Archive for the ‘Food’ Category

Hey Michelle, “Trash cans are fuller than our stomachs!”

Many of you can relate with me when I say the words, “school lunch.” I have toured all across America speaking in public high schools and the first thing that brings me back to my childhood is, by far, the smell of the lunchroom.

Have you noticed that government is making itself more and more at home in all our lives? Not only does government tax and spend in areas we never gave them permission, but federal courts relentlessly push faith, values, prayer, and the Bible out of the public square.
And now government wants to tighten its control over your child’s diet by requiring schools to provide certain types of foods, and prohibit others.
This is being done for your own good, of course, and to remain in compliance with National School Lunch Program regulations championed by First Lady Michelle Obama.
For example, in South Carolina’s Fort Mill High School, Powerade has been replaced with water and the miracle sandwich spread we all love, mayonnaise, is banned!
Student Lindsey Russell told the Fort Mill Times, “When lunch ends, I feel that the trash cans are more full than my stomach.”
According to Associated Press reports:
“The 2014-15 school year marks the first sodium target for schools at 1,230 milligrams per lunch for elementary students and 1,420 milligrams for high school students.”
So authorities in North Dakota are recommending that schools make lunches from scratch, instead of buying pre-packaged meals because
Lunch leaders have to justify the contents to the federal government in order to remain in compliance.
Do you find it interesting that the federal government will require our students to eat meals with water and low sodium, but will not authorize a prayer to bless the meal? Really?

All of this further substantiates my decision to home school my children.
You see, God has blessed me with the understanding that they are my children, not the state’s or the federal government’s.
In fact, the state doesn’t have any children.
Think of it this way.
Imagine if you contracted with a security company to monitor your home to protect you from a home invasion. The day after you signed up, they show up with textbooks and start teaching your children philosophy, grammar, and science… Perhaps you would be grateful for this wonderful service and approve. The next day they begin to teach the religion of Atheism, Evolution, and sexual education – all without your consent. Then they invade your kitchen cupboards and remove all the dangerous, salty, bacon-filled, GMO foods. The next day they bring lunch for your children, as well, and demand that you buy foods off their list and dispose of your food immediately. And, of course, at the end of the month, they send you a bill for all their “services.”
I pray and hope for the day when American Moms and Dads will realize that THEY are their children’s only earthly authority when it comes to education and nutrition.

Black Caucus leader offended when he found out that he was served Chick-Fil-A six months ago

A Democratic lawmaker says Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) offended the entire Congressional Black Caucus by delivering Chick-fil-A chicken and biscuits to their weekly meeting — and then walking out — when it was his turn to provide the group with a formal lunch.

Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) told The Huffington Post that the incident happened about six months ago but is now fresh in his mind given West’s recent comments in support of the fast food chain, which is run by a well-known Christian and backer of anti-gay religious organizations. Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy last week sparked a nationwide response from gay rights activists after publicly denouncing marriage equality.

So what, the Congressional Black Caucus is now the Congressional Homosexual Activist Caucus, too?

Issues and challenges of the 2012 Farm Bill

North Dakota State University Extension

The U.S. farm bill has played a very important role in protecting producers from rapidly changing economic conditions across the world since 1933. The purpose of the farm bill has been to stabilize net farm income from weather and commodity market uncertainty.
The U.S. Congress should pass another farm bill in 2012 to replace the current farm legislation (2008 farm bill). However, economic conditions under which the 2012 farm bill is being discussed are different from previous farm bills.
In 2002, corn prices averaged $2.32 per bushel and there was a federal budget deficit of $410 billion. Today, corn prices are averaging $6.60 per bushel and there is a federal budget deficit of $1.1 billion. Commodity prices have increased significantly since 2008. High commodity prices, along with the large federal budget deficit, could make it difficult to formulate a new farm bill
The Center for Agricultural Policy and Trade Studies in the NDSU Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics and U.S. Sen. Kent Conrad organized a conference titled “2012 Farm Bill: Issues and Challenges” in November 2011 to discuss the direction of a new farm bill under the large federal budget deficit.
During the conference, U.S. Sens. Conrad, John Hoeven and Amy Klobuchar; U.S. Rep. Rick Berg; and U.S. Department of Agriculture Undersecretary of Agriculture Michael Scuse, as well as national leaders of commodity groups, concluded that the new farm bill should be centered on a safety net and cost efficiencies.
Because crop insurance is a main program providing a safety net for producers and is not trade distorting under the World Trade Organization rules, the speakers said it should be the main component of the new farm bill.
However, a large challenge is to reduce spending under the federal budget deficit. As of now, there are no proposals supported by Democrats or Republicans, mainly because of political and economic reasons. It is more likely that current legislation will receive a one-year extension.
Conrad proposed a farm bill alternative called the Revenue Loss Assistant Program (RLAP).The purpose of the RLAP is to provide better income protection and protection from shallow loss, which is a decrease in farm revenue stemming from a gradual decrease in commodity prices before the revenue levels under federal crop insurance can be determined.
The RLAP would cover 65 percent of the revenue loss not covered by crop insurance. The direct payment and Average Crop Revenue Election program (ACRE) under the 2008 farm bill would be eliminated under the RLAP. It is simpler in terms of program operation and easier to understand than the current farm legislation because the program eliminates direct payments and ACRE. In addition, government spending under the RLAP is less than under the current program because of the elimination of various payments.
The goal of farm legislation is to provide income protection for producers under increasing uncertainty stemming from intertwining macroeconomic conditions and commodity markets under globalization.
Also, it must be constrained by the federal budget deficit. Currently, agriculture is experiencing a period of high prices, high income and general prosperity. However, history tells us that when commodity prices soften, production costs generally do not, which causes a significant drop in farm income.
That scenario happened after high commodity prices in 1973, 1974 and 1996, so a new farm bill is needed to protect producers adequately from that condition and increasing uncertainty stemming from globalization.
Source: Won W. Koo, Chamber of Commerce Distinguished Professor and Center for Agricultural Policy and Trade Studies Director, NDSU Agribusiness and Applied Economics Department

Obama seizes control over all food, farms, livestock, farm equipment, fertilizer and food production across America

“We told ya so” just doesn’t quite cut it anymore. As the American sheeple slept, selfishly refusing to take a stand against tyranny, the Obama administration has been plotting what can only be called a total government takeover of America.

On March 16, 2012, President Obama issued an executive order entitled, “NATIONAL DEFENSE RESOURCES PREPAREDNESS.” (…)

This executive order states that the President alone has the authority to take over all resources in the nation (labor, food, industry, etc.) as long as it is done “to promote the national defense” — a phrase so vague that it could mean practically anything.
The power to seize control and take over these resources is delegated to the following government authorities:

(1) the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to food resources, food resource facilities, livestock resources, veterinary resources, plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer;

(2) the Secretary of Energy with respect to all forms of energy;

(3) the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to health resources;

(4) the Secretary of Transportation with respect to all forms of civil transportation;

(5) the Secretary of Defense with respect to water resources; and

(6) the Secretary of Commerce with respect to all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials.

This takeover is designed, in part, to “stockpile supplies” for the U.S. military. Authority for this total takeover of all national resources is granted with nothing more than the writing of a single statement that claims these actions are necessary to “promote the national defense.” As stated in the order:

the authority delegated by section 201 of this order may be used only to support programs that have been determined in writing as necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense:

(a) by the Secretary of Defense with respect to military production and construction, military assistance to foreign nations, military use of civil transportation, stockpiles managed by the Department of Defense, space, and directly related activities;

What all this means is that the U.S. government now claims the power to simply march onto your farm with guns drawn and demand all your crops, seeds, livestock and farm equipment.

Think I’m exaggerating? Read it yourself!

And for those living in denial who refuse to accept the reality of what’s happening in America, remember the following:

• When NaturalNews reported on the existence of the NDAA, we were told our reporting was misleading because Obama opposed it and wouldn’t sign it.

• When Obama betrayed America and signed the bill, we were told our reporting was misleading because “it didn’t apply to Americans.”

• When Obama admitted it did apply to Americans, he announced that he would choose “not to use it on Americans” but only by the grace of his restraint. Nobody who previously accused us of misleading the public had the integrity to offer us an apology and say, “Gee, you were right, it DOES apply to Americans!”

• Now Obama has seized control over all food, farms, livestock, water and transportation across America. How many brain-dead Americans will continue to live in denial and try to convince themselves this is not happening? Sticking your head in the sand does not make this go away…

What California did to Rawesome Foods, the Obama administration can do to everyone

Remember the armed raids on Rawesome Foods? With guns drawn, California authorities assaulted the food distribution center, arrested the farmers, then proceeded to destroy $50,000 worth of food including milk, eggs, cheese and watermelons. (

As outrageous as that raid was, it’s only the beginning. Now, thanks to Obama’s executive order, the federal government can conduct Rawesome-style raids on all farms, all grocery stores, all food co-ops and even individual home gardens.

It’s written in plain English. This is no longer debatable and it’s not a conspiracy theory. It’s Obama administration policy. For what other purpose would this be issued in an executive order if it was not seen as actionable by the government? This piece of paper, you see, gives them the (false) authority to do whatever they want and then have the front-line soldiers who carry it out claim “we’re only following orders.”

Sound familiar? Heil Hitler!

Understanding the fraud

This executive order starts out by stating that the U.S. President is the “Commander in Chief” of the U.S. military. This is false. He is not the commander in chief unless and until Congress declares an Act of War. No acts of war have been declared in recent memory, and certainly not under Obama who doesn’t even seek congressional approval for war.

So Obama is in no way a “Commander in Chief.” In fact, it is questionable whether he is even a U.S. citizen.

The phrase “national defense” can be twisted to mean almost anything. It could be invoked from something as harmless as a barge sinking in the harbor. It could even be invoked based on fabricated intelligence such as a fake website post from someone alleged to be “Bin Laden’s second in command” who appears to shout some sort of threat against the United States of America. So the claim that this seizing of national resources will only be done under some sort of national defense emergency is pure bunk — both Obama and Bush before him have already declared we are living under a national defense emergency! Thus, the conditions described in this executive order have already been triggered. It is already in effect!

Notice how nothing in this document talks about protecting the People? Serving the People? Supporting the People? It’s all about protecting the government! The government needs stockpiles of weapons, food and resources — but YOU don’t! Such is the philosophy of current government which sees itself as all powerful and the People as helpless, mindless slaves of the state.

Tyrannical governments concern themselves with important concepts such as continuity of government but never the continuity of liberty for the People. At the first drop of a hat, liberty gets thrown out the window to keep government in power.

Other signs of the takeover

• Last year, I interviewed Farmer Brad in central Texas, who openly stated, on camera, that FEMA has already started calling farms across Texas and demanding an inventory list of all their crops and seeds. Watch this interview yourself at:

• Yesterday in Chicago, the police arrested NBC reporters outside a hospital, screaming that their First Amendment rights could be taken away from them at any time:…

• Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta recently revealed in U.S. Senate testimony that the Obama administration takes its orders from the UN and that the U.S. Congress is now null and void. (…) and (…)

• When MF Global head Jon Corzine stole billions of dollars from investors (many were farmers), there were absolutely no investigations, no indictments and no criminal arrests! Massive financial theft is now openly tolerated in America as long as those doing the stealing are politically connected to the Obama administration. (

Of course, it’s not an Obama thing. Bush was much the same. It’s not the name of the person in the Oval Office who matters, it’s the fundamental lack of principles and ethics reflected across government today. Instead of protecting the rights of the People, today’s corrupt governments are little more than criminal gangs who steal power and resources for themselves (and their connected buddies) while destroying the economy and stealing everything in sight from the real workers upon whose sweat-drenched backs America was built.

Learn more:



Decision in farm dispute bars families from drinking milk from their own cows
A Wisconsin judge has decided – in a fight over families’ access to milk from cows they own – that Americans “do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow.”

The ruling comes from Circuit Court Judge Patrick J. Fiedler in a court battle involving a number of families who owned their own cows, but boarded them on a single farm.

The judge said the arrangement is a “dairy farm” and, therefore, is subject to the rules and regulations of the state of Wisconsin.

“It’s always a surprise when a judge says you don’t have the fundamental right to consume the foods of your choice,” said Pete Kennedy, president of the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, which worked on the case on behalf of the farmers and the owners of the milk-producing cows.

The judge’s original ruling came in a consolidation of two cases that presented similar situations: Cows being maintained and milked on farms for the benefit of non-resident owners. He refused to grant a summary judgment declaring such arrangements legitimate, deciding instead to favor the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, which opposed them.

“Plaintiffs argue that they have a fundamental right to possess, use and enjoy their property and therefore have a fundamental right to own a cow, or a heard (sic) of cows, and to use their cow(s) in a manner that does not cause harm to third parties. They argue that they have a fundamental right to privacy to consume the food of their choice for themselves and their families and therefore have a fundamental right to consume unpasteurized milk from their cows,” the judge wrote.

Bunk, he concluded.

“They do not simply own a cow that they board at a farm. Instead, plaintiffs operate a dairy farm. If plaintiffs want to continue to operate their dairy farm then they must do so in a way that complies with the laws of Wisconsin.”

He cited an earlier consent decree involving one of the farm locations, which had been accused of being the source of a “Campylobachter jejuni infection” and said there are state reasons to require standards and licenses.

Identifying the cases as the “Grassway plaintiffs” and the “Zinniker plaintiffs,” the judge said both were in violation of state rules and regulations.

It was, however, when the plaintiffs petitioned the judge for a “clarification” of his order that he let fly his judicial temperament.

“The court denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, which means the following:

“(1) no, plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to own and use a dairy cow or a diary (sic) herd;
“(2) no, plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow;
“(3) no, plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to board their cow at the farm of a farmer;
“(4) no, the Zinniker plaintiffs’ private contract does not fall outside the scope of the state’s police power;
“(5) no, plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice; and
“(6) no, the DATCP did not act in an ultra vires manner because it had jurisdiction to regulate the Zinniker plaintiffs’ conduct.”

“It is clear from their motion to clarify that the plaintiffs still fail to recognize that they are not merely attempting to enforce their ‘right’ to own a cow and board it at a farm. Instead, plaintiffs operate a dairy farm,” he wrote.

Kennedy said the ruling is outlandish.

“Here you have a situation where a group of people, a couple of individuals, boarded their cows which they wholly owned, with Zinniker farms, and paid them a fee for the boarding.”

He continued, “The judge said people have no fundamental right to acquire, possess and use your own property.”

The dispute is part of a larger battle going on between private interests and state and federal regulators over just exactly who makes the decision on the difference between a privately held asset and a commercial producer.

The Los Angeles Times recently profiled a case in which prosecutors had arrested the owner of a health food market and two others on charges of allegedly illegally producing unpasteurized dairy products.

The arrests of James Cecil Stewart, Sharon Ann Palmer and Eugenie Bloch just a few weeks ago advanced the government’s crackdown on the sale of so-called raw dairy products.

But Fiedler’s arguments weren’t unique.

Attorneys for the federal government have argued in a lawsuit still pending in federal court in Iowa that individuals have no “fundamental right” to obtain their food of choice.

The brief was filed early in 2010 in support of a motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund over the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s ban on the interstate sale of raw milk.

“There is no ‘deeply rooted’ historical tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds,” states the document signed by U.S. Attorney Stephanie Rose, assistant Martha Fagg and Roger Gural, trial attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice.

“Plaintiffs’ assertion of a ‘fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families’ is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish,” the government has argued.

WND has reported several times on fed crackdowns on producers of raw milk for friends and neighbors, including when agents arrived to inspect a private property belonging to Dan Allgyer in Pennsylvania at 5 a.m.

The Iowa case alleges the federal restrictions on raw milk are a violation of the U.S. Constitution, according to a report at Natural News.

The federal attorneys want the case dismissed.

“The interest claimed by plaintiffs could be framed more narrowly as a right to ‘provide themselves and their families with the foods of their own choice,’” the government document states. But the attorneys say that right doesn’t exist.

“The FDA essentially believes that nobody has the right to choose what to eat or drink,” said the Natural News site, which explains it covers topics that allow individuals to make positive changes in their health, environmental sensitivity and consumer choices.

“You are only ‘allowed’ to eat or drink what the FDA gives you permission to. There is no inherent right or God-given right to consume any foods from nature without the FDA’s consent.”

The Natural News report continued, “The state, in other words, may override your food decisions and deny you free access to the foods and beverages you wish to consume. And the state may do this for completely unscientific reasons – even just political reasons – all at their whim.”

The report blames the aggressive campaign against raw milk on large commercial dairy interests, “because it threatens the commercial milk business.”

The reason cannot be safety, the report said, since a report from the Weston A. Price Foundation revealed that from 1980 to 2005 there were 10 times more illnesses from pasteurized milk than from raw milk.

The federal government attorneys say the FDA’s goal is to prevent disease, and that’s why the “ban on the interstate sale of unpasteurized milk” was adopted.

The attorneys conceded that states ordinarily are expected to regulate intrastate activity but noted, “it is within HHS’s authority … to institute an intrastate ban as well.”

Natural News reported the ban could be seen as violating the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which leaves to states all powers not specifically designated in the Constitution for the federal body.


by Bob Unruh

Moms in Minnesota are preparing to defy state dictates over when and how they can access food supplies for their families, with a rally scheduled Monday to coincide with the beginning of the trial of the manager of a farm buying club, according to the Farm Food Freedom Coalition.

WND previously has reported on disputes between farmers and consumers on one side and federal regulators on the other. They have involved the purchase by consumers of raw milk, the rights of consumers to access milk from their own cows, a radio program that offered natural products and a blogger who wrote about his battle with diabetes and was threatened with jail.

The newest development comes from the Farm Food Freedom Coalition, which is assembling a protest at the Minneapolis trial of Alvin Schlangen, a farm buying club manager.

The group said that mothers in the state who act as hosts for “drop sites” for farm buying club members now have been threatened with criminal charges.

The May 14 protest will be at 7 a.m. outside the Minneapolis courthouse where Schlangen’s trial is scheduled, officials said.

“At the rally supporters will sign a ‘Declaration of Food Independence’ and demonstrate non-compliance against what they deem ‘unjust’ regulations,” the organization announced.

Another supporting organization, the Raw Milk Freedom Riders, said that Schlangen founded the Freedom Farms Coop, which simply connects people with the foods of their choice from local producers.

“Over the past two years the Minnesota Department of Agriculture has illegally raided Alvin’s van, warehouse, and farm. The state has now brought four charges against Alvin related to food distribution; all are misdemeanors counts. If convicted, Alvin faces up to a year in jail and hefty fines … just for helping to connect consumers to the producers and foods of their choice.”

Organizers confirm that “several Minnesota mothers who organize community access to local fresh farm foods plan to risk criminal charges by openly and publicly defying warnings from the Minnesota Department of Agriculture.”

“The MDA has threatened several mothers, conducted investigations against them and sent them warning letters that if they continue helping provide fresh food to their friends and neighbors, they will be subject to criminal charges and prosecution. The MDA alleges the mothers are violating food-handling regulations.”

Hundreds are expected to join the rally, organizers estimate.

“It is absolutely outrageous that during this time of economic crisis our state government is investigating and sending warning letters to mothers and putting farmers on trial who are helping provide communities with fresh foods. It is my right to contract privately with a farmer for the food of my choice just as it is the right of every American,” said Melinda Olson, a mother and recipient of one of the MDA’s warnings.

“The MDA’s harassment against mothers will not work. We plan to ignore this warning and continue operating as we are. MDA should not waste taxpayer money investigating, prosecuting and jailing peaceful farmers and mothers for helping their communities secure fresh foods. Our time to stand up against this tyranny is now!” she said.

Pete Kennedy of the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, who tracks such issues nationally, said, “Nowhere in the country at this time is state action against food freedom and consumer choice more oppressive than in the state of Minnesota.”

Plans posted online for the event explain that the court has allowed three days for Schlangen’s misdemeanor trial.

The Farm-to-Consumer Fund also confirmed that once the Minneapolis trial for Schlangen is over, he’ll face six more charges of food rule violations in Stearns County.

“While this is going on, there is a pending administrative hearing in which MDA is seeking an order to suspend any further food sales by Schlangen,” the fund reported.

“In addition to selling poultry and eggs produced on his farm, Schlangen manages the Freedom Farms Coop (a private food club formed in July 2010, serving more than 50 families) and delivers raw dairy products and other nutrient dense foods to club members, most of whom live in the Twin Cities.”

The organization documented Schlangen’s perspective, who said: “It must be legal to privately support farms that grow quality food and provide for the health of our growing children and seniors. This should be a model for today’s agriculture. Connecting kids with natural food production is vital to their future.”

He explains he believes private arrangements to purchase such food are not under the jurisdiction of the state.

It was nearly two years ago when the MDA raided warehouse space Schlangen leased. In the warrantless search, state officials seized food at the facility.

Then in 2011 deputies accompanied state agency officials when they impounded his truck and goods while he was delivering farm eggs to students at Macalester College in in St. Paul.

He has argued he doesn’t need a state “food handler’s permit” because he delivers only to members of the buying club through private contract, not the public.

The organization also reports the state agency “has tried” to put farmer Mike Hartmann out of business in recent years, bringing charges against him, his wife Diana and others.

WND reported several months ago when protesters distributed an estimated 100 gallons of raw milk in front of the offices of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration near Washington during a rally that prompted the federal agency to issue a statement defending its crackdown on the product.

The event was organized by the Farm Food Freedom Coalition. A spokesman for the rally, Max Kane, told WND that a caravan of vehicles collected the supplies of raw milk, then traveled to Silver Springs, Md., to the FDA offices for the protest.

The distribution there was in violation of a federal law that prevents people from moving raw milk across state lines for delivery to others. The rally participants were met by officers from the Department of Homeland Security and others.

But Kane said there were no conflicts, no arrests and no violence.

The FDA said there have been there have been reports of illnesses from raw milk, but a report from the Weston A. Price Foundation revealed that from 1980 to 2005 there were 10 times more illnesses from pasteurized milk than from raw milk.

Today, 30 states allow the sale of raw milk and 20 forbid it, but the federal government forbids it in interstate business.

In California, three people are facing trial following an investigation of the Rawesome buying club. In that case, one of the defense lawyers was stunned by the militancy of the prosecutor, declaring, “She doesn’t want raw milk. … She wants blood.”

The federal government has a long history of cracking down on those who produce raw milk and make it available to consumers – even when the consumers are the ones who own the cows and milk.

In that recent case in Wisconsin, a judge ruled that Americans do not have a right to choose their food, not even when they own the cows and the milk.

Kimberly Hartke of the Campaign for Real Milk, a project of The Weston A. Price Foundation, has told WND as the cases have developed the government’s “heavy-handed” tactics simply have gone too far.

“As more consumers seek greater access to local farm fresh milk to feed their families, our federal government is working overtime to curtail freedom to feed your family the way you deem necessary. Since most seek raw dairy for health reasons, this is a serious concern,” she said.

It was a ruling from Circuit Court Judge Patrick J. Fiedler in Wisconsin that said the families who reported they were boarding their cows for a fee and then getting the milk instead were running a “dairy farm.”

“It’s always a surprise when a judge says you don’t have the fundamental right to consume the foods of your choice,” said Kennedy.

Fiedler’s decision said, “Plaintiffs argue that they have a fundamental right to possess, use and enjoy their property and therefore have a fundamental right to own a cow, or a heard (sic) of cows, and to use their cow(s) in a manner that does not cause harm to third parties. They argue that they have a fundamental right to privacy to consume the food of their choice for themselves and their families and therefore have a fundamental right to consume unpasteurized milk from their cows,” the judge wrote.

Bunk, he concluded.

“They do not simply own a cow that they board at a farm. Instead, plaintiffs operate a dairy farm. If plaintiffs want to continue to operate their dairy farm then they must do so in a way that complies with the laws of Wisconsin.”

He continued, “The court denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, which means the following:

“(1) no, plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to own and use a dairy cow or a diary (sic) herd;
“(2) no, plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow;
“(3) no, plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to board their cow at the farm of a farmer;
“(4) no, the Zinniker plaintiffs’ private contract does not fall outside the scope of the state’s police power;
“(5) no, plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice; and
“(6) no, the DATCP did not act in an ultra vires manner because it had jurisdiction to regulate the Zinniker plaintiffs’ conduct.”

Example of Irony

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!

Who Is Running Monsanto ?? *

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.”

Ted Nugent Goes Off: Obama Is an ‘Anti-American Monster, Suggests GOP Candidates Lack Testosterone

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 consumers think of today’s farmers?

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.