Archive for the ‘Food’ Category

The food stamp program, part of the Department of Agriculture, is pleased to be distributing the greatest amount of food stamps ever.

Meanwhile, the Park Service, also part of the Department of Agriculture, asks us to “please do not feed the animals” because the animals may grow dependent and not learn to take care of themselves!

It’s a big kick in the gut to reckon with corporate bullies most adept at leading us to believe that we are truly free choose, that they don’t actually use every resource to benefit their bottom line, and that they really are concerned with our best interests. And multinational seed and chemical corporation, Monsanto, doesn’t mind if you have no choice. They believe they’ve got the tools to solve the world’s food, fuel and fiber problems with GMOs, and that’s all you need to know–not that nearly 80 percent of all processed foods sold in the U.S. contain unlabeled genetically modified organisms (most bearing Monsanto patents on corn, soy, canola and cotton), or that favors from industry groups, politicians and fellow corporations are paramount to the proliferation of Monsanto’s main seed: Corporate Greed. Think that’s about to change anytime soon? Not after you see who sits on Monsanto’s board of directors.

A board of directors is a body of elected or appointed members who oversee the activities of a company or organization. In most cases it can require very little involvement in the day-to-day functioning of the governed entity, but it is typically always staffed with individuals vested in the best interest of the company or organization. In Monsanto’s case, several members of its board of directors aid in the proliferation of genetically modified seeds through their daily livelihood, continuing to insure that no regulations or transparency requirements be allowed in the U.S. on foods or household products containing genetically modified ingredients, which would not only affect Monsanto’s success, but that of their other corporate interests as wellMonsanto was not on mailing list used by U.S. Rep. Louise Slaughter to ask food businesses about their policies on antibiotics in food, presumably because the St. Louis company does not have anything to do with antibiotic use in meat and poultry.

But out of sheer curiosity, Food Safety News decided to pull Monsanto’s lobbying disclosure forms.

From an upper floor of a building just a couple blocks northeast of the White House, Monsanto runs a well-greased lobbying shop. At a cost of $1.21 million last quarter, the effort is not lacking in people power for its work in the nation’s capitol.

Monsanto’s Washington D.C. office is headed by Mcihael Dykes, vice president of government affairs. He’s got a six-pack of registered staff lobbyists on call including Katherine Emerson, Jeremy Stump, Scott Kuschmider, James Travis, Michael Parrish and Michael Holland.

The Monsanto lobby does not want for things to do. It’s always working on the legal and regulatory environment that will keep its Roundup Ready products viable in the market.

Its lobbying crew was also working on anti-terrorism restrictions on chemical facilities, the American Invents Act, and regulatory reform. Its interests also run from biofuels to mineral licensing and royalty issues to tax and trade policies.

Monsanto, a global agricultural products company, generates endless controversy for its genetically engineered seeds. It was in the news again Monday when a federal judge in New York dismissed a lawsuit against Monsanto brought by the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association. The court said the organic interests has engaged in a “transparent effect to create a controversy where non exists.”

For those unfamiliar, Ted Nugent doesn’t shy away from sharing his opinions on myriad controversial political topics — from gun-rights to homosexuality, from religion to the military.

The veteran rocker recently said at a Republican event that, ”The whole world sucks, but America still sucks less.” He followed up the assertion by clarifying, “But with this administration, we are catching up,”

The Detroit native caught up with Mike Broomhead’s team at KFYI-AM in Phoenix for yet another bombshell of an interview. We warn, the following clip contains graphic language. Still, many will find Nugent’s trademark no holds barred attitude on politics a refreshing change of pace.

Among his more piquant revelations, Nugent believes that having Tim Geithner sever as Secretary of The Treasury, bearing in mind Geithner’s “tax cheating,“ is like having Jeffrey Dahmer ”in charge of a children’s playground.”

He also said that “welfare is slavery” and that we have “American hating maniacs” in our government.

What do U.S. consumers think about the farmers and ranchers that raise their food? It’s long been clear that there’s a breakdown in communication and understanding.

For the past five years now the Center for Food Integrity has surveyed consumers to get a perspective of what they think about their food supply and the people who raise it. The year’s contribution, the 2011 Consumer Trust in the Food System, showed that consumers fear that U.S. farmers are placing profit ahead of principle.

CFI defined two types of farms for the survey participants as follows:

•Family Farmer – A farming operation that is owned and operated by a family. All decisions on how to operate this farm are made by the family members and carried out by family members or employees.
•Commercial Farmer – A farming operation that is owned by a company and operated by employee farmers. All decisions on how to operate this farm are made by managers of the company and carried out by employees.
Granted, there are tremendous variations on this theme and it can be incredibly hard to reach an agreeable consensus as to what is and isn’t a “family farm.” But according to the definition provided, most consumers in the survey and in the public would view most U.S. farms as “commercial.”
The CFI survey showed that consumers ranked their top food priorities to be safe, affordable and nutritious food. They ranked farm profitability and productivity at the bottom of their priority list.
Consumers were then asked to rank what they believe the priorities are (real priorities) for both types of farms as well as what they perceived the priorities should be (ideal priorities).
For “family farmers,” the survey results show that the consumers’ “real and ideal” priorities are well-aligned with their own—providing safe, affordable, nutritious food.
However, for commercial farmers, the consumers presented a different story. While “affordable food” matched at the top of the list, consumers think farm profitability is the commercial farmers’ No. 2 priority, but that it should actually rank second to last. They also believe that farm productivity largely drives commercial farms’ and that it should be last on the list of priorities. Consumers also saw a disconnect between the importance that commercial farmers place on environmental sustainability, the humane treatment of farm animals, and nutritious food, but to a slightly lesser degree.
In the end, the survey showed consumers felt more aligned with “family farmers” and more skeptical of “commercial farmers.” Worth noting also was that the surveyed consumers felt little responsibility for U.S. farmers to feed the world.
“Consumers fear that commercial farms will cut corners when it comes to their priority issues,” says Charlie Arnot, CFI chief executive officer. “As farms continue to change in size and scale we must overcome that bias by more effectively demonstrating our commitment to the values and priorities of consumers.”
The CFI research also focused in on “early adopters,” who tend to be able to influence others. These people tend to seek out information, Arnot notes, which make them key to the food system.
These people often are opinion leaders; they are skeptical of white-washing a message, they want information on an issue presented in a balanced fashion and have a favorable attitude toward science.
“They want balanced information so they can evaluate and make informed choices that are consistent with their values,” Arnot says. “They come to the discussion with a relatively high level of skepticism but they are willing to engage. They are willing to participate in a conversation and incorporate good information into their thought process.”
While there are many more results tied to CFI’s 2011 survey, it has benchmarked certain attitudes toward the food system over the years. It shows increased concern over food prices, a slight decrease in food safety confidence, and a decrease in support for state laws to ensure the humane treatment of farm animals, Arnot notes. “Only around half of those surveyed believed they have access to all information they need in order to make good decisions about food,” he adds.

Posted on October 27, 2011 at 5:12pm by Meredith Jessup

On the front page side of things, Buck reports how chefs at Chez OWS are up in arms because freeloading homeless people are pilfering their home-cooked delicacies in Zucotti Park. But I think it‘s time the homeless and other hungry people of New York unite and dish out a big dose of Occupy Wall Street’s own medicine.

Taking their cue from the likes of Cloward & Piven, New York’s hungry homeless — the 99%, if you will — should unite against the 1% of protesters who have good food and refuse to share. It’s all about the social justice: By trying to collapse the system from the bottom-up and setting OWS’ kitchen elitists against the common (homeless) man, their tactics would make Saul Alinksy proud.

Collapse the kitchen!
Eat the elitist cooks!
The well-fed college students are the 1%!

Once the OWS kitchen system collapses, Michelle Obama can send in the food police to confiscate all the junk food and Kathleen Sebelius’ Department of Health and Human Services can pass out food stamp applications.

Next step: Revolt against the first aid tent — they’re nothing but non-participating providers who refuse to treat preexisting conditions.

Denmark Introduces ‘Fat Tax’ on Foods High in Saturated Fat

Olivia Katrandjian reports:

Denmark has introduced what’s believed to be the world’s first fat food tax, applying a surcharge to foods with more than 2.3 percent saturated fats, in an effort to combat obesity and heart disease.

Danes hoarded food before the tax went into effect Saturday, emptying grocery store shelves. Some butter lovers may even resort to stocking up during trips abroad.

The new tax of 16 kroner ($2.90) per kilogram (2.2 pounds) of saturated fat in a product will be levied on foods like butter, milk, cheese, pizza, oils and meat.

“Higher fees on sugar, fat and tobacco is an important step on the way toward a higher average life expectancy in Denmark,” health minister Jakob Axel Nielsen said when he introduced the idea in 2009, according to The Associated Press, because “saturated fats can cause cardiovascular disease and cancer.”

But some Danes are not happy about the ‘big brother’ feeling that comes with the tax.

“Denmark finds every sort of way to increase our taxes,” said Alisa Clausen, a South Jutland resident. “Why should the government decide how much fat we eat? They also want to increase the tobacco price very significantly. In theory this is good — it makes unhealthy items expensive so that we do not consume as much or any and that way the health system doesn’t use a lot of money on patients who become sick from overuse of fat and tobacco.  However, these taxes take on a big brother feeling.  We should not be punished by taxes on items the government decides we should not use.”

The Nordic country isn’t known for having a grossly overweight population — only about 10 percent of Danes are considered obese, compared to about one-third of adults (33.8 percent) and approximately 17 percent (or 12.5 million) of children and adolescents age 2—19 years in the United States, according to a National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

But perhaps Denmark has its obesity rate relatively under control because of its policies. In 2004, Denmark made it illegal for any food to have more than 2 percent trans fats.  In July 2010, the country increased taxes on ice cream, chocolate and sweets by 25 percent. At the same time, Denmark increased taxes on soft drinks, tobacco and alcohol products, beyond the minimum levels established by the EU.

“Denmark will not only increase general health amongst the population but will also ease the burden on the public health care system and increase its resources at a time of recession when Member States are cutting public expenditure,” Monika Kosinska, the secretary general of the European Public Health Alliance, said in 2010.

Kosinska said the tax increases should be complemented by measures to make nutritious food more affordable.

“We get the taxes, but never a reduction on anything to complement the increases, such as on healthy foods,” said Clausen.

 

It‘s getting harder and harder to ignore the government’s new food guidelines. Case in point: appliance giant General Electric (GE) has introduced new microwaves that have a “MyPlate.gov“ button ”to help create healthy meals,” according to Business Wire. The change took place in September for 1.9 and 2.1 capacity over-the-range microwaves, and GE is advertising the new appliances on its website. The button allows consumers to easily cook foods found in the government’s new dietary guidelines, which is now visualized using a plate instead of the classic food pyramid. The GE website simply says, “5 food groups, 19 foods and 44 pre-programmed food combinations assist in healthy meal preparation.”
Business Wire explains how it works:
For example, consumers can use GE’s MyPlate feature to select a preset for cooking specific vegetables, such as fresh asparagus, frozen green beans, or numerous other options in each USDA MyPlate category – fruits, vegetables, whole grains and lean proteins.
GE even has a video to help visualize the new feature:

“Our goal with the MyPlate feature is to give consumers an easy way to choose and tastefully cook foods that are healthier for them, using graphics and instructions that are easy to understand,” Susan Gregory, product manager for GE microwaves, told Business Wire. “Providing quality cooked food for a wide range of items is a huge part of the MyPlate feature.”
According to Business Wire, GE “worked closely with the USDA to ensure the MyPlate feature in their cooking products is in step with dietary recommendations.” But that may not be surprising. GE has long had a cozy relationship with the Obama administration. GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt, for example, is the president of Obama’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.
In the past, GE has received a greenhouse gas exemption and Citizens for Tax Justice points out the company pays some of the lowest taxes.

For some, that might just push their buttons.
NANNY, NANNY, NANNY

Posted on August 18, 2011 by Cowboy Byte

The Obama regime wants to change the way farmers farm. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, part of the Department of Transportation, has proposed reclassifying all farm vehicles as Commercial Motor Vehicles. Farmers would be required to obtain Commercial Drivers Licenses” for their tractors and their combines out in the fields, not on public property. “If the rule goes into effect, anybody who operates any motorized farm equipment will have to pass the same rigorous tests that semi drivers do. They’ll have to fill out the same, highly detailed forms and daily logs. American farmers would have to keep track of how many hours they work and sleep, how many miles their vehicles travel.

They’d have to display Department of Transportation numbers — and, of course, they’d have to pay the government fees for all these new burdens. In one fell swoop, the regime would have more regulatory control over farmers and their 800,000 vehicles.

By Kelly Evans

Food prices are on the rise. But for consumers it could be far worse.

Fruits, vegetables and dairy have joined oil and grains on the list of commodities whose price is surging. During a similar run-up in 2008, companies largely were able to shift higher costs to consumers. Today, food companies can pass on only a portion of them.

Thursday, H.J. Heinz HNZ +0.30% and Del Monte Foods DLM +0.16% along with grocery company Kroger KR +0.60% will release earnings that could illustrate this point. Heinz, at an industry conference last week, already offered some detail on its fiscal third quarter. The headlines seemed encouraging: Chief Executive William Johnson said earnings came in at about 84 cents a share, four cents above the consensus estimate, and profit margins also beat expectations.

But as Goldman Sachs noted, the earnings look mostly driven by help from a lower tax rate. Moreover, the company’s 2% organic sales growth for the quarter ended in January was short of the 3%-to-4% range most analysts expected. And the company’s food costs continue to climb. Janney Capital Markets analyst Jonathan Feeney calculates they were up nearly 17% year on year in February, partly because of crop freezes that sent tomato prices soaring.

Can Heinz and other food companies raise consumer prices enough to offset cost inflation? So far, the evidence is mixed. Heinz has upped prices on ketchup, Ore-Ida potatoes and a few other products where it feels it has pricing power. “In the U.S., there’s not much [room] left,” said Mr. Johnson last week. So, the company is looking to double its emerging-markets business, where it sees more opportunity for growth, to 30% of revenue by fiscal 2016 from about 16% today.

The reason is clear. In China, for example, incomes are rising rapidly and the middle class is expanding. In the U.S., not so much. UBS Securities notes real disposable income growth is unusually weak at this point of the business cycle. No wonder private grocery chain Wegmans Food Markets just froze prices on more than three-dozen staples like pasta sauce and frozen vegetables, mostly store-brand items.

That kind of competition will make it tougher for brand-name food companies to raise prices. Consumers may be loyal, but they aren’t blind.

For More Info Write to Kelly Evans at kelly.evans@wsj.com

by Ladybug4Freedom

The United Nations has recently decided that they need to establish a Social Protection Floor for the 80% of the entire worlds’ population that are evidently suffering from abject poverty.  They have decided they can do this with a minimal contribution of just 2% of all nations’ GDP.  (How they can get 2% of the worlds’ GDP as contribution when they say that 80% of that world is in need of the help… well, it’s a conundrum that *I* can’t figure out).  I wrote about this fully last week.  Go read it if you don’t believe me!

The U. N. is kind of a good old boy society, but with a bunch of different languages.  They spend a great deal of time stroking each other, and bashing the United States; which is at times, an international pass time.   However, when the U. N. is needed most to function as it was intended; as it was CREATED to do, they are suspiciously silent.

Case in point:  Did we see or hear anything significant from them when Iran was killing their “green” protesters last year?  I know I didn’t.  How about when Palestine lobs missiles at Israel?  Oh yes, then we hear about how evil ISRAEL is.  Shame on them for wanting their OWN historic land.  Tsk.  They also, to my knowledge, have not said squat about the Nobel Peace Prize recipient, Liu Xiaobo who is languishing in a Chinese prison because he DARED to call out publicly for human rights.  I would think that would be perfect fodder for the U. N. Human Rights Council (of which CHINA is a member!).  But no; all we hear are crickets

Now, with the atrocities occurring in Libya, do we hear any outrage?  Do we see the U. N. Security Council preparing to send troops to support the innocent Libyans who are being bombed by the lunatic Gaddafi?  Do we see anything definitive in support of the citizens of Libya?  Crickets.

The U. N. Human Rights Council, (HRC) has become something of a joke in recent years.  This is an organization that now includes the benevolent countries of  China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Cuba, Pakistan and Bahrain.  Oh, did I mention that LIBYA was included in the HRC last May when the General assembly voted by secret ballot?  Yep.  So, the HRC, which ‘demands’ that member nations elected to the Council ‘shall uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights’, supported the inclusion of these countries?  Unbelievable.

 

Americans are at a crossroads.  Decisions must be made.

 

We, as a nation, need to decide, are we representative of the rugged individualism and independence or do we, as a whole, roll over and say “somebody needs to care for me, because I cant do it myself.”

 

We, as a nation, need to decide whether we will continue to be the policeman of the world, or do we say, “we cant do this anymore, sorry, folks, have at it amongst yourselves.” “Create what you like, regardless of what that might be.”

 

We, as a nation, need to decide if we want to have employment and self-determination or do we just want to go on the government dole.

 

We, as a nation, need to decide that being “An American” is a good thing and instills pride at the thought, a unique and successful experiment in a Republican form of government, or do we say, we are just another “member nation” of the World.

 

We, as a nation, need to decide if we wish to be more energy independent or do we rely on the rest of the world and their whims and simply buy energy.

 

We, as a nation, need to decide if we are a sovereign nation, with laws and rules created for our citizens or do we accept another’s rules and laws.

 

We, as a nation, need to decide who our allies are and build those ties to unbreakable, or do we simply keep sending funds, which we do not have, to anybody, regardless of their opinions of America.

 

We, as a nation, need to decide if we have the requisite fortitude to carry on as America, or do we say that we are too wishy-washy to make up our own minds about anything and the rest of the world needs to tell us how we think.

 

We, as a nation, need to decide, that as a mixture of all nationalities, our allegiance is to America alone, or are we just a landmass that hosts expatriates from all other nations of the world, with loyalty to their origins.

 

The time has come, no longer can we bury our heads in the sand.  We must decide.  As has been said MANY times before, “if you don’t stand for something, you will fall for anything.”

 

We, as a nation, need to decide, Are we, or are we not, PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN.

In case you haven’t noticed, the world is on the verge of a horrific global food crisis.  At some point, this crisis will affect you and your family.

It may not be today, and it may not be tomorrow, but it is going to happen.  Crazy weather and horrifying natural disasters have played havoc with agricultural production in many areas of the globe over the past couple of years.

Meanwhile, the price of oil has begun to skyrocket.  The entire global economy is predicated on the ability to use massive amounts of inexpensive oil to cheaply produce food and other goods and transport them over vast distances.  Without cheap oil the whole game changes.

Topsoil is being depleted at a staggering rate and key aquifers all over the world are being drained at an alarming pace.  Global food prices are already at an all-time high and they continue to move up aggressively.  So what is going to happen to our world when hundreds of millions more people cannot afford to feed themselves?

Most Americans are so accustomed to supermarkets that are absolutely packed to the gills with massive amounts of really inexpensive food that they cannot even imagine that life could be any other way.  Unfortunately, that era is ending.

There are all kinds of indications that we are now entering a time when there will not be nearly enough food for everyone in the world.  As competition for food supplies increases, food prices are going to go up.  In fact, at some point they are going to go way up.

Let’s look at some of the key reasons why an increasing number of people believe that a massive food crisis is on the horizon.

The following are 20 signs that a horrific global food crisis is coming….

1.) According to the World Bank, 44 million people around the globe have been pushed into extreme poverty since last June because of rising food prices

 

 

 

2.)One third of the world’s cropland is losing topsoil faster than new soil is forming through natural processes, according to Foreign Policy writer Lester Brown

 

 

 

 

 

3.) Due to U.S. ethanol subsidies, almost a third of all corn grown in the United States is now used for fuel

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.) It is being projected that there will be no more wheat production in Saudi Arabia by the year 2012. Due to a lack of water, some countries in the Middle East find themselves forced to almost totally rely on other nations for basic food staples. 

 

 

 

5.) Water tables all over the globe are being depleted at an alarming rate due to “overpumping. According to the World Bank, there are 13 million people in China and 175 million people in India that are being fed with grain with water that is being pumped out of aquifers faster than it can be replaced.

So what happens once all of that water is gone?

6.) In the United States, the systematic depletion of the Ogallala Aquifer could eventually turn “America’s Breadbasket” back into the “Dust Bowl” 

7.) Diseases such as UG99 wheat rust are wiping out increasingly large segments of the world food supply

 

 

 

 

 

8.) The tsunami and subsequent nuclear crisis in Japan have rendered vast agricultural areas in that nation unusable. In fact, there are many that believe that eventually a significant portion of northern Japan will be considered to be uninhabitable.

Not only that, many are now convinced that the Japanese economy, the third largest economy in the world, is likely to totally collapse as a result of all this.

 

 

 

9.)I f the price of oil continues to stay high, we are going to see much higher food prices and some forms of food production will no longer make economic sense at all. The price of oil may be the biggest factor on this list.  The way that we produce our food is very heavily dependent on oil.

The way that we transport our food is very heavily dependent on oil.  When you have skyrocketing oil prices, our entire food production system becomes much more expensive.

10.) The world is not going to have enough phosphorous to meet agricultural demand in just 30 to 40 years, say scientists with the Global Phosphorus Research Initiative

11.) India is dealing with an annual food inflation rate of 18 percent

12.) According to the United Nations, the global price of food was up 2.2% — a new all-time high. The Food and Agriculture Organization said in a statement that its food price index was up 2.2 percent in February, the highest record in both real, inflation-corrected terms and nominal terms since the agency started monitoring prices two decades ago. 

13.) According to the World Bank, the global price of food has risen 36% over the past 12 months

14.) The commodity price of wheat has approximately doubled since last summer 

15.)  The commodity price of corn has also about doubled since last summer 

16,) The commodity price of soybeans is up about 50% since last June 

17.) The commodity price of orange juice has doubled since 2009

 

 

 

 

 

18.) There are about 3 billion people around the globe that live on the equivalent of 2 dollars a day or less and the world was already on the verge of economic disaster before this year even began

 

 

 

19.) Revolutions have swept across the Middle East, the United States has gotten involved in the civil war in Libya, Europe is on the verge of a financial meltdown and the U.S. dollar is dying. 2011 has already been one of the craziest years since World War 2.None of this is good news for global food production.

 

 

 

 

20.) There have been persistent rumors of shortages at some of the biggest suppliers of emergency food in the United States. The following is an excerpt from a recent “special alert” posted on Raiders News Network:”Look around you. Read the headlines. See the largest factories of food, potassium iodide, and other emergency product manufacturers literally closing their online stores and putting up signs like those on Mountain House’s Official Website and Thyrosafe’s Factory Webpage that explain, due to overwhelming demand, they are shutting down sales for the time being and hope to reopen someday.”

 

So what does all of this mean?

It means that time is short.

For years, many “doom and gloomers” have been yelling and screaming that a food crisis is coming.

Well, up to this point there hasn’t been much to get alarmed about.  Food prices have started to rise, but the truth is that our stores are still packed to the rafters will gigantic amounts of relatively cheap food.

However, you would have to be an idiot not to see the warning signs.  Just look at what happened in Japan after March 11th.  Store shelves were cleared out almost instantly.

It isn’t going to happen today, and it probably isn’t going to happen tomorrow, but at some point a major league food crisis is going to strike.

So what are you and your family going to do then?

You might want to start thinking about that.

Who suffers most?

The 25 Countries That Will Be Screwed By A World Food Crisis

The purpose of this article is to give a brief outline of how the elites, and the Rockefellers in particular, are using food as a weapon.

by Cassandra Anderson

Since the Rockefeller family came to power (especially after gaining a monopoly with Standard Oil) they have manipulated our government into ruining our financial system by way of the Federal Reserve, energy through oil dependency and food with GMOs (Genetically Engineered Organisms). The intention is to rob us blind and kill us. It’s time to wake up.

The official name of this program is Agenda 21 Sustainable Development.

It the overarching blueprint for depopulation and total control over America and the rest of the world. There is no question that Americans are targeted for depopulation: GMO (Genetically Modified Organism) food has saturated American farmlands. GMOs are dangerous and the proliferation of corn crops (used as sweetener, animal feed, processed food, etc) in America is shortening our life spans.(1) Our water is polluted, containing over 60,000 chemicals, most of which have never been tested for safety.(2) Our air is toxic, and the US is one of the most targeted areas for chemtrails.(3) This is just the tip of the iceberg, the things we know about. The focus of this article is revealing the link between the Rockefellers and their intended use of food as a weapon, which is more powerful than military domination and energy control.

While Agenda 21 was introduced in 1992, the elite collectivists, lead by the Rockefellers, have been pushing population control on America and the world for generations. In 1992, this depopulation and control policy was modernized and given a name: Agenda 21, or the Agenda for the 21st century. The premise for depopulation and control is to preserve the environment. One would have to be an idiot to disregard environmental concerns, however, the solutions that Agenda 21 offers fail to address the real issues. The primary tools that Agenda 21 Sustainable Development uses are global warming lies, water shortages (like the man made drought in California, which also causes food shortages) and the Endangered Species Act (designed to take away private property, which is the base of wealth creation and freedom).(4)

Food control goes hand in hand with population control. The eugenics (improvement of humans through selective breeding, often using brutal methods like genocide and forced sterilization) program of the Third Reich in Nazi Germany was revealed after WWII. Obviously, people did not have a high opinion of eugenics, so, according to William Engdahl, author of “Seeds of Destruction”, the Rockefeller strategists shifted their profile to champion the causes of the environment, resource scarcity and overpopulation.(5) The policy of population control remained, despite the illusion of caring concern- which is simply marketing; the word eugenics has been renamed as “human genetics”. This scheme for improving their image worked for them before, using “philanthropy” and tax-free foundations, when the Rockefellers became very unpopular following the Ludlow Massacre.

The Ludlow Massacre took place at a Rockefeller owned coal mine in Colorado. The mines were notoriously unsafe, which caused many deaths and the workers were paid in scrip (currency substitute that is often credit), to be spent at the Rockefeller company stores. When the workers went on strike, they were evicted from their homes and lived with their families in tent cities. Then they were provoked through murder, machine gun spray, harassment, etc, in order to goad the workers into violence.(6) This was used as a pretext to get the National Guard involved; the state militia opened fire on the tent cities, resulting in up to 53 deaths, 13 of whom were women and children. So, the Rockefellers created a propaganda campaign to polish their tarnished image through tax exempt foundations. These foundations are hardly philanthropic; they are used to fund the destruction of America (please read this excellent interview transcript by G. Edward Griffin to discover the true nature of tax exempt foundations).(7)

Why do you think Senator Jay Rockefeller is pushing so hard to censor the Internet?(8)

Today, the Rockefellers use coercive population control tactics and food as a weapon through a front organization, CGIAR (Consultative Group on Agricultural Resources) as the Rockefellers are trying to distance themselves from public- just like the Rothschild clan has done. Engdahl reports that CGIAR operates under the umbrella of the UN World Bank, and its primary focus is the spread of GMO crops. CGIAR was created by the Rockefellers and the Ford Foundation, along with the UN World Bank in 1971 with $350 million dollars a year in funding.

The Rockefeller’s “Green Revolution”, which was the implementation of new farming methods in developing countries, like Mexico, India and Asia, increased crop yields, but ended in disaster; the program lasted from the 1940’s- 1970’s.(9)  The “Green Revolution”, funded by the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations and the US government, was a farming experiment with these results:

 

The purpose of this article is to give a brief outline of how the elites, and the Rockefellers in particular, are using food as a weapon.

by Cassandra Anderson

Since the Rockefeller family came to power (especially after gaining a monopoly with Standard Oil) they have manipulated our government into ruining our financial system by way of the Federal Reserve, energy through oil dependency and food with GMOs (Genetically Engineered Organisms). The intention is to rob us blind and kill us. It’s time to wake up.

The official name of this program is Agenda 21 Sustainable Development.

It the overarching blueprint for depopulation and total control over America and the rest of the world. There is no question that Americans are targeted for depopulation: GMO (Genetically Modified Organism) food has saturated American farmlands. GMOs are dangerous and the proliferation of corn crops (used as sweetener, animal feed, processed food, etc) in America is shortening our life spans.(1) Our water is polluted, containing over 60,000 chemicals, most of which have never been tested for safety.(2) Our air is toxic, and the US is one of the most targeted areas for chemtrails.(3) This is just the tip of the iceberg, the things we know about. The focus of this article is revealing the link between the Rockefellers and their intended use of food as a weapon, which is more powerful than military domination and energy control.

While Agenda 21 was introduced in 1992, the elite collectivists, lead by the Rockefellers, have been pushing population control on America and the world for generations. In 1992, this depopulation and control policy was modernized and given a name: Agenda 21, or the Agenda for the 21st century. The premise for depopulation and control is to preserve the environment. One would have to be an idiot to disregard environmental concerns, however, the solutions that Agenda 21 offers fail to address the real issues. The primary tools that Agenda 21 Sustainable Development uses are global warming lies, water shortages (like the man made drought in California, which also causes food shortages) and the Endangered Species Act (designed to take away private property, which is the base of wealth creation and freedom).(4)

Food control goes hand in hand with population control. The eugenics (improvement of humans through selective breeding, often using brutal methods like genocide and forced sterilization) program of the Third Reich in Nazi Germany was revealed after WWII. Obviously, people did not have a high opinion of eugenics, so, according to William Engdahl, author of “Seeds of Destruction”, the Rockefeller strategists shifted their profile to champion the causes of the environment, resource scarcity and overpopulation.(5) The policy of population control remained, despite the illusion of caring concern- which is simply marketing; the word eugenics has been renamed as “human genetics”. This scheme for improving their image worked for them before, using “philanthropy” and tax-free foundations, when the Rockefellers became very unpopular following the Ludlow Massacre.

The Ludlow Massacre took place at a Rockefeller owned coal mine in Colorado. The mines were notoriously unsafe, which caused many deaths and the workers were paid in scrip (currency substitute that is often credit), to be spent at the Rockefeller company stores. When the workers went on strike, they were evicted from their homes and lived with their families in tent cities. Then they were provoked through murder, machine gun spray, harassment, etc, in order to goad the workers into violence.(6) This was used as a pretext to get the National Guard involved; the state militia opened fire on the tent cities, resulting in up to 53 deaths, 13 of whom were women and children. So, the Rockefellers created a propaganda campaign to polish their tarnished image through tax exempt foundations. These foundations are hardly philanthropic; they are used to fund the destruction of America (please read this excellent interview transcript by G. Edward Griffin to discover the true nature of tax exempt foundations).(7)

Why do you think Senator Jay Rockefeller is pushing so hard to censor the Internet?(8)

Today, the Rockefellers use coercive population control tactics and food as a weapon through a front organization, CGIAR (Consultative Group on Agricultural Resources) as the Rockefellers are trying to distance themselves from public- just like the Rothschild clan has done. Engdahl reports that CGIAR operates under the umbrella of the UN World Bank, and its primary focus is the spread of GMO crops. CGIAR was created by the Rockefellers and the Ford Foundation, along with the UN World Bank in 1971 with $350 million dollars a year in funding.

The Rockefeller’s “Green Revolution”, which was the implementation of new farming methods in developing countries, like Mexico, India and Asia, increased crop yields, but ended in disaster; the program lasted from the 1940’s- 1970’s.(9)  The “Green Revolution”, funded by the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations and the US government, was a farming experiment with these results:

 

Ideas from our readers on food and raising farm output

1.) Large tractors and combines have transformed agriculture in the developed world, enabling far more land to be cultivated and crops to be harvested at speed, which reduces the loss caused by weather. Sixty years ago my father needed six men to grow 100 acres (40 hectares) of crops. Today my son can farm 1,000 acres with one man.

Agriculture in the devel­oping world could also be transformed by this existing technology, but there needs to be fewer and bigger farms to make use of large equipment and to raise the collateral to invest. That means far fewer rural workers, and contro­versial social consequences.

New technology, such as satellite mapping, will enable farmers to identify wide varia­tions of soil quality across every field and to adjust their equipment to apply their seeds, fertilisers and chemicals precisely at varying rates, depending on the fertility across the field. This makes great economic and environ­mental sense.

2.) No solution to farming is viable unless we tackle the issue of consumption. In order to achieve a fairer balance in the world it would help if people in rich countries cut their meat and dairy consump­tion (which is also healthier). Crops should be used for feeding people, not for animal feed or biofuels. Research by the Potsdam Institute and the Alp en Adria University, in a study called “Eating the Planet”, proposes feeding the world by 2050 using humane and sustainable farming with­out a big change in land use, but only if meat consumption is moderated.

3.) Producing animal pro­tein is costly in terms of land and water use. A cow needs up to ten kilograms of feed to produce one kilogram of meat. A pig needs around five kilos and a chicken around three. The best part of the world’s maize and soyabean crops goes to feeding animals.

Separately, before poor farmers start buying seeds from big Western seed compa­nies they should try some basic technologies such as crop rotation, green fertilisers and agroforestry. Those tech­niques, which are being imple­mented in many African coun­tries, have the potential to increase yields and do much more to preserve the environ­ment than planting large areas with one or two hybrid seeds.

4.) Why not provide in­centives for countries to curb excess consumption using phased-in tradable quotas? Countries failing to bring average consumption to below 3,000 calories a day could buy entitlements from grossly under-consuming countries, which could invest the pro­ceeds in targeted grants aimed at eradicating the hunger that needlessly afflicts a billion people.

5.) 1 was disappointed that your leader on food so readily dismissed the role of specu­lation in driving up food prices, alluding to Milton Friedman’s old argument that “for every buy, there is a sell” (“Crisis prevention”, February 26th). It is particularly surpris­ing as TheEconomisthas writ­ten repeatedly about the role of asset-price bubbles in exac­erbating the financial crisis. Since Friedman’s work more than 50 years ago, economists have developed strong theoret­ical foundations showing how rational asset-price bubbles can inflate for long periods of time; certainly long enough for a family to starve.

Moreover, there is consider- able evidence that speculation in assets linked to commodity prices had an important role in driving up prices in the last food-price crisis in 2008. It is right, therefore, that the G20 should seek appropriate forms of regulation to discourage the formation of commodity-price bubbles, in addition to addressing the trade and agricultural policy issues you rightly mentioned.

6.) In rich and poor coun­tries alike, the principal un­derlying cause of wasted food is the lack of appropriate pack­aging. In poorer countries most wastage occurs from farm to shop; around half of all agri­cultural produce is spoiled before it reaches consumers. Foods spoil handled in bulk, without any protective packag­ing. Grains are infested by vermin, fruit and vegetables get bruised, meats are attacked by flies and maggots, eggs break and milk goes sour.

In rich countries, packaging and handling has vastly re­duced this sort of waste. In those countries most of the waste is caused by consumers throwing away perfectly good food, in large part because grandma’s taste-and-snifTtest of food that is past its best-by date has fallen out of favour. High-tech packaging that changes colour to indicate the degree of rotting in food is becoming available. It reas­sures consumers and helps them reduce wastage.

In rich and poor countries alike, ensuring that adequate packaging is available will go a long way to feeding the world.

7.) You were wrong to claim that traditional and organic farming methods cannot feed the world. Scientific evidence has implicated intensive farm­ing in the rise of two serious superbugs: a new strain of methicillin-resistant Staphylo­coccus aureus (mrs a) in farm animals, which is spreading rapidly and transferring to humans; and a new and almost untreatable type of E.coli that is causing a large number of deaths in Britain and elsewhere.

Evidence is mounting too of the problems that gm crops are causing for farmers. Weeds resistance to glyphosate have become a big problem in gm herbicide-tolerant crops in North and South America, while the cost of gm seeds cuts into farmers’ incomes.

8.) gm crops are the answer for many African farmers. It is the cruel propaganda of Euro­pean activists, sadly swal­lowed by the ruling African urban class, that prevents poor farmers from access to this lifeline, gm seeds are offered free to African farmers by Monsanto. And yet, out of fear or a neocolonial mindset, farmers refuse to take up the offer, lest they offend their European masters.

I see my neighbors, small landholders, desperately trying to extend their acreage and continually being pushed back to their one hectare. They see weeds smothering their maize and forcing them to abandon the rest of their field to return to the part that they already weeded but where more weeds are coming up.

These are a few of our reader’s remarks on food and food supply from our articles on food. We welcome all your thoughts and letters – send to – the meister@itmakessenseblog.com

 

Nanny, Nanny, Nanny

Yep.  The first lady of hype; oh she of the hips now has those piggy fingers inserted into the restaurant trade clean up to the second knuckle.

In a nytimes.com article published on February 6, 2011:

A team of advisers to Mrs. Obama has been holding private talks over the past year with the National Restaurant Association, a trade group, in a bid to get restaurants to adopt her goals of smaller portions and children’s meals that include healthy offerings like carrots, apple slices and milk instead of French fries and soda, according to White House and industry officials.

When will this woman butt OUT?  I knew this was coming.  I knew she would work her way to the restaurant industry.  What I want to know is, where does she get the qualifications to tell us what we should and should not eat.  (Has she looked in a mirror lately?)  Okay, maybe that was uncalled for.  It was probably petty and mean.

You know what?  I don’t flippin’ care.  I am tired of this harridan and her husband intruding into our very lives with their views and standpoints.  JUST because they are in the White House does NOT give them carte blanche and supreme knowledge.  (Actually, they have both proven the lack of supreme knowledge part over and over again).

This woman has a degree (she says) in law.  She had a license to practice law.  She has since surrendered that license under questionable terms (questionable because they won’t tell anyone WHO, WHAT, WHERE, WHY or HOW of any of their past).  She has no background in child nutrition, or even adult nutrition for that matter.  What right does she have to dictate what we eat?

On Tuesday, Mrs. Obama will begin a three-day publicity blitz to spotlight “Let’s Move!,” her campaign to reduce childhood obesity, which was announced one year ago this week.

She will introduce a public service announcement, appear on the “Today” show and deliver a speech in Atlanta promoting gardening and healthy-eating programs.

But as she uses her public platform to persuade children to eat healthier and exercise more, Mrs. Obama and her team are also quietly pressing the levers of industry and government. Over the past year she has become involved in many aspects of the nation’s dietary habits, exerting her influence over nutrition policy.  (Emphasis mine)

What part of her background gives her the experience, knowledge or right to exert her influence over anything other than what her own two daughters eat or drink?  And WHY is she having ANY influence over nutrition policy?  Inquiring minds want to know!

Her team has worked with beverage makers to design soda cans with calorie counts and is deeply involved in a major remake of the government’s most recognizable tool for delivering its healthy-eating message: the food pyramid.

Mrs. Obama persuaded Congress to require schools to include more fruits and vegetables in the lunches they offer, and she encouraged lawmakers to require restaurants to print nutrition information on menus, a provision that wound up in President Obama’s landmark health care law. (emphasis mine)

Again, the question begs… HUH???  She’s deeply involved in remaking the food pyramid, and SHE is encouraging lawmakers to require restaurants to do ANYthing??  This, to me, sets a dangerous precedent.  What if she decides that now is the time to encourage youngsters to not listen to talk radio with their parents?  What if she decides that it is unhealthy for young minds to be exposed to evil, conservative ways?  Would her determination then be just cause for new laws to be enacted?  Something tells me that if she “suggests” to Obama, he mumbles, “yes dear”.  Just sayin’

And now that Michelle O has gotten her little piggies into the school lunches and intimidating fast food; she is now working hard alongside the National Restaurant Association to change how restaurants offer their menu items.  She wants to make sure that people (parents) have the security of knowing that they can order healthy meals for their kids.  My question is, why go OUT to eat if you’re only concerned with healthy meals?  I mean, generally, isn’t going out supposed to be a treat?  And I don’t think I have been to any restaurant that didn’t offer healthy, diet conscious meals.   Even fast food places have been getting into the act – and LONG before the King and Queen came into power.

fully expect the restaurant industry to fall into line, just like Walmart has.  Why?  Not for any other reason than it is safer that way.  Why would they bite the hand that regulates their socks off?  If they don’t toe the Obama line, then they very well could be setting themselves up for real problems.  Don’t think it could happen?  Look at the Obamas again and then doubt me.

My big and serious worry is this.  I imagine the next target will be buffets, like KFC or Golden Corral (my personal favorite).  I mean, lets face it; these are veritable heavens for hefties.  They are fatty fabulous; and they can NOT possibly be allowed to remain as is with Michelle’s Food Police on the rise.  I think I’d better run over to Golden Corral today and eat and eat, just in case.  Gotta go!

By David Hendee
WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER

Warnings of higher food prices headed for American supermarkets and restaurants were swallowed easily across much of farm country Wednesday.

The big gulp came when the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported that global demand had pushed U.S. corn supplies to their lowest point in 15 years.

The price of corn, which has doubled over the past six months, affects most food products in supermarkets. It’s used to feed the cattle, hogs and chickens that fill the meat aisles.

It is the main ingredient in Cap’n Crunch and Doritos. Turned into syrup, it sweetens most soft drinks and many foods.

Corn also is part of the agricultural blend that fuels the economies of Nebraska, Iowa and other farming states. Iowa is the nation’s top corn-producing state; Nebraska is third.

Shoppers could see higher grocery bills as early as three months from now, though most of the impact won’t be felt for another six months, said Scott Irwin, an agricultural economics professor at the University of Illinois.

Chicken prices are among the first to rise because the bird’s life span is so short that higher feed costs get factored in quickly, he said. Price hikes for hogs take about a year and cattle two years. Prices on packaged foods take six or seven months to rise.

Tyson Foods, the nation’s biggest meat company, said chicken, beef and pork prices are expect to rise this year, if only slightly, as producers seek to cover costs.

ConAgra Foods Inc. — the Omaha-based producer of brands including Healthy Choice, Banquet and Chef Boyardee — is raising prices on some of its products because of higher costs for corn and fuel, said Teresa Paulsen, a spokeswoman.

The price rally has bolstered the financial fitness of America’s crop and livestock operators over the past eight months. Midwestern cropland is yielding record values. Rural banks and equipment makers report record profits.

“We’re seeing record income levels for the ag community and … wealth accumulation that cannot be denied,” said Bruce Johnson, an agricultural economist at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. “We’ve moved into a whole new level.”

Said Bruce Babcock, an agricultural economist at Iowa State University: “Farmers are going to be earning quite a bit more money.”

Jason Henderson, Omaha branch executive for the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, said farmers are buying more tractors, pickup trucks, grain bins and land.

“And they also come to Omaha to shop and go to events,” he said.

But it hasn’t been simply a spending spree, Henderson said. Farmers are paying down debt and fewer are seeking loan renewals or extensions.

“It’s a good time to be an ag banker,” said Brian Esch, president of McCook National Bank in southwest Nebraska. “But I have concerns over what this means for consumers. If one guy is selling at a record profit, someone is buying at a record level.”

Corn prices have risen over the past six months from $3.50 a bushel to nearly $7.

The U.S. will have a reserve of 675 million bushels left over in late August, when this year’s harvest begins. That’s roughly 5 percent of all corn that will be consumed, the lowest surplus level since 1996.

“There is going to be enough corn for food, for feed, for fuel and for export opportunities,” Tom Vilsack, the U.S. agriculture secretary, said at a Washington press conference.

Babcock, the Iowa State economist, said the U.S. mandate to increase the use of renewable fuels like ethanol is a major reason why the nation’s corn supply is so low. About a quarter of the nation’s corn crop is consumed by the production of ethanol. The ethanol industry’s projected corn orders this year have risen . . . after record-high production in December and January, USDA said.

“We’ve created a hungry business that is dependent on corn, even high-priced corn,” Babcock said.

Johnson, the UNL economist, said global supply and demand are the root causes behind low U.S. corn stocks.

“Ethanol is a factor, but it’s not the driver,” he said.

Johnson said the declining value of the dollar not only has fueled greater agricultural export demand, but also has driven up the price of oil. That, in turn, has propelled higher prices for corn-based ethanol.

The agricultural economies of Nebraska and Iowa will continue to grow into greater prominence as global food providers, economists said.

Johnson said rising population numbers globally and greater demand in major developing countries for higher-protein diets have strengthened the Midlands’ agricultural market.

Farm cash receipts — led by corn and other crops — doubled in Nebraska from 2000 through 2010. Crop receipts alone ended the decade in the $9 billion range, up from a 2000 total of $3 billion.

Nebraska’s net farm income hit a record $4.25 billion last year, according to preliminary estimates. The 2010 level would be nearly 65 percent above the 10-year historical average, Johnson said.

Although farm income represents only about 6 percent of Nebraska’s $75 billion personal income total, it has a major impact on local and regional economies, Johnson said.

“There is no question that agriculture buffered the state from going into a deeper recession these last few years, and it has helped pull us out of the recession faster than other areas,” he said. “Agriculture has been our pack horse.”

World-Herald staff writer Ross Boettcher contributed to this report, which also includes information from World-Herald press services.

By David Hendee
WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER

Warnings of higher food prices headed for American supermarkets and restaurants were swallowed easily across much of farm country Wednesday.

The big gulp came when the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported that global demand had pushed U.S. corn supplies to their lowest point in 15 years.

The price of corn, which has doubled over the past six months, affects most food products in supermarkets. It’s used to feed the cattle, hogs and chickens that fill the meat aisles.

It is the main ingredient in Cap’n Crunch and Doritos. Turned into syrup, it sweetens most soft drinks and many foods.

Corn also is part of the agricultural blend that fuels the economies of Nebraska, Iowa and other farming states. Iowa is the nation’s top corn-producing state; Nebraska is third.

Shoppers could see higher grocery bills as early as three months from now, though most of the impact won’t be felt for another six months, said Scott Irwin, an agricultural economics professor at the University of Illinois.

Chicken prices are among the first to rise because the bird’s life span is so short that higher feed costs get factored in quickly, he said. Price hikes for hogs take about a year and cattle two years. Prices on packaged foods take six or seven months to rise.

Tyson Foods, the nation’s biggest meat company, said chicken, beef and pork prices are expect to rise this year, if only slightly, as producers seek to cover costs.

ConAgra Foods Inc. — the Omaha-based producer of brands including Healthy Choice, Banquet and Chef Boyardee — is raising prices on some of its products because of higher costs for corn and fuel, said Teresa Paulsen, a spokeswoman.

The price rally has bolstered the financial fitness of America’s crop and livestock operators over the past eight months. Midwestern cropland is yielding record values. Rural banks and equipment makers report record profits.

“We’re seeing record income levels for the ag community and … wealth accumulation that cannot be denied,” said Bruce Johnson, an agricultural economist at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. “We’ve moved into a whole new level.”

Said Bruce Babcock, an agricultural economist at Iowa State University: “Farmers are going to be earning quite a bit more money.”

Jason Henderson, Omaha branch executive for the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, said farmers are buying more tractors, pickup trucks, grain bins and land.

“And they also come to Omaha to shop and go to events,” he said.

But it hasn’t been simply a spending spree, Henderson said. Farmers are paying down debt and fewer are seeking loan renewals or extensions.

“It’s a good time to be an ag banker,” said Brian Esch, president of McCook National Bank in southwest Nebraska. “But I have concerns over what this means for consumers. If one guy is selling at a record profit, someone is buying at a record level.”

Corn prices have risen over the past six months from $3.50 a bushel to nearly $7.

The U.S. will have a reserve of 675 million bushels left over in late August, when this year’s harvest begins. That’s roughly 5 percent of all corn that will be consumed, the lowest surplus level since 1996.

“There is going to be enough corn for food, for feed, for fuel and for export opportunities,” Tom Vilsack, the U.S. agriculture secretary, said at a Washington press conference.

Babcock, the Iowa State economist, said the U.S. mandate to increase the use of renewable fuels like ethanol is a major reason why the nation’s corn supply is so low. About a quarter of the nation’s corn crop is consumed by the production of ethanol. The ethanol industry’s projected corn orders this year have risen . . . after record-high production in December and January, USDA said.

“We’ve created a hungry business that is dependent on corn, even high-priced corn,” Babcock said.

Johnson, the UNL economist, said global supply and demand are the root causes behind low U.S. corn stocks.

“Ethanol is a factor, but it’s not the driver,” he said.

Johnson said the declining value of the dollar not only has fueled greater agricultural export demand, but also has driven up the price of oil. That, in turn, has propelled higher prices for corn-based ethanol.

The agricultural economies of Nebraska and Iowa will continue to grow into greater prominence as global food providers, economists said.

Johnson said rising population numbers globally and greater demand in major developing countries for higher-protein diets have strengthened the Midlands’ agricultural market.

Farm cash receipts — led by corn and other crops — doubled in Nebraska from 2000 through 2010. Crop receipts alone ended the decade in the $9 billion range, up from a 2000 total of $3 billion.

Nebraska’s net farm income hit a record $4.25 billion last year, according to preliminary estimates. The 2010 level would be nearly 65 percent above the 10-year historical average, Johnson said.

Although farm income represents only about 6 percent of Nebraska’s $75 billion personal income total, it has a major impact on local and regional economies, Johnson said.

“There is no question that agriculture buffered the state from going into a deeper recession these last few years, and it has helped pull us out of the recession faster than other areas,” he said. “Agriculture has been our pack horse.”

World-Herald staff writer Ross Boettcher contributed to this report, which also includes information from World-Herald press services.