Clark County Circuit Judge Jon Counsell ruled that Wisconsin’s Premises ID program violates the religious rights of Amish farmers, who believe marking their animals with the Government’s mandated alpha/numerical sequence would be tantamount to taking the “Mark of the Beast,” as described in the Bible. Emanuel Miller Jr. argued that the mandate was too restrictive and the Judge agreed. In the nine-page ruling, he noted that there was no requirement for registrants to own a telephone, making it highly unlikely that the program would be effective in the Amish community in case of an outbreak. Because people in the Amish community don’t have a phone, requiring them to have a premises ID number wouldn’t enable state, county, or federal officials to contact them any faster. In case of an outbreak, Clark County Ag agents would still have to go door-to-door to gather information. Read the ruling here>>>

Paul McGraw, the assistant state veterinarian, said he expects the state to appeal the Miller decision. If you’d like to see the ruling stand unchallenged, and save Wisconsin taxpayers some money, contact the good doctor and his colleagues, and let them know what you think.

* Robert Ehlenfeldt, DVM
Wisconsin State Veterinarian
608-837-9705
Cell 608-575-2709

* Paul McGraw, DVM
Wisconsin Assistant State Veterinarian
262-740-0574
Cell 608-516-2084

* Michael Dutcher, DVM
USDA Veterinary Service Area Veterinarian in Charge
608-334-6811
Cell 608-334-6811

We’re finally cooking sap. It took awhile for the trees to run this year. Just when we thought we had tapped at the exact right time (for once), the weather warmed up and the sap stopped flowing. That’s all behind us now, and I got to spend the better part of the early afternoon out by the fire watching the sap boil. Then, I came in to check my e-mail, and my blood started to boil. Are you ready for this? The Senate is considering a bill called the Maple Tapping Access Program Act of 2009 (MTAP). In the midst of a stumbling economic recovery, the government wants to pay landowners to let people come on their land and tap trees. And it will only cost taxpayers $20,000,000.00. What a deal.

Here’s the summary provided by govtrack.us:

Maple Tapping Access Program Act of 2009 – Amends the the Food Security Act of 1985 to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a voluntary public access program under which states and tribal governments may apply for grants to encourage owners and operators of privately held farm, ranch, and forest land to voluntarily make such land available for public maple-tapping activities. Gives priority to states and tribal governments that propose to: (1) maximize participation by offering program terms likely to meet with landowner acceptance; (2) ensure that enrolled land has appropriate tree stock; and (3) use additional federal, state, tribal, or private resources in carrying out the program.

It occurs to me that it would cost far less than twenty million dollars to develop a PSA asking landowners to participate. Why offer to pay a landowner money unless you have to? And why not allow the landowner to charge people to participate? Again, it would cost the taxpayers far less. It would be great if I could charge someone to go out in the woods, tramp through the swamp, dodge awakening bears and marauding wolves, and collect sap. Sounds like a winner to me. You pay me to work on my farm. Love it. This just further illustrates how far removed most people are from their food and the policies that govern how their food is produced. MTAP won’t do anything to change that.

From: info@westonaprice.org
Subject: SENATE FOOD SAFETY BILL Take Action

SENATE FOOD SAFETY BILL

Start the New Year off right, by talking with your Senators about safe and healthy food!

Big Ag and Big Food have distributed melamine-contaminated milk from China and salmonella-contaminated peppers from Mexico. Yet Congress hasn’t gotten the message that they need to solve the real problems – the centralized food distribution system and imported foods – and not regulate our local food sources out of business.

In November, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions (HELP) approved S. 510, the “FDA Modernization Act of 2009.” Although the Committee members made several comments about addressing the concerns of small and sustainable farmers, S. 510 still imposes many burdensome and inappropriate requirements on local foods, without solving many of the real problems in the mainstream, centralized food system.

The full Senate is expected to vote on it early this year, possibly even this month (January 2010). Please take action now!

TAKE ACTION:

Call both of your Senators. You can find their contact information at www.Senate.gov, or call the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121 or toll-free at 877-210-5351.
Ask to speak with the staffer who handles food safety issues. Engage that staffer in a discussion about the importance of local, nutrient-dense foods to you and your family, and why your local food sources should not be subject to FDA regulation. If you get their voice mail instead of the staff, leave the following message:
“Hi, my name is _____ and I live in ______. I’m very concerned that S.510, the FDA Modernization Act, imposes unfair and burdensome regulations on local food sources, which are very important to me. The Committee version of the bill does not address my concerns, and I’d like to talk with you about where the Senator stands on this issue. Please call me back at ____________.”

And stay tuned for the next alert! We will be asking you to call again when the Senate is about to vote on S 510. BOTH of these calls are important – the call now educates the Senators on the issues, and the call before the vote lets them know how their constituents want them to vote at the critical moment.

TALKING POINTS
1. The major foodborne illness outbreaks and recalls have all been caused by the large, industrial food system. Small, local food producers have not contributed to the highly publicized outbreaks. Yet S. 510 subjects the small, local food system to the same, broad federal regulatory oversight that would apply to the industrial food system.

2. FDA regulation of local food processors is unnecessary and overly burdensome. FDA has not used its existing authority well. Instead of focusing its resources on the problems posed by imported foods and large processing facilities, it has chosen to target small processors. While approving unlabeled GMOs to enter our food supply, it has outlawed raw milk and interfered with the free choice of informed adults who want access to this healthy food. Simply giving FDA increased authority and power will not improve the food supply because the agency needs to have clear limits set by Congress to prevent it from targeting small producers and raw dairy.

3. Relying on HACCP will harm small processors. Increased regulations and record-keeping obligations could destroy small businesses that bring food to local communities. In particular, the reliance on HACCP (the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point system) will harm small food producers. Although the theory of preventative controls is a good one for large, complex facilities, the federal agencies’ implementation of HACCP, with its requirements to develop and maintain extensive records, has already proven to be an overwhelming burden for a significant number of small, regional meat processors across the country. In the meat industry, HACCP has substituted paperwork review for independent inspections of large meatpacking plants, while sanctioning small processors for paperwork violations that posed no health threat. Applying a HACCP system to small, local foods processors could drive them out of business, reducing consumers’ options to buy fresh, local foods.

4. FDA does not belong on the farm. S. 510 calls for FDA regulation of how farms grow and harvest produce. Given the agency’s track record, it is likely that the regulations will discriminate against small, organic, and diversified farms. The House version of the bill directs FDA to consider the impact of its rulemaking on small-scale and diversified farms, but there are no enforceable limits or protections for small diversified and organic farms from inappropriate and burdensome federal rules.

5. The bill’s requirements apply to all food, not just food in interstate commerce. On its face, the bill applies to any farm or food producer, regardless of location, size, or scope of distribution.

6. S. 510 favors foreign farms and producers over domestic. The bill creates incentives for retailers to import more food from other countries, because it burdens family farms and small business and because it will be practically impossible to hold foreign food facilities to the same standards and inspections. The bill will create a considerable competitive disadvantage for ALL U.S. agriculture and food production (see analysis at http://ftcldf.org/news/news-20Oct2009-2.html).