As of 2006, 89% of the soybeans grown in the U.S. were genetically modified.

A study by Russian scientists concluded that GM soy-fed hamsters lost the ability to reproduce in three generations. The details are a cause for concern and emphasizes the need for more research into the long term effects of genetically modified foods and the chemicals that are used to grow them.  There are other reports of similar effects in domestic animals in Austria, Italy and in the United States.

Read the Detailed Article – Institute for Responsible Technology.

More information on U.S. grown soybeans at Wikipedia.

Read the preliminary_ohiograss.pdf (application/pdf Object).

Issue 2 would establish a Livestock Care Standards Board. It’s about time we had some standards for livestock care! Do you know what horrible things they do to animals on those factory farms?

That’s just the point.  It’s those factory farms that want Issue 2 to pass. They’ve seen voters in California and elsewhere outlaw the use of battery cages so small that the laying hens in them can’t spread their wings and gestation crates that prohibit a hog from turning around for the entire duration of her pregnancy.  Factory farms in Ohio don’t want to have to abide by rules like these, so they’re seeking to preemptively cut off the ability of the voters or the legislature to make any such rules. They hope to do this by creating a board of non-elected political appointees who will have absolute power to make rules related to agriculture in Ohio.

I’m not exaggerating when I say “absolute power.”  This board would be established by our state constitution.  This means that no Ohio court could judge their rules to be unconstitutional. They’d have no direct oversight by the legislature, and the Ohio Department of Agriculture would be obliged to enforce whatever rules this board comes up with.  Issue 2 doesn’t say how the Board is to come up with its rules.  It does say that they shall consider certain things, like food safety and disease prevention, but it doesn’t say that those are the only considerations, or that the stated considerations should supersede all others. That is to say, the Board could declare, “Yes, battery cages probably cause some stress to the hens inside them, but requiring that cages be roomier would increase the cost of producing eggs, and that’s simply unacceptable.”

The board wouldn’t have absolute power. All their regulations would have to be approved by the General Assembly.
Issue 2 doesn’t say that.  (Here’s a link to the actual text of the Joint Resolution from the General Assembly.) It says, “The Board shall have authority to establish standards governing the care and well-being of livestock and poultry in this state, subject to the authority of the General Assembly.”  That doesn’t mean that each regulation that comes out of the Board would have to be submitted for approval from the Assembly.  It just means that the Board has authority to make these rules so long as the Assembly says they do.  In other words, it’s not the standards that are subject to the Assembly’s authority. It’s the Board’s authority that’s subject to the Assembly’s authority. Presumably, if the Board started making rules that resulted in really egregious human rights abuses or something along that line, the Assembly could step in and establish some guidelines.  Still, the existence of the Board would be constitutionally mandated, and the members would be appointed as stated.  There’s nothing the assembly could do to change that.  Basically, if we vote this Board into existence and decide we don’t like some of the rules they’re passing, the only way to do anything about it is for the Ohio voters to pass another constitutional amendment repealing this one.

Besides that, even if the Board did have to get approval from the Assembly for any new agriculture regulations, what’s the likelihood the Assembly would contradict them? This board will be regarded as “the experts” in agriculture in Ohio.  If they–veterinarians and industry bigwigs–say that something is a good practice, how reasonable is it to think that a majority of the General Assembly is going to oppose them?  It’s true that elected politicians like to get re-elected, and that legislators need to be responsive to voters.  They’re not going to want to get caught between the voters and the Board, though, so it’s easier for the legislature to skirt the whole dilemma by giving the Board blanket authority from the outset. Then, if voters protest to their Representative about a new Board regulation, the legislator can say, “I share your concerns, but this isn’t a legislative matter.  It’s the Board that makes these rules. You should appeal to the Board directly.”

The commercial said a Yes vote will ensure safe, locally grown food, and that livestock are well treated.

Big Ag isn’t clueless. They know consumers prefer safe, locally grown food, and that consumers want livestock to be well treated. In other words, they know that the public objects to the way they do business. This is why they fought so hard to prohibit natural dairy farmers from advertising their hormone-free milk as being hormone-free.  (The compromise the courts came up with is that labels can say that milk is rGBH free, but they also have to say that rGBH-free milk is no different than milk from cows on steroids.) They know that if consumers get to choose between safe, ethical, locally grown food from a small, family farm, or scary, questionable stuff produced by a multinational corporation, they’re going to go for the former, often even if it costs more.

To stay in the game, they’ve co-opted these buzz words to push public opinion in favor of a constitutional amendment that can protect them.  Really, it’s a bold move.  Big Ag is trying to win the support of the people who hate them most, because they know that if Issue 2 passes, they don’t have to do anything to please anybody ever again.  The Board can give a free pass to factory farm abuses and outlaw anything that gives small farmers a market advantage. Things like the milk labeling issue wouldn’t be settled in court anymore.  The Board would decide.

Did they lie? Not exactly. It’s not lying if you believe it yourself.  In the opinion of the industry, industrial food is safe.  In their opinion, factory farms are humane.  If a facility in Ohio is raising cattle in a confined feeding operation to sell to Japan, it’s still an Ohio farm.  That makes it local food, right?  If a family owns a farm with several hundred acres, millions of dollars in assets, and several employees, and it raises half a million chickens a year on contract for Tyson, it’s still a family farm, isn’t it?  In their view, what they’re doing is providing safe, local food from family farms. What farmers like me are doing–raising animals naturally and selling directly to the people in our own communities–doesn’t even count.

If you talk to the farmers at your local farmers’ market, most of them will tell you they oppose Issue 2–assuming they’ve researched the matter.  The reasons vary, but the bottom line is the same: whether it will hurt us or not, changing the constitution to establish the Livestock Care Standards Board will not do anything to help us. Having a bunch of corporate lobbyists get together to make rules–whether they favor Big Ag or not–is not going to make my animals happier, me wealthier, or you healthier.  It could possibly have the opposite result, but it can’t improve on what I’m already doing.

Actually, I guess that’s not exactly true. With this enormous amount of power they’d be given, the Board could issue an edict that rules null and void all prohibitions against livestock. They could see to it that chickens, pigs, and dairy goats are welcome in every city, subdivision, and gated community across Ohio, even if clotheslines and non-conforming house colors are not. Yeah…that’ll happen.  I’m sure that’s exactly why it’s being supported by all the factory farm organizations–because they want people to raise their own food in their own communities.  More likely, if we see a loosening of these restrictions come to pass, it’ll be because they want to allow a hog factory to be built in a place where the zoning prohibits it.

Election day is tomorrow.  If you haven’t already voted, please go vote NO on Issue 2.  A local, free-range farmer asked you nicely.

“The board 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.”
Read the Full Story

That’s too much power for a single entity and it would circumvent the democratic public comment process we are used to in regulation of this type.

Regardless of how you feel about specific standards for raising livestock. There are some good reasons why supporters of sustainable agriculture and transparent,  accountable government should vote against Issue 2.

Upon reading the position of OEFFA (Ohio Ecological Food and Farm Association) I was glad to see they had a similar reason for opposing it. Here is OEFFA’s statement:

Vote No on Issue 2!
OEFFA affirms the importance of livestock in sustainable agricultural production systems and in providing prosperity for Ohio’s farm families. OEFFA equally affirms the ethical imperative and economic rationality of the humane treatment of farm animals. As an accredited
organic certifier under the U.S.D.A., OEFFA Certification is responsible for the enforcement of standards for the humane treatment of livestock and poultry, as detailed in the National Organic Standards.

OEFFA does not support Issue 2, which will, by constitutional amendment, create a Livestock Care Standards Board for Ohio. We urge our members and voters to vote “No” on Issue 2.

Our opposition is based on the following points:

* The Ohio Constitution should not be used to create a Livestock Care Standards Board. This is not the role of the state Constitution, which exists to establish the structure and rules of our government. Agricultural operations are already subject to the jurisdiction of State
and Federal Departments of Agriculture.

* The proposed constitutional amendment would give the Livestock Board the ability to make wide-ranging decisions related to farms and food in Ohio that have the force of law. Any future changes to the Livestock Board would require a new constitutional amendment.
We instead encourage a process that promotes citizen input, transparent debate, flexibility, and accountability.

* The amendment serves the economic interests of factory farms,1 opening the door for the proliferation of these Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations in Ohio. We oppose such facilities due to resulting air and water quality degradation from handling massive quantities
of manure. These operations encourage the routine use of antibiotics in livestock, which threatens the preservation of antibiotics for human use.

* The amendment emphasizes the need of the livestock industry to provide “affordable food,” yet ignores its hidden costs, including environmental contamination, human health impacts, and the loss of rural communities. Given that today’s farmers receive only about 20 cents
from each dollar spent on meat or poultry, our efforts are better spent controlling costs after the product leaves the farm, thereby benefiting both farmers and consumers.

For all these reasons, OEFFA opposes Issue 2. We applaud our members and others who produce livestock and do so using practices that allow them to safeguard the health of their animals, the environment, and Ohio’s citizens.

For more information about Issue 2, go to http://www.ohioact.org

Know How and Where to Vote
Here’s some helpful information from the Ohio Secretary of State that will help you navigate the voting process:Registering to Vote
In order to be eligible to vote on November 3, you must register to vote no later than October 5. A completed voter registration form must be postmarked or submitted in person to your Board of Elections, the Secretary of State’s office, any public high school, or any public library by October 5. A voter registration form is available at http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/upload/publications/election/VRform.pdf.

Ways You Can Vote
Voting on Election Day—As always, you can vote in person on election day with a valid form of identification. To find your polling place, go to http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/pollinglocation.aspx?page=361

Early Voting—You can vote in person with a valid form of identification from September 29-November 2 at your local County Board of Elections. To find your County Board of Elections, go to http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/elections/boeDirectory.aspx

Absentee Voting—You can vote by mail through October 31. To request an absentee ballot, to go http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/upload/elections/forms/11-A.pdf

For more information about voting, contact the Ohio Secretary of State’s office at (877) 889-6446 or visit their website at http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/

Support the Next Generation of Sustainable and Organic Farmers and Ranchers!

Tell USDA to Stop Delaying Implementation of the CRP Transition Option
for Beginning and Minority Producers!

Change happens at the transition.  An aging farmer population, a new generation of farmers desperate for access to land, 4.2 million acres of land about to come out of the Conservation Reserve Program, and a growing consumer demand for  food grown by sustainable and organic producers, together present a tremendous opportunity to transform our food system.

In the last Farm Bill, the sustainable agriculture community successfully created a new program-the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) Transition Option- that offers incentives to land owners enrolled in the CRP to sell or lease the land to beginning and minority producers using sustainable or organic farming practices at the end of the CRP contract.

USDA is planning to delay implementation of the CRP Transition Option for at least two years.

SIGN OUR PETITION

Tell USDA we can’t waste this opportunity.

Background

The CRP Transition Option provides incentives for CRP landowners who do not intend to extend their CRP contracts or re-enroll land back into the CRP to transfer (rent or lease) the land to beginning or socially disadvantaged farmers or ranchers who are willing to return the land to production using sustainable or organic grazing, cropping, or mixed cropping-grazing systems.  In return for the preference shown to beginning or minority farmers or ranchers, the landowner will receive an additional two years of CRP rental payments.  The CRP Transition Option is already fully paid for through mandatory dollars in the 2008 Farm Bill.

Unfortunately, the Farm Service Agency (FSA) plans to hold up the implementation of the new CRP Transition Option in order to conduct a multi-year environmental impact statement (EIS) review on CRP policies in general.  While the proposed EIS is relevant for the general CRP, it is inappropriate to include the Transition Option since the land is leaving the program.  Importantly, the EIS would delay CRP Transition Option implementation for at least two years which is when most CRP contracts are set to expire (over 4.2 million acres in just 2009 and 2010), thus wasting taxpayer dollars and an important environmental opportunity.

What you can do: Ask USDA to stop delaying implementation of the CRP Transition Option by moving the Transition Option out of the EIS and immediately issuing a rule to implement the Transition Option.  Ask USDA to also actively promote the Transition Option to beginning and minority farmers and ranchers and to owners of the over 4 million acres that is about to leave the CRP.  Sign the petition today!

USDA Sets Hearing for Proposed National Marketing Agreement for Leafy Green Vegetables
AMS No. 161-09

Jimmie Turner (202) 720-8998
jimmie.turner@usda.gov
Billy Cox (202) 720-8998
billy.cox@usda.gov

WASHINGTON, Sept. 2, 2009 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture today announced the dates and locations of seven hearings related to a proposed national marketing agreement for leafy green vegetables. The hearings will be held September and October 2009.

A cross-section of producers and handlers from the fresh-produce industry proposed the establishment of a marketing agreement to facilitate the practical application of Good Agricultural Practices, Good Handling Practices, and Good Manufacturing Practices guidelines published by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

If established, only handlers who sign on to the marketing agreement would be subject to the requirements of the accord. Signatory handlers could only handle leafy green vegetables (domestic or imported) that meet the requirements of the program.

The hearings provide the public an opportunity to learn more about the proposed agreement and to offer comments in support of or opposition to the agreement. The hearings will be held at the following locations from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. (local time) or as determined by the presiding administrative law judge:

Sept. 22-24, at the Hyatt Regency Monterey, 1 Old Golf Course Road, Monterey, Calif.

Sept. 30 to Oct. 1, at the Wyndham Jacksonville Riverwalk, 1515 Prudential Drive, Jacksonville, Fla.

Oct. 6, at the Greater Columbus Convention Center, Room D130, 400 North High Street, Columbus, Ohio.

Oct. 8, at the Denver Airport Marriott at Gateway Park, 16455 East 40th Circle, Aurora, Colo.

Oct. 14-15, at the Yuma Civic Center, Yuma Room, 1440 Desert Hills Drive, Yuma, Ariz.

Oct. 20, at the Renaissance Syracuse Hotel, 701 East Genesee Street, Syracuse, N.Y.

Oct. 22, at the Charlotte Marriot Executive Park, 5700 Westpark Drive, Charlotte, N.C.

The proposal and the hearing notice will be published in the Sept. 3, 2009, Federal Register. A copy of the proposal is also available on the home page of the Agricultural Marketing Service’s Web site.

Copies may be obtained from Antoinette Carter, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237, phone: (202)720-2491, or fax: (202)720-8938; or Melissa Schmaedick, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, Northwest Marketing Field Office, AMS, USDA, 1220 SW Third Avenue, Room 385, Portland, OR 97204; phone: (503)326-2724, or fax: (503)326-7440.

An electronic version of this news release can be obtained via the Internet at http://www.ams.usda.gov/news/newsrel.html.

Read the Full story at: ThisWeek Community Newspapers Upper Arlington

There is also a noise stipulation that “Perceptible noise from chickens should not be loud enough at the property boundaries to disturb persons of reasonable sensitivity.” I wonder if the typical doggie next door would be able to meet this standard much of the time.

Overall it is a move in a possitive direction for the Council and I commend them for maintaining an open mind to change.

Read the article in This Week Community Newspaper Grandview