat.

Please stop this bill and the abuse of consumer rights that it represents.

Thank you,

Kansas Resident

Kansas Legislature Members you need to write are:

Senator John Vratil  [email protected]
Representative  Tim Owens  [email protected]

Farm Bill News Items

The Farm Bill hits the Senate floor this week. This is the last chance we will have to try and get Congress to repair this bill. The Senate version throws a few bones by way of conservation, school food, farmers markets and food stamp programs, but there are still major issues to be addressed.

Michael Pollan does a good summary of the key issue, but if you want the details between what the House proposed and what Senate is looking at, check it out here. Thanks to the Ethicurian for their great coverage on this topic. If you would prefer to email your Senators (phone calls are urged) the Environmental Defense Fund has a link to do so. Be sure to modify the letter to encourage Senators to put a $250K cap on subsidy payments or adopt the Fresh Act.

Farm Bill News Items

Farm Bill
While we were all home throwing out our Thomas the Trains, the Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Subcommittee of the House added a new provision to the farm bill. Section 123 of Title I, would prevent states and localities from passing any laws prohibiting commercial use of USDA-inspected products.

What this means is that any product be it cloned beef or GMO-corn that is deemed “non-regulated” by the USDA cannot be banned from sale in any state, regardless of the state’s wishes.

Hmm, did Cheney write this one? Sure sounds like it.

"California, Arkansas and Missouri have passed laws creating state committees that review whether genetically engineered rice should be grown in the state," notes Joe Mendelson, Legal Director of the Center for Food Safety. "These laws, which farmers support, would be preempted."

Rally the troops and tell the House Agriculture Committee what they can do with their Section 123.

On the flip side, maybe send a note of thanks to the The House Subcommittee on Nutrition who completed a markup of the bill on July 1 that proposes to increase spending under the Nutrition Title of the 2007 Farm Bill by an estimated $5 billion over five years. The spending will help increase benefits for food stamp recipients and other emergency food programs.

More Good Reason Not to Import Food from China

From the New York Times:

The pet food case is also putting China’s agricultural exports under greater scrutiny because the country has had a terrible food safety record.

In recent years, for instance, China’s food safety scandals have involved everything from fake baby milk formulas and soy sauce made from human hair to instances where cuttlefish were soaked in calligraphy ink to improve their color and eels were fed contraceptive pills to make them grow long and slim.

For their part, Chinese officials dispute any suggestion that melamine from the country could have killed pets. But regulators here on Friday banned the use of melamine in vegetable proteins made for export or for use in domestic food supplies.

Yet what is clear from visiting this region of northeast China is that for years melamine has been quietly mixed into Chinese animal feed and then sold to unsuspecting farmers as protein-rich pig, poultry and fish feed.

Read more about this here.

Fixing the Farm Bill

Here are some good reasons why you, as a consumer, would want to send a QUICK, EASY email to support changes to the Farm Bill. Hey, you don't even have to know your representative's name! And, realistically, most of us don't. It takes less than a minute!

There are some very real benefits to consumers in this issue, ones we all need to be aware of and involved in — even if you've never set foot near a farm.

Here are the two ammendments that would help the situation and the basics of what they would do for YOU.

The Healthy Farms, Food and Fuels Act will do the following for YOU the consumer:

1. Promote renewable energy development on farms, ranches and forest lands (cheaper, clean energy FOR YOU!).
   
2. Link producers with consumers through farmers markets and farm-to-cafeteria (as in your school's cafeteria) initiatives, and provide new assistance to low-income and elderly consumers (wait the last one goes under altruism, unless YOU are low income or elderly).
   
3. Help create more organic farms, thus better and more sources of quality produce for YOU.

The EAT Healthy America Act will do the following for YOUR CHILDREN:

1. Require federal feeding programs, including the YOUR CHILDREN'S school lunch and school breakfast programs, to adhere to the 2005 USDA Dietary Guidelines.
   
2. Expand the fruit and vegetable snack program in YOUR CHILDRENS' schools across the nation and develop new nutrition promotion programs to assist producers in enhancing their markets.

FDA Knew About Risks

If you have seen the front page of most newspapers, then you know that the FDA was aware of the problems that led to the spinach and peanut butter contamination for some time before the outbreaks.

In the case of the Salmonella in the peanut butter, the FDA knew of the issues as early as 2005. When FDA inspectors requested documents from the ConAgra plant, they were refused. The FDA inspector left and the issue was not followed up on.

While the spotlight is being thrown onto the FDA, with reason, there are others who need to be called into question.

"This administration does not like regulation, this administration does not like spending money, and it has a hostility toward government. The poisonous result is that a program like the FDA is going to suffer at every turn of the road," said Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), chairman of the full House committee, as quoted in the Washington Post.

The FDA was given a budget increase of just $10 million, a mere bandaid when you consider they are responsible for nearly 80% of the inspections of our food supply. The USDA was given a budget increase nearly 10 times that amount.

Let's also not forget that ConAgra knew of its problems and sent inspectors away. And did nothing. And the spinach producers knew of the issues, and the outbreaks continued. In fact, 18 outbreaks of foodborne illness since 1995 caused by E. coli involved fresh or fresh-cut lettuce and one concerning fresh-cut spinach. The 19 outbreaks account for over 400 reported cases of illness and two deaths.

So, when you line everyone up to take the blame, don't forget the food producers (ConAgra, others) who allow life-threatening problems to continue and deny them, the FDA that cannot and will not do its job, and the current pro-business administration who will not support the FDA in doing its job. That's a lot of blame. That's a lot of anger for a Monday morning.

Beyond blaming, what can we do? Because blaming does not solve the issue of getting dinner on the table tonight. As consumers we need to decrease our reliance on processed foods and mass-scale agriculture. We need to Eat Local, to buy food from people we know and trust, who feed their own families the same produce and meats that they sell to us. And, we need to tell our government that we are mad, that we do not support them. And tell companies who sell us tainted product, knowingly, that we don't care to buy their products. Any of them. And there are many.

Antibiotic News

The FDA is currently considering approval for use of the animal  drug, cefquinome, in food animals. The drub is a fourth-generation cephalosporin, which is one of a class of drugs  highly valued in human medicine as treatment for serious and life-threatening infections.    

Four top medical organizations have written the FDA to advise against approval for the drug’s use on food animals. The organizations include; The American Medical Association (AMA), Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and American Public Health Association (APHA).

Cloned meat?

The United States Food  Drug Administration (FDA) gave preliminary approval on December 28 2006to allow for meat and dairy products from cloned animals to be sold as food for human use. This currently does not include lamb or sheep due to more limited information on sheep cloning.

Labeling of cloned food would not be required.

Does this concern you? If so, you have until April 2, 2007 to submit comments to the FDA on the proposed plan. You can submit comments at this link.

You can review the proposed new standards in these documents:
Animal Cloning: A Draft Risk Assessment
Proposed Risk Management Plan
Guidance for Industry Use of Edible Products from Animal Clones or Their Progeny for Human Food or Animal Feed

I hope if this issues concerns you, you will take time to comment on it to the FDA, though your thoughts are also welcome here.

USDA's Crazy Chicken Dance

Under the heading of things that make you go "What the ...?!" is this latest headline from the wisdom of the USDA. New rulings will allow us to import chicken from China. Yes, China where there are outbreaks of Bird Flu that have cost human lives, 29 outbreaks already this year.

To make matters more confusing, the USDA is proposing sending the chickens to China for processing, then importing them back after processing, and this is CHEAPER than processing the chickens here. How is a round trip to China for poultry that is grown here cheaper than processing the birds here? Especially when the poultry industry already produces chicken under questionable conditions in order to keep prices down.

You have to wonder if the USDA has our health and safety in mind when you read things like this. This is an organization the is supposed to protect the quality and safety of our food supply and those of our nation's food producers.

It just makes no sense. I'll be looking for my chickens at a local farm, where I can watch the processing if I choose to. It won't require a passport for me or the chickens.

Read more on the story here.