Wednesday, April 6, 2011

Third Maine town passes food freedom ordinance

Garden Hen/Wiki Commons image
Food Freedom

On Saturday, April 2, Blue Hill became the third town in Maine to adopt the Local Food and Self-Governance Ordinance.  The Ordinance was passed at Blue Hill’s town meeting by a near unanimous vote. This comes on the heels of the unanimous passage of the Ordinance in neighboring towns, Sedgwick and Penobscot, on March 5 and March 7, respectively. The Ordinance asserts that towns can determine their own food and farming policies locally, and exempts direct food sales from state and federal license and inspection requirements.

On March 7, the Ordinance failed in a fourth town, Brooksville, by a vote of 161 to 152, however voting irregularities have called the vote’s validity into question. Brooksville town residents are circulating a petition calling for a revote at a special town meeting, which could take place in the next few months. The petition questions the legality of placing the town’s Ordinance Review Committee’s recommendation of a “No” vote on the ballot. Brooksville was the only town to vote on the ordinance by ballot, rather than by a show of hands.


Blue Hill resident John Gandy said the passage of the Blue Hill ordinance “is a huge milestone in the struggle to protect the rights, not only of farmers to sell their products, but also of all citizens to eat the food of their choice.” Gandy serves as the Master for the Halcyon Grange in North Blue Hill, which passed a Resolution for Food Sovereignty in February of this year. “It is time citizens start defending our rights against big government and big business.”


Dan Brown, farmer from Blue Hill, noted during the discussion on the Ordinance that this comes down to whether or not small-scale food producers can earn a livelihood. “They come to me, close my doors, and I’m back to driving truck.”

Losing even more farms and food producers, says Brown, means local people have less access to local food. “Shut me down, then people don’t get their tomatoes, their milk.”

Brown’s personal experience with the Maine State inspection program has revealed inconsistencies in which operations are deemed legitimate and under what terms. According to Brown, the state inspector responsible for his county has offered to license Brown’s home kitchen in a way that would “bend the rules.”

“He said to me, ‘Couldn’t you put your cats outside between 10am and 2pm? If you tell me you will I’ll believe that you do all your cooking between those hours.’”

When Brown asked if only selling dairy products to his customers who have signed a contract would satisfy the Maine Department of Agriculture he was told that such contracts were not legal, despite at least one other Maine farm operating in this manner.

Five years of frustration and worry from not knowing whether he will be in business tomorrow has taken it’s toll on Brown, yet he is not giving up. “Either arrest me, prove what I’m doing is wrong in a court of law, or leave me alone.”

The Local Food and Self-Governance Ordinance has drawn national attention, with emails and phone calls pouring into Western Hancock County from around the U.S., Canada, and as far away as New Zealand. Farmers, ranchers, and artisan food producers have contacted local residents wanting to know how and why this ordinance came to be, and whether or not it could happen where they live.

Heather and Phil Retberg, whose diversified family farm in Penobscot has been a coalescing force for the local effort, has found comfort and camaraderie in the show of support.

“A farmer who has given up her award winning cheese operation under incredible pressure from the FDA has connected to our work here,” said Heather Retberg, “and a friendship is forming across the country because of it.”

She noted a call from a Virginia farmer from Virginia who assured Retberg that “we believe the same things as y’all do.”

As of press time the Maine Department of Agriculture had not returned requests for comment.

The Local Food & Self-Governance Ordinance can be viewed at:
localfoodlocalrules.wordpress.com


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Monday, April 4, 2011

Lawsuit seeks to invalidate Monsanto’s GMO patents

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...


Rady Ananda, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

“A new invention to poison people … is not a patentable invention.” Lowell v. Lewis, 1817

A landmark lawsuit filed on March 29 in US federal court seeks to invalidate Monsanto’s patents on genetically modified seeds and to prohibit the company from suing those whose crops become genetically contaminated.

The Public Patent Foundation filed suit on behalf of 270,000 people from sixty organic and sustainable businesses and trade associations, including thousands of certified-organic farmers.

“As Justice Story wrote in 1817, to be patentable, an invention must not be ‘injurious to the well being, good policy, or sound morals of society,’” notes the complaint in its opening paragraphs.

The suit points to studies citing harm caused by Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, including human placental damage, lymphoma, myeloma, animal miscarriages, and other impacts on human health.
Plaintiffs condemn Monsanto for prohibiting independent research on its transgenic seeds and for its successful lobby efforts to ban GM food labeling. Many raise the specter of allergic reaction to GM foods, proof of which is hidden by lack of labeling. GMO label laws, currently pending in 14 states, would partially remedy this situation. (Please contact your state reps.)The suit also confronts the propaganda that transgenic seeds improve yield and reduce pesticide use, citing reports on failure to yield and increased pesticide use. The complaint mentions a 2010 lawsuit by West Virginia after several studies contradicted yield results claimed in Monsanto’s ads. And, it notes the growth in glyphosate-resistant superweeds.


"Thus, since the harm of transgenic seed is known, and the promises of transgenic seed’s benefits are false, transgenic seed is not useful for society."

Should the court agree that transgenic seeds fail the test of patent law, the suit has the potential to reverse patent approval on all biotech seeds, impacting BASF, Bayer, DuPont, Dow, and Syngenta, and others. Genetic contamination of natural plants occurs where GM seeds are grown, no matter who developed them. Ingesting food which has had its DNA mucked with is dangerous, regardless of who does the mucking.

What makes Monsanto different is its US seed monopoly. Well documented by market authorities, Plaintiffs point out that, “Over 85-90% of all soybeans, corn, cotton, sugar beets and canola grown in the U.S. contains Monsanto’s patented genes.”

Through its monopoly, Monsanto has spiked the cost of seeds in the past decade. Corn seed prices increased 135% and soybean prices 108%, the suit asserts. As recently as 1997, soybean farmers spent only 4-8% of their income on seeds, “while in 2009, farmers who planted transgenic soybeans spent 16.4 percent of their income on seeds.”

Monsanto has also used its dominant position to limit competition from other herbicide producers, as well, the suit alleges.

Listing 23 US patents by Monsanto, Plaintiffs also accuse the firm of “double patenting” thus strengthening its monopoly over the entire field of transgenic seeds:

Although the United States patent system allows improvements on existing inventions, it does not permit a party to extend its monopoly over a field of invention by receiving a patent that expires later than and is not patentably distinct from a patent it already owns….

Monsanto began applying for patents on glyphosate tolerance in the mid 1980s. Its first patents on the trait were granted in 1990 and are now expired. After pursuing its earliest patents on glyphosate resistance, Monsanto continued to seek and receive patents on Roundup Ready technology for over two decades….

In acquiring the transgenic seed patents, Monsanto unjustly extended its period of patent exclusivity by duplicating its ownership of a field of invention already covered by other Monsanto patents.

The suit then concludes, “Monsanto’s transgenic seed patents are thus invalid for violating the prohibition against double patenting.”

Genetic Contamination
Here’s the mother of all arguments, which makes the most sense to the lay public. How dare Monsanto sue farmers damaged by genetic contamination of their crops? That’s like a pugilist suing for damage to his hand after he punches an unwilling victim.

Plaintiffs cannot be held to have infringed any Monsanto transgenic seed patent if Plaintiffs become contaminated by Monsanto’s transgenic seed through no intentional act of their own.

Monsanto admits that its product contaminates natural crops. That must be why it recently altered its Technology Stewardship Agreement to transfer liability for its products to the farmers who buy them.

The suit logically asserts that genetic contamination amounts to trespass on the property of those who do not want GE seeds, causing them substantial economic harm.

We saw that when Bayer’s transgenic seeds contaminated a third of the US rice supply, causing the European Union to close its market to US rice. Bayer has faced 6,000 lawsuits due to that contamination and market closure. On top of lawsuits already lost or settled, last month, Bayer lost a $137 million lawsuit by Riceland Foods. The new suit notes that, “The worldwide total economic loss due to the [2006 GM rice] contamination event was estimated at $741 million to $1.285 billion.”

Impact on the Biotech Food Industry
The suit argues that because “contamination is reasonably foreseeable,” Monsanto thus loses its patent rights whenever it sells its GM seeds. This wouldn’t stop it from selling the seed, but it would allow farmers to save seeds from transgenic crops. No company can stay in business without repeat customers, especially ones that spend millions on research and development. And, because transgenic contamination is not limited to Monsanto’s seeds, all biotech seed companies would likewise face dissolution of their intellectual property rights.

Other harm from biotechnology does not stop with Monsanto’s seeds or chemicals, either. To protect the world from the biotech food industry, which extends to animals, patenting life itself should be banned. This lawsuit might take us closer to a return of that legal standard, prior to the 2001 High Court decision in J.E.M. Ag Supply v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International. In that case, Oyez explains:

Farm Advantage filed a patent invalidity counterclaim, arguing that sexually reproducing plants, such as Pioneer’s corn plants, are not patentable subject matter within section 101. Farm Advantage maintained that the Plant Patent Act of 1930 (PPA) and the Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA) set forth the exclusive statutory means for protecting plant life.

The court disagreed, and thus allowed patents on sexually reproducing life forms. Of note, the decision was written by ethically-challenged Clarence Thomas, a former Monsanto attorney. Thomas also refused to recuse himself from a 2010 case involving Monsanto. (Geertson Seed v Monsantoinvolved contamination of natural alfalfa.)

Among the plaintiffs in the PUBPAT suit is Navdanya International, headed by Dr. Vandana Shiva who has long fought biopiracy. Genetic patents “have unleashed an epidemic of the piracy of nature’s creativity and millennia of indigenous innovation,” Shiva wrote at Navdanya.

The new lawsuit couldn’t come a moment too soon, given the USDA’s recent decision to allow rice modified with human genes by Ventria Bioscience. Such approval begs the question: At what point is the line into cannibalism crossed? Biotech and pharmaceutical companies have produced several hundred “pharma crops” – food that contains vaccines against a variety of diseases. The FDA and USDA would have us ignore that this scheme fails to consider appropriate dosage specific to a person’s age, weight and medical condition, the very foundation of pharmaceutical science.

The biotech industry is out of control, and poses a significant danger to humans and the environment.

PUBPAT’s lawsuit marks a significant step toward restoring a safe, sane and consensual food supply.

Rady Ananda holds a B.S. in Natural Resources from The Ohio State University’s School of Agriculture and is the Editor of Food Freedom and COTO Report.

A version of this article first posted by Global Research.



Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Saturday, April 2, 2011

Oakland gardener questions need for permit to sell produce

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...


Urban Agriculture/Wikimedia Commons
Matthai Kuruvila
SF Chronicle

Novella Carpenter took over a vacant lot on a hardscrabble corner of West Oakland eight years ago and turned it into a working farm of vegetables, goats, rabbits and, sometimes, pigs.

Carpenter milked goats, made cheese and ate much of the produce. She also wrote a popular book, "Farm City," about the experience and became an icon of the Bay Area's urban farming movement.

But the future of her Ghost Town Farm is in question. This week, Oakland officials suggested it may need to close. The reason: She sells excess produce and needs a costly permit to do so.

"It seems ridiculous," said Carpenter, 38. "I need a conditional use permit to sell chard?"

The news stunned the region's urban farmers and their supporters, who questioned how a fundamental human task that goes back millennia could become illegal.

Read Full Article



Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Your Guide to the Illegal Farm Photos Bill



factory farming - Wiki image
Editor's NoteA couple of weeks ago, we published an article titled Big Ag Lobbies to Make it Illegal to Secretly Film Animal Abuse.  The following article gives additional details about a new version of the original bill that has been introduced, which is not as watered down as it first appears.  This is in fact a piece of legislation that will allow for animal cruelty to be swept away from the light of scrutiny by compassionate people who wish to know how their food is produced and who demand humane farming practices. Please take action and contact the senator named below and get this bill put into the waste bin where it belongs.

Lois Rain -- Health Freedoms 

SB1246 simply called “Farms” introduced by Jim Norman-R, Tampa, FL

Original bill stated:

  • It is “an act relating to farms; prohibiting a person from entering onto a farm or photographing or video recording a farm without the owner’s written consent…”
  • In section (1)(1) trespassers on farm property would receive a first degree felony charge.
  • In s. (1)(2) any photographs or video recording without written consent (yes, even from a distance) is punishable by first degree felony charge.
  • Florida statutes define a first degree felony charge as 30 years imprisonment, possibly life, and $10,000 fine.
  • A “Farm” means any land used for agricultural production, cattle, or storage of a commodity (even junk yards).
“The New York Times called it ‘croparazzi,’ and news of the bill gained Internet buzz. But Monday [3/21/11], a heavily amended version of SB 1246 unanimously passed the Senate Agriculture Committee.” Which is why some speculate that the following changes were made to scale back the bill.

New Bill [3/21/11]:
  • Section 1.1 creates exceptions for Department of Agriculture employees, law enforcement, investigators, and inspectors.
  • The charge of first degree felony now becomes a first degree misdemeanor (one year prison, $1000 fine).
  • It also appears the crime is only committed if on the actual property without written consent. That cleared GoogleEarth but still left out greenbelt exceptions. (Would these changes really make roadside pictures and aerial photography okay by law?)
  • Section 1 (2)(a) defines “Audio or video records” as any audio or video recording, regardless of the recording medium or format, including, but not limited to, photographs, audio or videotapes, cd’s, dvd’s, or streaming media, whether stored on film stock, hard disks, solid state storage, or any electrical, magnetic, or optical or other form of data storage.
What’s the back story? Norman’s under criminal investigations?Purported motivation behind the bill:
To protect farm operations that may be a unique component to the business. “Norman said he’s trying to protect farmers from ‘unfair outside assaults’ on their intellectual and private property rights.” There are already safeguards for that like strict trespassing and theft laws and litigation as a recourse.


Suspected and admitted motives:
Many speculated that the idea was to keep activists from documenting animal cruelty; not as obvious before, it’s fully admitted in the bill’s analysis! Salon.com reported, “The speculation is that Norman is toting water for large agribusinesses. The kind of companies that don’t want attention, whether it’s because of the hiring of illegal aliens or of the inhumane practices for both people and animals on those farms.” Interestingly, enforcing illegal immigration action was one of Jim’s election platforms. Other people’s farm operation concerns are waste, lax regard for regulations, and overuse of chemicals.

Wilton Simpson, the egg farmer supposedly responsible for prompting the bill, voiced concerns about undercover activist documentation, although he could not name one instance. While causing a stir, undercover footage seems more rare than rampant. He worried that such filming leads to changes like California’s 2008 constitutional amendment to ban animal confinement where they cannot even turn around or move limbs, set to take place 2015. Oh no – anything but industry wide reform that helps animals and food quality but takes a really long time to go into effect…

History:
02/21/2011 Senate • Filed
03/07/2011 Senate • Referred to Agriculture; Criminal Justice; Budget -SJ 90
03/08/2011 Senate • Introduced -SJ 90
03/16/2011 Senate • On Committee agenda– Agriculture, 03/21/11, 10:15 am, 37 Senate Office Building
03/21/2011 Senate • CS by Agriculture; YEAS 4 NAYS 0
03/22/2011 Senate • Pending reference review under Rule 4.7(2) – (Committee Substitute) • CS by Agriculture read 1st time -SJ 258
03/24/2011 Senate • Now in Criminal Justice

Connections:
You can ascertain from the previous paragraphs that there are obvious Big Ag connections. Simpson is acting as the propped up “voice” of FL farmers. His Dade City egg operation produces 21 million eggs per year and he is also president of the Pasco County Fair Association. He filed paperwork to be in the next senate elections.

“Siplin, chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, assured members Monday [3/21/11] that egg farms are clean and sanitary, findings based on his trip to another Simpson farm last week. Florida farmers, he said, need their production methods protected. After the meeting, Siplin said he was unaware Simpson’s concerns spurred Norman’s bill. ‘I didn’t know they were friends,’ he said. ‘I had an interest in it, so I asked the staff to organize it.’” St. Petersburg Times 

 So now that you do know, care to take another sampling somewhere else before assuring that all egg farms are clean and sanitary?

The USDA backs factory farms, and they seem to have a lot of leeway in their operations, thus, people feel the need to gather more info. Geez, why are they so concerned about the food they eat or how it was killed? Florida has very few organic farms, so Big Ag in a sense rules the roost. This law will foster even more free range with the USDA still giving the thumbs up.

Norman launched the bill full force without presenting it to some of his farming benefactors like the Florida Farm Bureau who were uncomfortable with such harsh punishment for filming. They helped rewrite the bill. They were concerned more about the intent behind filming practices like those that would purposely angle film to vilify non-harmful farm operations. They want to promote rural living and don’t want to look bad. Thanks to Norman’s representation, many farming operations look worse. It just adds absurdity to the claim that Norman looks out for the little guy.

Norman and his wife Mearline were closely involved with the late investor, Ralph Hughes. Norman’s pro-development votes profited Hughes’ concrete products company. Hughes donated lots of money to Norman’s campaign and also gave them something else…

Criminal investigations for ethics crimes:
Whether a loan or gift, the Normans received enough to purchase a nearly $500,000 Arkansas home without a mortgage. Norman always claimed it was his wife’s baby, that he had nothing to do with it. “The source of the money for the Arkansas home lies at the heart of a lawsuit filed by Kevin Ambler, who lost the District 12 Republican primary to Norman…He alleges that Norman violated a state law requiring candidates to report all assets and liabilities [including the two unclaimed boats -HF] to qualify for election and therefore should not have been on the primary ballot. According to Ambler, Norman failed to reveal a debt to Hughes.” Norman’s lawyer had contested that it was the wife’s purchase and Norman himself received nothing.  St. Petersburg Times

The Florida Ethics Commission ruled that some of the complaints filed against Norman for taking the money will finally go under investigation. One resident estimated that there were between 60 and 80 others who also filed complaints. He was disqualified from last year’s ballot after the news broke, but his appeal overturned the decision just a few days shy of the election. Criminal investigations will preclude the ethics investigations for awhile.

After the primary election, he ran unopposed. Voters were so upset about his continuing to run that they opted for a variety of write-ins instead: Alfred E. Newman, Jesus, Santa, Fidel Castro, Stephen Colbert, Harry Truman, Jimmy Buffet, Kermit the Frog, Honest Abe, “Someone Honest,” a slew of cartoon characters, Voldemort and some went with “anyone but Jim Norman” and “My cat is more ethical.”

Conclusion:
Some call Norman crazy and wonder why he doesn’t just drop a bill that is so unpopular and unconstitutional. He’s not crazy or incompetent: he’s following an age-old MO of secretly overshooting, scaling back to appease folks after an outcry, and then he still gets his (or someone else’s) way. He doesn’t mind being the fall guy for a while if he sets a precedent that other states will follow. He’s cutting the trail. Example, Iowa is already following suit. It could even be a strange way of vilifying farmers so that small farming operations become squelched and scrutinized paving way for more Big Ag operations.

“Proponents of Norman’s bill, such as the [Florida] Farm Bureau, argue that animal-advocacy groups want to put them out of business, and will manipulate images covertly taken from agricultural operations to meet that end. They also point out that a single instance of undercover footage allegedly showing animal abuse or harsh living conditions can impact an entire industry — forcing consumers to cope with higher prices.” The Florida Independent 

That is a valid concern, but is this bill the answer? It presented a major violation to constitutional rights. As long as unbridled, questionable operations take place, there will be those with true anti-cruelty intentions to blow the whistle. When they do standards usually rise. You can see a much smaller-scale example of this by watching an episode of Fox’s Kitchen Nightmares.

It seems with all this fighting and confusion, both farmers and activists are in for more control as lawmakers and committees sweep up this opportunity.

Big Ag operations will continue to have minute accountability which seems to be the crux of the problem. If I have a kid and someone suspects abuse, an anonymous tip sends me to jail; if others gather substantial evidence of animal abuse and other crimes, they go to jail! You “snoops” out there filming abuse and other insidiousness will just have to fly the coop if lawmakers continue in this forceful way.

Some are already acting relieved at the changes, like it’s a victory. They are missing the point and feeding right into Big Ag’s open hands. Please don’t be appeased and let this “milder version” pass into law. It sets a very unsettling precedent that leads to unnecessary imprisonment for those trying to expose injustices. Animal rights groups believe it will continue to sanction abuse. If documentary footage caused such a ruckus you would think concerned lawmakers would dig deep into the cause, instead of quelling those pesky fact finders. But, you probably don’t think like a politician with mutually beneficial relations and big money on the line.

We don’t just like to post stories and move on; we’re about real action! It’s not over yet. Stay tuned for more updates. Petition coming soon! Feel free to contact the Florida senate, we’re sure they would love your input.

[Sources]
The bill, amendments, history, and fiscal analysis:
http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2011/1246/

General information about the bill and its developments:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/agriculture/sen-jim-norman-scales-back-bill-that-inadvertently-criminalized-farm/1158811

http://floridaindependent.com/24034/florida-farm-bureau-on-farm-photo-felony-bill-we%E2%80%99re-revising-the-whole-thing

http://floridaindependent.com/24298/egg-producer-requested-jim-normans-farm-photo-felony-bill-similar-legislation-pending-in-iowa

http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/03/15/illegal_florida_farm_photography_open2011

Ethics complaints:
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/nov/12/121600/norman-faces-flurry-of-ethics-complaints/news-politics/

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/elections/ethics-complaint-filed-against-state-senate-candidate-jim-norman/1116578

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/local/hillsborough-commissioner-jim-normans-wife-got-house-money-from-prominent/1125481

http://blogs.creativeloafing.com/dailyloaf/2011/03/17/senator-jim-norman%E2%80%99s-ethics-charge-moves-a-step-forward/

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/legislature/article1125255.ece

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/oct/02/lawyer-activist-gave-money-to-normans-wife-to-buy-/

http://floridaindependent.com/12002/jim-norman-may-be-back-on-the-state-senate-ballot-but-his-troubles-arent-over

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/nov/16/160953/anti-norman-write-ins-go-for-carl-crawford-peter-p/news-politics/

Map of organic farm spots:
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/05/03/business/03metrics.graf01.ready.html

Note: the blog listed claims it is not a news source. However, it involves one of the ethics complainants and points to other sources



Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Thursday, March 17, 2011

FDA shuts down sprout grower, processor for poor sanitary conditions



Wikimedia Commons image
Carrie Ann Knauer
Carroll County Times

A Mount Airy grower and processor of soybean sprouts has been ordered to shut down after federal agencies found the company was preparing, packing and holding the sprouts in unsanitary conditions.

The production of bean sprouts without adequate sanitation practices in place makes them susceptible to pathogens such as Listeria monocytogenes, salmonella and E. coli, which can cause serious illness in humans, according to the Food and Drug Administration.

The FDA announced Monday that it had entered a consent decree with Vegi-Pak Farm LLC after the company violated the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act by introducing adulterated food into interstate commerce. The products had been sold to markets in Maryland, Virginia and Washington, D.C.

Read Full Article

RELATED ARTICLE:
Raiding and Regulating New Target in War on Drugs: Foodies




Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner
order non hybrid seeds