| January 2005 |
| Sun |
Mon |
Tue |
Wed |
Thu |
Fri |
Sat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
|
30
|
31
|
|
Friday, January 28
Human Rights Watch Condemns U.S. Meatpackers
by
Chad Thompson
on Fri 28 Jan 2005 12:31 PM CST
 Human Rights Watch Condemns U.S. Meatpackers
This
week brought a new first: Human Rights Watch - an international
human rights watchdog agency - accused a specific U.S. industry of
violating basic human rights.
In a summary from the New York Times:
For
the first time, Human Rights Watch has issued a report that harshly
criticizes a single industry in the United States, concluding that
working conditions among the nation's meatpackers and slaughterhouses
are so bad that they violate basic human rights.
...
"Meatpacking
is the most dangerous factory job in America," said the report's
author, Lance Compa, who teaches industrial and labor relations at
Cornell and is a former union organizer and negotiator. "Dangerous conditions are cheaper for companies, and the government does next to nothing."
Responding
to that criticism, Richard Fairfax, director of enforcement for the
federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration, said the agency
vigorously oversaw the industry for excessive line speed and other
problems.
"We have a strong enforcement program" in meatpacking, Mr. Fairfax said, "and a strong compliance assistance program."
....
"Nearly every worker interviewed for this report bore physical
signs of a serious injury suffered from working in a meat or poultry
plant," the report says. "Meat and poultry industry employers set up
the workplaces and practices that create these dangers, but they treat
the resulting mayhem as a normal, natural part of the production
process, not as what it is - repeated violations of international human
rights standards."
The report also says that to save themselves money, companies
frequently pressure injured employees not to file workers' compensation
claims.
Something
to keep in mind - "repeated violations of international human rights
standards" is describing the process used to bring the majority of meat
products to your dinner plate. Meat packing has also been a
traditional Iowa industry - and many towns can tell you of their
experiences with meatpacking companies bent on paying the lowest wage
and ensuring the worst conditions possible just to boost profit margins.
Sunday, January 23
IOWA COUNTIES & THE DNR MASTER MATRIX by Molly Regan
by
Linda Thieman
on Sun 23 Jan 2005 02:39 PM CST
 IOWA COUNTIES & THE DNR MASTER MATRIX
by Molly Regan
Good news for those of us in the IOWA counties that choose to retain
the Department Of Natural Resources’ (DNR) MASTER MATRIX system.
This Master Matrix is “a scoring system that can be used to evaluate
the siting of permitted confinement feeding operations” according to
information at www.iowadnr.com. This questionnaire is for animal
confinement owners as well as smaller farmers who raise a certain
number of cattle, hogs, or chickens. They need to indicate how
creating or expanding their business will impact the surrounding
COMMUNITY, THE WATER, AND THE AIR.
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS in each IOWA county has until January 31st,
2005, to choose whether or not to continue (or in some cases take up)
the requirement that the Master Matrix be used for building
permits. For example, if a company wants to build a 30,000
chicken production facility in Scott County (whose Board Of Supervisors
APPROVED for the THIRD YEAR in a row the Master Matrix), it would need
to fill it out in that county.
One of the questions on the Master Matrix is as follows: “ Groundwater
monitoring wells installed near manure storage structure, and applicant
agrees to provide data to the department.” If these monitoring
wells will indeed be in place, then a score of 15 can be divided under
the Air, the Water, and/or the Community sections. 44 questions
with a total of 880 possible points are on the questionnaire. At
least one half of the total must be reached for approval.
Use of this system is of the utmost importance if counties want to have
any say as to whether or not confined animal feeding operations
(CAFO’s) operate or upgrade within their boundaries. The DNR
still has the final say, but at least with this Master Matrix, each
county can still have input on new or expanding operations.
For the smaller farmer, some may have to fill out the paperwork if
their expansion goes beyond a certain number of animal units.
Of utmost concern is AIR POLLUTION caused by these facilities.
Even a 500-head hog operation can create much HYDROGEN SULFIDE and
AMONIA. Both of these, if too concentrated, can cause damage to
humans. According to DR. KAY KIMBALL in his (yes, it is a man)
book ‘CHEMICAL BRAIN INJURY,’ too much exposure to these toxins can
cause memory loss, imbalance, reproductive problems, unconsciousness,
and even death. Dr. Kimball has researched this area for over 20
years, and his book explains in depth the consequences of living near
or working in an environment which produces harmful bi-products.
Check with your local Board of Supervisors to see if your county is
part of the process. Encourage them to do so. We all need to be
involved with this, even if you live in an urban area. Three
years ago, I spoke in front of the Clinton & Scott Counties Boards,
and I believe it helped encourage them to each go with the Matrix.
For more information go to: www.iowadnr.com or contact your local Board
of Supervisors…..And don’t forget: CPR/Conserve, Participate, Recycle
Saturday, January 22
No Part of Mad Cow is Safe to Eat
by
Linda Thieman
on Sat 22 Jan 2005 05:00 PM CST
 No Part of Mad Cow is Safe to Eat
Dr. Thomas Blythe, Earthtimes.org
Mad Cow Disease Triggered by Inflammation
Mad Cow
disease, which was thought to spread in humans only if they consume
infected brain or intestinal tissues of infected cows, may have other
routes of entry. If the study done on mice by a group of researchers
led by Adriano Aguzzi at the University Hospital of Zurich, Switzerland
holds true then BSE/CJD testing programmers will have to change their
ways and practices in what could turn into another major problem for
the beef industry.
Since
earlier screening showed Prions, that cause BSE, are present only in
specific organs like brain and intestines, "the assumption has been
that other parts are safe to eat," says Aguzzi.
"People
in countries with BSE still eat steak because the authorities say if
you stay away from the brain and lymphoid tissue, you should be safe.
However, most Prion testing has been done in healthy animals. If you
have a sick cow, these rules may no longer apply."
Aguzzi’s
study showed inflammation can let the disease causing protein Prion to
be replicated (produced) in other parts of the animal body which were
earlier thought to be safe for consumption. The mice used in the study
were having inflammation due to several reasons including kidney and
liver diseases. It was seen in all the cases that chronic inflammation
leads to a build up of prion proteins in organs that are usually Prion
free.
"The organ transforms itself into a bioreactor for Prions," says Aguzzi.
The mice
having inflammation due to diabetes had its pancreas full of the Prions
while the organ in healthy mice was left unaffected.
Researchers
have not yet worked out how exactly inflammation leads to Prion
production and the spread of deadly protein in other parts of the body.
However, they feel that it has got something to do with the cells
playing a role in the immune system. These cells produce a substance
called lymphotoxin to fight invading pathogens. Aguzzi feels that the
lymphotoxin starts a reaction that turns a normal cell into a prion
producing bioreactor. They have observed that mice lacking the
lymphotoxin receptors lack prion disease in inflamed organs.
(Source)
Friday, January 21
EPA Sweetheart Deal with Factory Farms Exempts Polluters from Clean Air Act
by
Linda Thieman
on Fri 21 Jan 2005 04:05 PM CST
EPA Sweetheart Deal with Factory Farms Exempts Polluters from Clean Air Act
Hastings Group
WASHINGTON, D.C.
(January 21, 2005) In the wake of the EPA release of its CAFO Air
Quality Compliance Agreement today, Michele M. Merkel, senior counsel
of the Environmental Integrity Project issued the following statement
today:
"These
EPA rules amount to a wholesale relaxation of the Clean Air Act as it
relates to factory farms, which are a major source of pollution in
rural America.
All
along, EPA has had the authority under the Clean Air Act to gather the
kind of data it needs to determine emission levels at these industrial
farming operations - it does not need the industry's permission.
The
EPA-proposed amnesty on imposing the Clean Air act protections for the
public can last until 2011. Given that EPA already has had a
moratorium on enforcement for the past four years, that means the
current Administration will stall permits and air pollution controls at
some facilities for more than a decade.
Why is
the EPA doing this? The industry's lobbyists who are operating
hand in glove with the Agency understand they can't defeat emission
controls outright, especially where the public's health is at stake,
but they understand that regulations deferred are money earned, so
their strategy is to postpone the day of reckoning.
This is
another example of what should be a scientific process conducted in the
public's best interest being hijacked by industry. Industry gets
to select the "independent monitoring contractor" who will select the
farms for testing and related steps. The scientific soundness of
the monitoring program can only be ensured if the monitoring protocol
is reviewed by qualified independent experts who do not have ties to
the livestock industry. Furthermore, we are also concerned that the
small number of farms EPA anticipates including in the data collection
process (28) will not provide a significant enough sample to be
representative.
What EPA
is proposing is a sell-out of the public in order to profit the
industry. In practice, this agreement will end up being even
worse than it looks now. Industry will use this agreement to try
and block citizen suits. The idea of preventing citizens from
exercising their rights to hold polluters accountable under federal law
for the next six years (or more) is troubling. Additionally, the
agreement allows companies that have been sued by citizens to sign up
for the amnesty."
For more information, contact Michele M. Merkel at (202) 263-4452 or mmerkel@environmentalintegrity.org.
Keeping Livestock Records Secret?
by
Chad Thompson
on Fri 21 Jan 2005 12:36 PM CST
 Keeping Livestock Records Secret?
This item appeared in the Des Moines Register this morning:
State
agriculture officials want to be allowed to keep secret certain records
dealing with the control of livestock diseases such as mad cow disease.
Key lawmakers are unsure whether they want to take that step, which the Iowa Department of Agriculture has requested.
Senate
Study Bill 1023 would carve out an exception to Iowa's open records law
for any records related to livestock tracking programs that aid in
pinpointing and stopping animal disease outbreaks.
"The
information may relate to an investigation, a person associated with
the animal, or an animal carcass. However, nothing in this subsection
restricts the department from releasing a record to any person," the
proposed law says.
Can anyone think of a situation where it would be a good idea to keep secret any records dealing with livestock disease?
After all, it's only the food supply we're talking about...
Wednesday, January 19
Corporate Agribusiness: "Shocking But True"
by
Chad Thompson
on Wed 19 Jan 2005 12:34 PM CST
Corporate Agribusiness: "Shocking But True"
Today
came a bunch of stories that I could only label "shocking but true", so
I put together three of them in this little post of horrors...
Tomato Profiteering
Remember that massive tomato shortage? According to Florida farmers, it's over.
After
scrambling to keep the nation supplied with fresh tomatoes following
last year's hurricane season, Florida farmers face a glut so large that
tomatoes are rotting in the fields, and thousands of pickers and
packers have been forced out of work.
Florida
Agriculture Commissioner Charles Bronson toured two Homestead fields
Tuesday, promising to launch a national campaign to let consumers and
retailers know that the shortage is over.
"I've never seen this type of top quality tomatoes still hanging on the vines," Bronson said. "It's just shocking."
In
the past two weeks, an estimated 60 million pounds of tomatoes have
been abandoned. One of the nation's top tomato growers predicted the
industry has lost as much as $40 million. Although prices have slowly
come down at some retailers, others continue to charge the same as they
did during the shortage. Bronson said he's not blaming retailers.
"I
don't know that retailers are being told the whole truth," Bronson
said. "Consumers need to know we have plenty of tomatoes because when
they do, they can demand lower prices."
Crushing Labor the Old-Fashioned Way
Another
important (and in this political climate, mildly surprising) item came
over the newswire this past week: a National Labor Relations
Board panel found Smithfield (the largest hog owner in the United
States) engaged in an extensive illegal campaign to stop unionization of packing plants.
The
actions that Smithfield took to stop the union campaign read something
like a Dickens novel - yet it happened in the past 10 years:
* Smithfield managers conspired with the local Sheriff Department to physically intimidate and assault union supporters.
*
Sheriff deputies --- in riot gear and heavily armed --- stationed
themselves at the entrance to the plant on days that civil rights
leader Reverend Jesse Jackson and other religious leaders handed out
literature with workers.
*
The company planned and instigated a "riot" following the vote count in
1997 that led to false arrests of a union supporter.
* Smithfield held forced meetings to intimidate and threaten workers for supporting the union.
*
Smithfield paid workers above their normal rate to spy on co-workers
and turn in union supporters to management consultants.
*
Smithfield forced a management employee produce false statements to the
Board in an attempt to cover-up anti-union activity.
* Smithfield also threatened to close the plant if the workers chose a union.
* The Board found Smithfield guilty of illegally firing ten workers during the two campaigns.
Protecting Farmers From Lawsuits
Okay, it's not all bad news...
Monsanto
was singled out by Montana Senate Majority Leader as targeting farmers
for lawsuits. Monsanto has been suing farmers for well over a
decade, but the Montana Democrats are the first to try and protect
indivudual farmers against predatory lawsuits. (Click here for details.)
A
study released today by the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Food
Safety meticulously documents one biotech company's use of U.S. patent
laws to control staple crop seeds.
The
report follows the introduction of the Farmer Protection Act at the
2005 Montana Legislature. Sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Jon
Tester (Dem.-Big Sandy), the Farmer Protection Act would shield Montana
wheat farmers from unfair lawsuits like those described in the report.
A hearing on the bill will take place on February 4th before the Senate
Judiciary Committee.
KEY FINDINGS:
*
To date, Monsanto Corp. has filed 90 lawsuits in 25 states involving
147 American farmers and 39 small businesses or farm companies.
*
Monsanto has set aside an annual budget of $10 million and 75 full-time
staff devoted solely to investigating and prosecuting farmers.
* The largest recorded judgment favorable to Monsanto documented by the report was $3,052,800
* Monsanto has received $15,253,602.82 in total recorded judgments to date.
According
to the report, Monsanto's efforts to prosecute farmers fall into three
categories: investigations of farmers; out-of-court settlements; and
litigation against farmers accused of patent infringement or "breach of
contract."
Tuesday, January 4
John Drury: The Bio-Village Project Meets The Iowa Values Fund
by
John Drury
on Tue 04 Jan 2005 05:37 PM CST
 The Bio-Village Project Meets The Iowa Values Fund
by John Drury
We hear a lot about the Iowa Values Fund and the handouts to large
corporations in order to get them to stay in Iowa or perhaps move their
business to Iowa. There are those who say we should continue these,
that it’s the only way to compete with other states, and there are
those who say that it’s nothing more than precious tax dollars out the
window.
In north Iowa, when you bring up the Values Fund, a common criticism is
that most of the awards are going to the metropolitan areas and that
the rural areas of the state are being left to fend for themselves.
There have been some Values Fund dollars to make it this far north, but
one could certainly argue that it has not created the kind of jobs that
are needed.
When asked about the criteria for a Values Fund award, state economic
development officials will tell you that one of the things they look at
is the return on investment that the state will receive. If the state
is going to invest in a company to bring jobs to the area, it’s going
to be good paying jobs and a lot of them, they say.
While that criteria certainly makes some sense, I think it’s also
important to keep in mind that the entire state should be put on a
level playing field for economic development dollars. For example, if I
have a project in Des Moines that promises to create 20 jobs, it would
hardly be noticed; but if I have a project that would create 20 jobs in
Swaledale, it would be huge.
The Swaledale Bio-Village project is something I have been working on
now for over a year. The project involves a bio-fuel station offering
85% ethanol and other alternative fuels, an Iowa products store and
restaurant, and an RV Park; all located right off Interstate 35 in
northern Iowa. The entire project incorporates a state of the art
design that would rely on renewable forms of energy to power the
facility, taking full advantage of wind and solar power, as well as
utilizing renewable materials in its construction.
But perhaps the most interesting component is the state certified
food-processing kitchen. I want to focus on the kitchen in this column
as I
think it best illustrates rural Iowa’s ability to come up with creative
solutions to economic development. The food-processing
kitchen would provide a facility for local farmers and growers to
process their crops and add value to them. It would also serve as a
business incubator sparking entrepreneurism in the entire region. For
example, let’s say you make the world’s best salsa, and everyone tells
you they wish they could buy it in the store because it’s so good. But
since you make the salsa in your home kitchen, you are unable to sell
it at retail outlets. You are limited to farmer’s markets and bake
sales. If you use this facility to make your salsa, it can then be sold
in retail outlets and even sold to restaurants. All of a sudden, you
have a business.
This approach to economic development illustrates that with a lot of
work, rural Iowa doesn’t have to succumb to the corporate farms and can
become a celebration of itself. I believe that rural communities can
take innovative approaches to economic development and be successful. I
also believe that the state legislature should find a stable funding
source for the Iowa Values Fund and put north Iowa on a level playing
field with the rest of the state.
To
date, we have
received a $12,500 matching USDA planning grant as well as a local
grant for development of the RV Park. We fully intend on seeking Values
Fund dollars for this project.
Have questions or want more information on the Bio-Village project? Feel free to email me at jdrury@frontiernet.net
|
|
