It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.



page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 11:55 AM
As feared it seems farmers have no rights and once targeted by the "authorities" you are dead meat. As food prices start to spiral this should be a concern of everyone.

In July 2000, USDA officials claimed in our court hearing that, “The farmers have no rights. No right to be heard before the court, no right to independent testing, and no right to question the USDA.” Linda Fallice

Now it seems a US court has upheld this attitude.

By Doreen Hannes
March 8, 2011

On February 26th, I received word that the verdict had come in on Morningland of the Ozarks court case. Late on Sunday night I received the documents. It took a little digesting, but one thing was clear straight out of the gate;

if we want justice, we aren’t going to get it without a jury of our peers. Morningland was denied a jury trial.

Interestingly, in the section requesting that there be “Burden of Proof” to destroy the cheese, the judge finds that it’s unnecessary. He says, “judicial review probes only the lawfulness of an agency’s order without consideration of its reasonableness.” Further, he states, “The court finds no authority suggesting the State must prove defendant’s cheese unfit for human consumption...,” and also that the because of the “unsanitary surroundings” the “court must disregard the absence of sickness among consumers of defendant’s cheeses.” Reason, logic and actual illness and, evidently, due process are irrelevant if an agency decides to act against you....

This is incredible. Tim Wightman, the expert witness for the state testified that the DRY cows sold by the farm produced the MILK with the one day of elevated SCC.

Hey Tom do you milk the bulls too?

Except for the spike Morningland’s SCC counts averaged in the 5-600k range, well below the State level of 750k. But good old Tom testified the "standards are that SCC’s should always be under 300k"

...The most stunning thing about Wightman’s testimony was when the Attorney General’s Counsel asked if selling cows would reduce the somatic cell count and he replied, “Yes.”

This was when the dairy farmers jaws were dropping. Mine included.

Really, Tim? Selling cows reduces the SCC? No qualifications in the equation? Selling cows reduces the SCC? Dry cows? Really?

Based on this statement of the “dairy expert”, the judge has ruled that Morningland had diseased cows in their herd and sold them to avoid detection. Those dry cows were obviously the source of contamination that led to Morningland’s problems. Never mind that they exhibited no symptoms, testing or proof, and no one became ill. Evidence is unnecessary....

posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 12:03 PM

And I thought our courts were a joke. No evidence needed? No jury? what are these guys afraid of?

Phfft, totally ridiculous. Feels sorry for the farmers,though.

posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 12:18 PM

“judicial review probes only the lawfulness of an agency’s order without consideration of its reasonableness.”

A very sad day. As the political system descends into anarchy, the legal system is right behind it like a bunch of lemmings.

posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 12:18 PM
reply to post by SlovenlyGhost

Well, after reviewing I came to one conclusion.

This story is very cheesy.

posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 12:38 PM
AHHHhhh but the plot thickens.

Or should I say the Cheese ripens

(Remember No ONE got SICK that is not the issue.)

If we go to the web site of a lawyer who makes his living from Lawsuits for customers who get sick from eating bad food we find this:

... The saga began in June when some of the farm's cheeses were seized in an armed raid at Rawesome Foods, a health food store in California. On Nov. 2, 2010, Food Safety News reported, "With guns drawn, federal, state and local authorities entered the Venice raw food club and seized cartons of raw milk and packages of unpasteurized goat cheese."

Coincidentally, the raid occurred at a time when FDA had begun to take a harder look at producers using raw milk in their cheese production. Recently, FDA initiated a program to test the buildings and equipment used in cheesemaking for Listeria.

OK so we start of with the FDA LOOKING for a scapegoat. At least that is what this sounds like to me.

So we have cheese from MISSOURI seized by the FEDS in CALIFORNIA.

...After performing tests on the Morningland Dairy cheeses that had been distributed to the California retailer, officials from the California Department of Food and Agriculture announced that some of the samples contained trace amounts of Listeria monocytogenes and Staphylococcus aureus. Missouri state officials were notified of the contamination found in the company's products....

So the FEDs have a recall (and yes it was the FEDs) and the RECALLED cheese is tested. Think about it folks this cheese has just been shipped all over the place BEFORE it is tested. It is also tested BY THE FEDS who have an AXE to GRIND. They want raw milk and raw milk products OUTLAWED completely. (More on that later)

...After Morningland Dairy conducted the recall, 14 samples of Morningland Dairy's cheese were sent to a St. Louis laboratory to be tested. Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster and Missouri's State Milk Board reported that all 14 samples tested positive for Staphylococcus aureus and 6 of the samples tested positive for lLsteria monocytogenes.

On Oct. 1, Missouri's State Milk Board condemned all the company's cheese products manufactured between Jan. 1 and Aug. 26 and ordered them destroyed; however, Morningland Dairy objected to the destruction, disputing the allegations that their cheeses were contaminated. The company refused to obey the Board's order because it would result in the loss of eight months of work, as well as approximately $250,000.

In response to Morningland's refusal to destroy its cheese products, Attorney General Koster sought a court order enforcing the state's destruction notice, which has resulted in the current litigation in Howell County. ...

That is the information from the sue happy lawyer, but is it the entire truth???

posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 12:45 PM
reply to post by crimvelvet

Hmm.. Can the company get independant testing done? May not be admissable in court, given that it seems to be a kangaroo court anyway, but it would strengthen their public stance.

posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 12:48 PM

Originally posted by SlovenlyGhost

And I thought our courts were a joke. No evidence needed? No jury? what are these guys afraid of?

Phfft, totally ridiculous. Feels sorry for the farmers,though.

Couple this court finding with the courts being asked to verify the legimacy of our President and you get the same answer.
This is no longer a democracy or a republic. it is a corporate and elitist dictatorship. Every decision that matters serves them.

posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 12:52 PM
Many people around the world are imprisoned in US "black" facilities on even less evidence, if such a thing is possible.
Dysfunctional government at it's finest.
Let's call it what it is: Corporate communism.
The Proletariat of the Multinationals has triumphed.

Classic example of a government agency using it's brute power to give the public the impression that is performing a vital job.
Just like Homeland Security - if there are no terrorists they must create some to justify their own existence, regardless of the cost to the public.
edit on 9-3-2011 by Asktheanimals because: added comments

posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 01:16 PM
reply to post by rogerstigers

Hmm.. Can the company get independant testing done? May not be admissable in court, given that it seems to be a kangaroo court anyway, but it would strengthen their public stance.

AHHhhh you hit the nail on the head.

I am not sure about this state but this has been what the governments view point has been:

In July 2000, USDA officials claimed in our court hearing that, “The farmers have no rights. No right to be heard before the court, no right to independent testing, and no right to question the USDA.”


First off, those of you who haven't read my posts on Mad Sheep should pick up the book and read it. It was written by Linda Faillace of Vermont. She and her husband followed the USDA regs to the letter and with their blessing imported sheep from Belgium nearly 10 years ago. Within a few years, the USDA was screaming that the sheep had mad cow disease, and that they didn't know if Belgium had been feeding animal bone meal.

All feed records had been obtained from the farms purchased from. The Faillaces had been responsible for starting the voluntary scrapie program in Vermont, and the sheep came from certified scrapie free flocks. And...sheep don't get mad cow; it's a different variation.

No tests had been done on the Faillace sheep, but some had been done on sheep they'd imported. The USDA demanded all sheep be given up for testing. Thus began their war on the Faillaces, which lasted years. Both Larry and Linda had studied TSEs and worked in labs in England a few years earlier, so they knew exactly how tests needed to be run and that there was no way their sheep had BSE.

In the end, they went to court...and lost. There's no way they should have lost, because through the freedom of information act they found that over 400 tests had been run showing their sheep to be negative, not positive. Then they found the lab that had run the tests had botched the test, and had never been inspected (which needed to be done to be approved for running these tests), and that the USDA and the Dr from the lab had lied under oath.

The courts still ruled in favor of the USDA, the sheep were confiscated and destroyed, and the family is still waiting for compensation. Armed federal agents were sent along with a whole parade of others to do the deed....


Court: Beef Exporters Can't Test for Mad Cow Disease

Beef exporters are banned from testing their cattle for mad cow disease without approval from the government, which has exclusive control on test kits, a divided federal appeals court panel said today.

A Kansas-based exporter, Creekstone Farms Premium Beef, seeking to test its cattle to minimize public fear, challenged Department of Agriculture regulations that block corporations from buying and using kits to test for mad cow disease. There is no cure and no treatment for the neurological disease. It’s 100 percent fatal.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in a 2-1 opinion, upheld USDA control of the kits. Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson and Judith Rogers sided with the government; Chief Judge David Sentelle dissented.

The Mad Cow testing is real interesting because the US government LIED!

“There is a small chance that mad cow disease.. (BSE), is already in this country, according to a risk assessment released today by Harvard University. The risk assessment concluded that even if BSE had entered this country, it wouldn’t become a major public health problem, although human illnesses could occur” - Harvard Risk Assessment 12/3/2001

This is the “scientific basis” behind the USDA ban on 100% BSE testing at Creekstone Farms and mandating “less than 1 percent [40000 per year] of slaughtered cattle to be tested for BSE. The agency contends that more comprehensive testing doesn't guarantee food safety and may produce a false positive that alarms consumers.” Of course if you do not test you will not find the disease.

And then you find the REAL REASON the government does not want testing:

After disease detectives in Great Britain determined that mad cow (BSE), was spread by feeding cattle infected meal, British officials banned the practice. But they didn't ban the export of feed, spreading BSE to continental Europe and Japan...At the height of the BSE epidemic, the UK exported 500,000 tons, including 168,000 metric tons of MBM (meat and bone meal) between 1990 and 1996. It also exported 3.2 million cattle to 36 countries. A Harvard study said that the exact amount sent to the U.S. was unknown, but it noted that at least 69 tons of "mammalian meal and flour" and 334 cattle were shipped here during the period.

posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 01:32 PM
reply to post by Asktheanimals

Classic example of a government agency using it's brute power to give the public the impression that is performing a vital job.

There was another very good example from your home state. The Henshaw Incident

...The claim is that the USDA did this because of Pseudorabies, yet the government did not follow it’s own standard operating procedures of testing as outlined in the USDA’s own documents. The USDA spilled bodily fluids from the slaughtered pigs all over the road where any disease could be transmitted to other farms and other animals. Slaughter is not required for testing for Pseudorabies. These issues seriously puts into question the validity of the disease claim and/or the competence of the government officials involved...

The Henshaws were not provided with any test reports. It is doubtful that blood from a hog shot at the hunting reserve would have been viable for testing because of the time lapse from the death of the animal and the testing of the blood unless proper refrigeration techniques were used. Danny and Cindi were held under armed guard around the clock and not allowed to move around to see what was taking place.....

In the United States today, any animal owner might experience the same depopulation tactics that the Henshaws just experienced. Regulations vary from state to state. Animal owners might be paid a portion of what the killed animals were worth. In most states, no warrant is required to enter the farm and tests are not required to confirm a disease.

In the case of the Henshaws, Pseudorabies has very obvious signs, "causes reproductive problems, including abortion, stillbirths, and even occasional death losses in breeding and finishing hogs....often causing newborn piglets to die." The piglets were so frisky the Government agents could not kill them with shot guns!

Again the entire herd was slaughtered and the Henshaws handed the bill for the slaughter.

posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 06:13 PM
Very aptly titled, CV. If you google "Cass Sunstein's links to PETA and HSUS", you'll find that the FDA's actions suit their agenda (it is one agenda with "different" branches) to a T. The Obama admin is swimming in the "animal rights" agenda. It's so "green" & politically correct, you know.

Seeing democrat supported (and agitated) protests over union "rights" while the same people are undermining and persecuting the very people we literally need to sustain life makes me really crazy. Imo, not smart to sit on our hands while the FDA (I spit as I say this), Monsanto, and the corporate grocers destroy our ability to buy locally- clean, safe, and fresh.
(wonder where these "consumer protection" entities are when produce and meat that's been literally grown on/ in crap and industrial waste is coming across the border to sit on our store shelves without any alternatives available...)

posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 07:41 PM
"THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER DOESN'T MATTER"....combine that with a nation of laws but lacking justice and we get this.

I used to drink raw milk and skim cream and make butter and eat raw cheese when I lived on a small dairy for awhile. I also used to buy raw milk produced by Altadena Dairy. They were run out of the raw milk business.

posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 07:49 PM
reply to post by SlovenlyGhost

Gotta protect the capitalism, you know. Contrary to popular mythology, entrepeneurship and competition are actually antithetical to that particular economic system, since it creates, well, competition, when the actual goal is wealth consolidatiion via monopolization.

So we gotta shut down all the small farms, so agricorp can dominate the field (so to speak). The courts - from day one, they existed to protect the interests of the few from the needs of the many - are simply the mechanism by which this system is perpetuated in this particular case. We could replace all the justices with pretty much anyone of your choice, and the problem would remain because the problem is not individual. it's not even departmental; it's systemic.

posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 11:54 PM
reply to post by crimvelvet

Devils advocate argument ahead....

I am familiar with this case from when it first made the news. The one single issue that the State objected to was not the sale of the milk itself, or even the location, but the fact it was not pasteurized, which is required under Missouri law.

The other secondary issue raised, but resolved, was the manner in which that milk was being sold. Its one thing to sell / give items away to a few friends / families, but when its being done on a larger scale, and sold to people who are complete strangers, in private parking lots of businesses, it falls under a business itself, at which point the higher FDA requirements are put into place.

The intent of the law was to protect consumers from disease / danger / virus / etc etc from items that are not pasteurized. It falls under the industry regulations for the production and distribution of a prduct being sold to the public at large, which is what this person did.

As far as the actual court case goes itself, I agree with the judge and understand what he is saying, which I think might be misunderstood on others.

The Judge ruled that the agency did have proper jurisdiction, and that their investigation was within the scope of their authority.

That was the legal foundation being challenged, was the FDA able to come to this farm, private farm, to do inspections and hold them to the same level as a manufature who produces milk for public sale and consumption.

The Judge was saying that the regulations in place for consumer safety, specifically the end product itself, was not his concern or that of the court because that was already established by the legislature. His ruling was the farm selling the milk was in violation of those laws that deal with pasteurization as sale of that item to the public at large.

The safety criteria is set by the FDA and has been accepeted as the industry standard, which is why the judge refused to go down that part of the road.

Ultimately the question is
- Can a private farm produce unpasteurized milk and then sell it to the public.
- Is the milk bieng sold in small quantities to friends / family, or on a larger basis and to the public at large
- Are the actions of the Farm in compliance with applicable laws that govern that industry
- Are their adequate industry safety measures in place at the production site that meets industry standard for selling to the public at large.
- Does the site undergo regular testing as other businesses in the same category

The farm is not prohibited from making unpasteurized milk, but is prohibited from selling it in the manner they are, which was to the public at large. While I know people will most liekly disagree with my comments and thats fine. If this farmer wants to sell his product, then why not go through the leagal and proper channels to do so? If he is not abiding by Federal or Industry standards, and if a consumer buys the milk, becomes ill or dies from it, how exactly does a person have recourse against the seller? There would be no consumer protection method since it would not meet the qualifications for it.

Then I again I could be wrong... just my 2 cents
edit on 9-3-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 04:43 AM
In the u.s justice system money weighs more than truth.. Lady justice is deaf, dumb and greedy..
Force the small farmers out so that monsanto can poison the public easier.. Farming / Gardening should become the way to rebel ...

posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 05:08 AM
Ask the govt appointed philosopher kings that administer the system they created for themselves,. They provide PROCESS in their system for a price and they have a monopoly on it defining every element of it to their satisfaction.
Truth and/or efficiency is nowhere in the description and as it plays no part of the mission statement, its' occurence in the end product is neither required or desired in defining the success of the system.
Once truth becomes a stranger to the machinery of govt the govt has no functional limints to its power and the public has no defense

posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 04:14 PM
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

Gotta protect the capitalism, you know. Contrary to popular mythology, entrepeneurship and competition are actually antithetical to that particular economic system, since it creates, well, competition, when the actual goal is wealth consolidatiion via monopolization.

Actually it is not "capitalism" The Bankers and Corporate cartels HATE capitalism and that is why they call the misbegotten system now in place "capitalism"

The present system has fake fiat money loaned by the bankers to their friends the large corporations at cheap rates. The fake fiat money is also used to "BUY" politicians and political favors. Small businesses are completely cut out of the system and have to use their WEALTH or the WEALTH of venture capitalists and therefore can not compete.

In true capitalism a person (entrepeneur) invest his WEALTH that is his labor and land and raw materials in to producing more wealth. When he borrows it is not made on the spot fake fiat money but real WEALTH. This puts a major crimp in the formation of the mega corporations because they can not compete with smaller firms with out the fake fiat currency and the political favors it buys. They can not borrow Fake fiat currency to fund hostile take overs and leveraged buyouts.

So we gotta shut down all the small farms, so agricorp can dominate the field (so to speak). The courts - from day one, they existed to protect the interests of the few from the needs of the many - are simply the mechanism by which this system is perpetuated in this particular case. We could replace all the justices with pretty much anyone of your choice, and the problem would remain because the problem is not individual. it's not even departmental; it's systemic.

You are correct it is Systemic!

Here is the proof.

The connections between the FDA, Animal Patenting, the World Trade Organization, and the United Nations.

The goal is the patenting of all food. We are already aware of “GMO” crops and Monsanto's aggressive pursue in the courts of any farmer in the USA not using GMO seed. They are also after any county where GMO crops are banned. What most are unaware of is that the Ag Cartel has set their sights on patenting food animals and making sure their patents, plant or animal, extend to all countries.

This is a few excerpts about the treaties and goals of various International organizations I have gathered over the last few years.
I feel like an ant about to be squashed by a big heavy army boot...

International Harmonization

The harmonization of laws, regulations and standards between and among trading partners requires intense, complex, time-consuming negotiations by CFSAN officials. Harmonization must simultaneously facilitate international trade and promote mutual understanding, while protecting national interests and establish a basis to resolve food issues on sound scientific evidence in an objective atmosphere. Failure to reach a consistent, harmonized set of laws, regulations and standards within the freetrade agreements and the World Trade Organization Agreements can result in considerable economic repercussions.
Participation in Codex Alimentarius
Cosmetics International Activities
International Organizations and Standard-Setting Bodies
International Office of Epizootics (OIE)
International Plant Protection Convention
World Health Organization (WHO)
Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO
Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA)
Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues
Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Microbiological Risk Assessments
Pan American Health Organization
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development


“...The Patenting Sentinel and Action Service (PSAS) is an important initiative of the International Committee for Animal Recording (ICAR) as regards patenting in the animal sector. This is an issue which is of uttermost importance for the future of all organizations involved in the sectors of animal recording and genetic evaluation. The latest developments in this field and the future prospects are causing increasing concern among industrialists and breeders, thus stressing the need for continuous updating on the progress of animal patenting issues worldwide and raising the awareness of professionals regarding their possibility to take action towards the protection of their professional interests.
Based on the above concerns, the Board of the International Committee for Animal Recording has considered ways to positively support ICAR member organizations and other interested entities in confronting the issue of patenting in animal breeding. The result of the deliberations is the ICAR Patenting Sentinel and Action Service, formed in March-April 2006....

 The mission of the ICAR Patenting Sentinel and Action Service (PSAS) is to:
constantly update its members on patenting application legislation in the animal sector, so as to lead to a deeper knowledge of the theoretical and practical aspects of this issue;
monitor specific patent applications worldwide, which are of most interest to its members;
possibly take action in a rapid and effective way in relation to specific patenting applications.
Animal Patents:

As the animal recording and evaluation industry evolves, so will ICAR membership. The recently revised by-laws provide the opportunity for expanded membership and a broader level of participation... Various industry sectors (by species as well as activity) will participate in ICAR as members in order to participate and access the global network, expertise and exposure that ICAR provides. ICAR will continue to build on its strength of neutrality and integrity as related to standards and guidelines for animal recording, evaluations and equipment approvals. This will include further strategic alliances with international organizations including EAAP, FAO, IDF, OIE, ILRI, WAAP and ISO.

Patent Questions and Answers by EFFAB (ex FAIP)
The concept of "Patent": "A patent is an exclusive right granted for an invention, which is a product or a process that provides, in general, a new way of doing something, or offers a new technical solution to a problem.  In order to be patentable, the invention must fulfill certain conditions..." read more at the website of the World Intellectual property Organization.   

Relation between Patenting and Intellectual Property: Patenting is one of the different forms of Intellectual Property. The latter "allows people to own their creativity and innovation in the same way that they can own physical property. The owner of IP can control and be rewarded for its use, and this encourages further innovation and creativity to the benefit of us all." read more at the website of the UK Patent Office. 

General Overview of IP Protection Tools by the IPR Helpdesk. Go.
General Information Concerning Patents by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Go. 
IP protection in animal breeding: "The field of animal breeding and genetics, especially as it relates to farm animals and livestock, encompasses a broad range of species, traits and processes. A simple laundry list of those items that might directly affect our field and require IP protection include, but are not limited to, genes and markers for genetic improvement, statistical methods for genetic improvement, transgenic and cloned animals, methods to measure traits (e.g. use of ultrasonic probes), electronic methods to identify animals, computer software and other written materials. Allied fields like nutrition and veterinary medicine will also have methods or processes such as vaccines, feed supplements or specific treatments." read the entire article by Rothschild M.F., Plastow G., Newman S.: Patenting in animal breeding and genetics. (2004) In: WAAP Book of the Year 2003 - A Review on Developments and Research in Livestock Systems, Eds: A. Rosati ,A. Tewolde and C. Mosconi, 269-278.  27.3b
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) by WTO (World Trade Organization)Full text or Article 27.3b on traditional knowledge, biodiversity or Progress on Article 27.3b.


FAO is supporting harmonization of seed rules and regulations in Africa and Central Asia in order to stimulate the development of a vibrant seed industry...An effective seed regulation harmonization process involves dialogue amongst all relevant stakeholders from both private and public sectors. Seed quality assurance, variety release, plant variety protection, biosafety, plant quarantine and phytosanitary issues are among the major technical areas of a regional harmonized seed system. The key to a successful seed regulation harmonization is a strong political will of the governments involved

1991 PVP monopoly has applied to seed multiplication and also to the harvest and sometimes the final product as well. Previously unlimited right of farmers to save seed for the following year's planting has been changed into an optional exception. Only if national government allows, can farm-saved seed still be used, and a royalty has to be paid to the seed company even for seeds grown on-farm.

Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) introduction of intellectual property rules on plants, animals and seeds under WTO’s Agreement “could damage the livelihoods of these 1.4 billion farmers worldwide and undermine food sovereignty and food security ” Joint Communication from the African Group to the Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (2003) (FAO is part of the United Nations)

June 2006 Global Diversity Treaty: Standard Material Transfer Agreement (SMTA) a standardized contract that will enable much easier access to crop diversity. [ germplasm for patenting] royalty payment (1.1% of sales) is paid only if product is unavailable for further breeding and research. funds will be devoted to conservation efforts. Translation: Bio-techs Corporations steal seed from third world farmers, patents it and pay money to Bioversity International

April 2007 Monsanto, Cargill and Maseca-ADM sign agreements to establish regional seed banks in the center and south of Mexico.

May 2008 Bio-tech companies lobby to lift ban against terminator gene (This info has since disappeared)

In the EU, there is now a list of 'official' vegetable varieties. Seed that is not on the list cannot be 'sold' to the 'public' To keep something on the list costs thousands of pounds each year...Hundreds of thousands of old heirloom varieties (the results of about eleven thousand years of plant breeding by our ancestors) are being lost forever, due to some rather poorly drafted EU legislation. (this verified the above but has since been removed)

Feb 2007 Clones declared save: FDA decides based on “risk assessment” that meat and milk from adult clones and their offspring are as safe to consume as those from standard animals.

posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 04:40 PM
reply to post by DogsDogsDogs

wonder where these "consumer protection" entities are when produce and meat that's been literally grown on/ in crap and industrial waste is coming across the border to sit on our store shelves without any alternatives available

Actually when HR875 showed up the farmers I hang with on the internet and I contacted Organic Consumers, Food & Water watch, La Vida Locavore and others.

We were SHOCKED at the response! They were all FOR the bill and went so far as to call Lynn Hysterical!

Given the disinformation spouted by the organic groups, I decided to figure out what was going on... CAN YOU SAY ROCKEFELLER! Seems they all are funded in part by the Rockefeller foundations and have ties to the UN!

As I just showed in the above post the UN is all for wiping out independent farmers.

Here is what I dug out:

I did some digging: Maude Barlow a “no dog in this fight” Canadian, is a director of both. She has been handsomely rewarded for selling the US consumer out with an appointment as New Senior Advisor to the UN president on October 21, 2008. Note on February 18, 2008 “Hillary Clinton highlights a series of food safety proposals she would pursue as president.” (PRNewsChannel) / Washington, D.C

Organic Consumers Association $57,176.00 2000 – 2005 Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors

Another board director of Food and Water Watch is Dennis Keeney is a Senior Fellow at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy

Mark Ritchie: President, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy; has Connection to Tides. The Tides Center’s corporate registration documents on file in Minnesota show that Mark Ritchie is its “registered agent.” This might explain why the Tides Foundation has paid over $20,000 to a commercial corporation owned by Ritchie and his brother.

Tides Foundation & Tides Center: Donations FROM Rockefeller's $9,467,955.00 (1991 - 2005)
Rockefeller Family Fund: $1,225,000.00 1991 – 2004
Rockefeller Brothers Foundation $2,879,900.00 1993 – 2005
Rockefeller Foundation $4,543,775.00 1993 – 2005
Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors $819,300.00 1997 – 2004

Who is Orange Cloud (La Vida Locavore) that attacks those against the bogus food safety bills?
She lists her self as Jill Richardson Consultant but she is "UC San Diego" Sustainability Coordinator and is working on the practical aspects of UN Agenda 21 as far as I can tell.
For example:

“Currently, we are particularly interested in receiving manuscripts that deal with some of the following subjects, although other submissions will continue to receive full consideration:
Implementing sustainable development strategies, Rio-Agenda 21 and Millennium Development” Objectives: The Journal of Environment and Development
Graduate School of International Relations & Pacific Studies
University of California, San Diego, MC0519
9500 Gilman Drive
La Jolla, CA 92037-0519, USA

Raymond Clemencon another facultiy member, was one of the negotiators on the Rio Declaration and Agenda 21 SEE:

Is there a Monsanto - University of California at San Diego connection? YES!

Bioinformatics researchers at the University of California, San Diego and Genentech have developed a new, quicker way to sequence monoclonal antibodies

Monsanto bought 5% on Genetech, Genentech’s bovine growth hormone — licensed to Monsanto Corporation, In 1979, Monsanto coordinated a research program with Genentech,

UCSD's Biotech Certificates Program is admired as the most advanced in the UC system.
Closer to the Heart of the San Diego 'Biotech Zone': The Program's Service Goals
The UCSD RA Program classes recently moved to the San Diego 'Biotech Zone'--into the same building as a major CRO, Parexel, and only blocks from another big CRO, Quintiles. Both CROs will contribute RA experts to classroom discussions of topics. Nearby are also the new headquarters of Novartis, represented on the Advisory Board of UCSD Biotech Certificates Programs, as is Invitrogen. Other Advisory Board members, Monsanto and Dow, together with its hometown subsidiary Mycogen, demonstrate regional strengths in agbiotech (which is expected to "absolutely boom" in the near future). The newest UCSD Certificate in Agricultural Biotech is under development, since the UCSD Biotech Certificates program aims to be comprehensive and progressive in service to all biotech sectors.

posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 06:04 PM
reply to post by Xcathdra

The one single issue that the State objected to was not the sale of the milk itself, or even the location, but the fact it was not pasteurized, which is required under Missouri law.....

Thank you for bring that up.

First this was CHEESE not milk and the rules are different.

I have not researched it but I think if the cheese is older than 60 or 90 days it comes under separate regulations.

The second point and the real can of worms is WHY, after a hundred or so years is the FDA going after the raw milk industry???

Raw milk is a product whose safety CAN be assured by means other than pasteurization. The first is herd isolation and constant testing of the herd for diseases such as tuberculosis and brucellosis. The second is a very high standard of cleanliness during milking, the third is the testing of the milk itself.

Unfortunately this type of program would uncover a whole can of worms the USDA/FDA and more importantly the International Corporate Cartel wants buried very DEEP. It is for that same reason the USDA and the Bush Admin. squashed the attempts of Creekstone to do its own BSE testing for Mad Cow disease

SO why does the USDA/FDA not want raw milk.

Here are some of the pros about Raw Milk (notice the fight has been a very long one)

..published in Magazine Digest - June 1938 Armchair Science is a British Medical Journal

Pasteurization's great claim to popularity is the widespread belief, fostered by its supporters, that tuberculosis in children is caused by the harmful germs found in raw milk. Scientists have examined and tested thousands of milk samples, and experiments have been carried out on hundreds of animals in regard to this problem of disease-carrying by milk. But the one vital fact that seems to have been completely missed is that it is CLEAN, raw milk that is wanted. If this can be guaranteed, no other form of food for children can, or should, be allowed to take its place.

Dirty milk, of course, is like any other form of impure food — a definite menace. But Certified Grade A Milk, produced under Government supervision and guaranteed absolutely clean, is available practically all over the country and is the dairy-farmer's answer to the pasteurization zealots.

Recent figures published regarding the spread of tuberculosis by milk show, among other facts, that over a period of five years, during which time 70 children belonging to a special organization received a pint of raw milk daily. One case only of the disease occurred. During a similar period when pasteurized milk had been given, 14 cases were reported.

Besides destroying part of the vitamin C contained in raw milk and encouraging growth of harmful bacteria, pasteurization turns the sugar of milk, known as lactose, into beta-lactose — which is far more soluble and therefore more rapidly absorbed in the system, with the result that the child soon becomes hungry again.

Probably pasteurization's worst offence is that it makes insoluable the major part of the calcium contained in raw milk. This frequently leads to rickets, bad teeth, and nervous troubles, for sufficient calcium content is vital to children; and with the loss of phosphorus also associated with calcium, bone and breain formation suffer serious setbacks.

Pasteurization also destroys 20 percent of the iodine present in raw milk, causes constipation and generally takes from the milk its most vital qualities.

Here is the REASON the FDA has gone on the attack again.

Please read the whole thing cause it is really eye opening what has been done to the actual safety of our food.

“...While I believe a meaningful, uniform, universal ID system for all livestock with adequate tracking will evolve, as a state animal health official, I would be less than responsible if I did not encourage industry and government to move quickly to get a handle on our ability to traceback animals today for diseases such as brucellosis, tuberculosis, and others that present risks of exacerbation and the extreme costs associated with such...” Dr. Sam Holland, State Veterinarian, South Dakota from REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON LIVESTOCK IDENTIFICATION - 2005

Why the sudden need to stampede the USA into a track back system?

This is an example of the USDA's response to one disease over the last decade. The chart shows how USDA cut back testing after WTO was created and the VP of Cargill wrote the WTO Agreement on Agriculture 1995.

Note the significant drop in Government testing!

Summary of Tuberculosis Surveillance in California Cattle

Number of Cattle Tested........1995.....1996.....1997.......1998.......1999......2000.....2001
By Animal Health Officials...10,576...5,100 ....2,861 .....3,530.....1,425 ....1,967.....2,500
By Private Veterinarians ...15,921...17,100...19,930...18,189...22,863...19,930...19,587
Submissions at Slaughter..........39..........58 .........64...........39...........58..........64.........385

What about the danger of Bovine Tuberculosis in the USA since the passage of WTO and the lifting of tariffs and quarrantine mandated by WTO?

Bovine TB was confirmed in three dairy herds during 2002-2003.[California] ....Although the source of the infections was not confirmed, the investigations indicate TB was most likely imported in infected cattle....

“The high prevalence of bovine tuberculosis in Mexican cattle was discussed. A multiagency investigation in New York city identified 35 cases of human M. bovis infection. Fresh cheese from Mexico was identified as the likely source of infection” (Winters et al., 2005).

What was the USDA's response to "“The high prevalence of bovine tuberculosis in Mexican cattle"

in April 2001, the USDA’s Veterinary Services published an interim rule requiring Mexican feeder steers to originate from herds that had recently been tested for TB. The USDA then agreed to grant waivers to the whole-herd

Texas imports a million cattle a year from Mexico. The cattle port-of-entry at Santa Teresa, NM is the largest entry.

Cattle crossing facilities on the U.S. side of the border are operated primarily by private firms... at Santa Teresa, NM, Chihuahuan cattle producers [Mexican] operate both sides of the cattle port-of-entry...

SO what happened after the waivers of whole herd testing was granted"

For Mexican Feeder Cattle in Effect April 1, 2002... Dr. Logan... said, the disease is extremely rare in U.S. herds. How ever, more TB-lesioned cattle are being detected at slaughter, and ear tags indicate that many of these animals are of Mexican origin.

On May 1, 2007, the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture reported a case of bovine tuberculosis (TB) discovered as a result of slaughter surveillance.... Subsequent testing of the index herd identified a TB- positive cow with a Colorado ID tag... The herd has been depopulated...Bovine TB was last reported in Oklahoma in 1982, and Oklahoma has been classified by the USDA as tuberculosis-free since 1984.

New Mexico
On June 14, 2007, the State of New Mexico confirmed that a dairy herd in Curry County was infected with bovine tuberculosis...Two infected herds were confirmed with TB in late 2002, .

Additionally, it is anticipated that both New Mexico and California will lose their TB “free” status in 2008, from AGENCY STRATEGIC PLAN: FOR THE FISCAL YEARS 2009-2013 BY TEXAS ANIMAL HEALTH COMMISSION

What is the USDA/FDA position on testing by non-government (or non corporate cartel) entities???

The USDA is abandoning a known effective method of disease prevention, the first-point testing program, where the live cows in a herd are tested, in favor of a method that allows the disease more time to spread since the cows are at the end of their life before testing is done. Also Texas complains of the USDA shutting down disease testing labs by withdrawing funding. This is in line with the USDA's refusal to allow Creekstone to test 100% of their slaughtered cattle for BSE and Japan's response of increasing their cattle herds. See:

There is a darn good reason to bury this report because it gives very good evidence that the USDA and FDA are intentionally allowing disease into this country and ALLOWING it to go unchecked by shutting down testing labs and NOT testing at farms.

Without the increase in food borne disease and the media's propaganda spreading fear, there would be not reason to implement the new "Food Safety" law passed in December. The new Law is specifically designed to wipe out independent farmers as similar laws have done in the European Union. The FDA has already stated it will "harmonize" with EU and other international laws per an agreement signed by Bush and the WTO AoA treaty.

Those treaties and the NEW Law are NOT designed to do a blasted thing about actual food safety. They are only there to help the International Cartels remove "barriers" to trade.... and the competition.

From the original before it was modified under the same date of course


The surveillance element or function is the most intensive of the six functions with respect to resources and personnel. Surveillance includes all activities designed and implemented to identify and locate any possible focus of infection or exposure to diseases of animal/poultry health significance in the livestock, poultry and exotic animal population. TAHC surveys animal populations for possible disease problems by collecting blood samples at livestock markets, on farms or ranches, and at slaughter plants.... Additionally, TAHC foreign animal disease diagnosticians investigate all reports of potential foreign animal diseases in order to achieve early diagnosis of a foreign animal disease, should it be introduced into the state.

USDA is moving toward supporting fewer labs nationwide, with the remaining labs serving as regional labs and supporting larger geographic areas..... If this funding is not maintained, this lab will be closed and the out-of-state samples will not be processed by remaining TAHC laboratories....

The first-point testing program is the “early warning system” for the brucellosis program, enabling detection of infection prior to sale of cattle within the state. With the discontinuation of first-point testing, slaughter testing will become the primary method for brucellosis surveillance. There is a key difference between first-point testing and slaughter testing. An animal identified through first-point testing as possibly infected is alive. This allows the agency to collect additional samples (blood, milk and tissue) and conduct additional diagnostic serologic and culture tests to determine if the animal is in fact infected with Brucella abortus. An animal identified through slaughter testing as possibly infected is no longer living and therefore additional testing of that animal is not possible. As a result, the process to be followed requires the identification of the herd the animal came from and conducting a whole herd test to determine whether or not infection is present in the herd. The traceability back to the original owner or farm of origin is also much higher in a first-point test positive versus a slaughter positive, because the animals are individually identified with permanent identification devices, are identified to an owner at the time of testing and market records improve traceability of the animals. ...

..All states are expected to collaboratively participate in cooperative disease control and eradication programs or face significant animal movement restrictions from USDA and other states. Movement restrictions would significantly reduce the marketability of Texas animals and increase the cost of market access.

[NAFTA and WTO trade agreements impact]
...New national disease control programs, emergency management responsibilities, and trade agreements with foreign countries have a significant impact on TAHC. These new or expanded programs continue to stretch TAHC’s already stressed resources to their limits.

[foreign diseases  imported due to trade agreements  and  the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures]

...The responsibilities of TAHC have significantly increased as programs for disease control and surveillance have expanded, animal and premises identification systems have been initiated, and participation in emergency planning and response activities impacting animal health require more agency resources. Additionally, new disease challenges are emerging. Some are domestic diseases that are increasing in significance. Others are foreign diseases that may be imported as result of the exponential increases in international importations of animals and animal products. Our industries and our economy are threatened by diseases and pests that heretofore we only read about in disease text books or heard about in lectures....

Since 1999, there have been seven foreign animal diseases diagnosed within the United States (West Nile Virus, Exotic Newcastle Disease, High Pathogenic Avian Influenza, Hemorrhagic Disease of Rabbits, Monkey Pox, Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, and Wildebeest Associated Malignant Catarrhal Fever). Unfortunately, there does not appear to be an end in sight for outbreaks of foreign or domestic diseases and these diverse activities related to disease control and eradication

As usual the situation is not nearly as cut and dried as the government and its propaganda arm, the Mass Media would paint it.

Analysis of the real problems with US food safety:

Peanut Quality - How did the Food Inspection Fail?:

Legislators overlook serious flaw in USDA's HACCP food - Policy:

See John Munsell's comment in this article: "Who needs Al-Qaeda when you have got E. coli?" :

One E. coli O157:H7 Outbreak I Think I could have Prevented:

top topics


log in