- Time for all groups in the US to stand up against this
threat to food in the US but it is especially time for the Congressional
black caucus to recognize there is a massive civil rights movement surfacing
in the country now to save our farms and ranches to protect our own lives,
and join it. They are needed.
-
- This is a civil rights struggle that affects as always,
first, the poor, but this time, it is life-threatening to literally everyone
- for it is about whether the American people will have rights to
food or whether food itself will be completely controlled by the corporations
who can supply it or not, manipulating prices as they have oil, creating
billions in profits with false shortages as they did with Enron.
-
- This is truly a bigger threat to the US then the bailout
and about vastly more profit and corruption - and it is being driven by
the same group, the bankers, who are creating the food crisis for profit.
-
- And to see how truly serious they are about taking control
over food and how little they care about our lives, look what this government
and the corporations are doing in court - they are actually attempting
to removed human rights around food and health and basic contracting.
-
- Here is what the FDA is saying in court, right now. This
government, very stealthily, is attempting to take from the American people
the most basic rights needed to stay alive, rights even over their own
bodies, and rights to do any business with each other!
-
- Here is what the FDA food safety division, under Michael
Taylor, who gave the country rBGH and GMOs and no labeling, is saying about
our most fundamental human rights:
-
- "There is no absolute right to consume or feed
children any particular food."
- "There is no 'deeply rooted' historical tradition
of unfettered access to foods of all kinds."
- "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."
- FDA's brief goes on to state that "even if such
a right did exist, it would not render FDA's regulations unconstitutional
because prohibiting the interstate sale and distribution of unpasteurized
milk promotes bodily and physical health."
- [The reality is there has been <rudnick http://www.thenhf.com/fda_90.htm
>one death from raw milk in more than 57 years, and <http://www.karlloren.com/diet/milk/p14.htm
>PASTEURIZED milk in the grocery is now considered to be a source of
Crohn's disease which <http://www.hemorrhoid.net/statistics.php >kills
hundreds each year - and the FDA, which is attempting to destroy independent
raw milk dairy farmers producing milk outside the corporate system, has
known about Crohn's and pasteurized milk for more than a decade but is
protecting the corrupt dairy industry.]
- "There is no fundamental right to freedom of
contract."
-
- And the government (under "food safety" at
the FDA, run by Monsanto VP Michael Taylor) are raiding farmers and food
producers across the country.
-
-
- Save our Farms and Ranches
- to save our own lives!
-
-
- Congress MUST Rein the Big Meatpackers
-
- Right now, three giant multinational corporations control
over 85% of the meat packing industry. This is a virtual monopoly.
These companies want to completely control the food we eat, from the farm
to the fork.
-
- Thanks to a grassroots coalition, the 2008 Farm Bill
included a provision directing the USDA to develop rules to protect farmers
against some of the abuses perpetrated by these giant companies. The USDA
has proposed such rules, but the meatpackers are fighting hard to keep
these rules from being finalized.
-
- The latest tactic is a sneak attack through a Congressional
"rider" on the U.SDA's appropriations bill. This back-door "rider,"
inserted into the bill in secret and without a vote, would stop the USDA
from adopting fair market, anti-monopoly rules for the meat packing industry
-
- Take Action
-
- The House of Representatives will debate, and possibly
vote on, tha appropriations bill today, Tuesday, June 14.
-
- Oppose the "rider" (Article 721) that
would stop USDA from adopting the fair market, anti-monopoly rules (often
referred to as the "GIPSA rules," as explained in the background
below).
-
- Background
-
- The Packers & Stockyards Act of 1921 (P&SA) was
enacted to comprehensively regulate packers, stockyards, marketing agents
and dealers. At the time of its passage, Packers & Stockyards
Act of 1921 was considered to be the strongest anti-trust law ever
to be enacted. Unfortunately, the law has not been effectively enforced.
-
- Consolidation and vertical integration have created a
playing field ripe for abuse in which corporate meat packers and large
integrators manipulate markets, deny or severely restrict market access
to independent livestock producers, and use unfair practices like confidentiality
clauses to the detriment of both contract producers and independent producers.
-
- One result of market control by meat-packers is the loss
of about 158,680 beef cattle operations since 1996.
-
- The issue of consolidation of the market affects every
American, including those who buy their meat directly from local farmers.
As just one example, the virtual monopoly of the giant meatpackers is
one of the reasons there are so few small-scale slaughterhouses there
are too few farmers to support the businesses. This makes it more
difficult and more expensive for our grass-based farmers to process their
animals for sale. The virtual monopoly of the giant meatpackers also means
that they make giant profits, which they can then use to influence politicians
and regulators to make things more difficult for small-scale farmers at
every level.
-
- Congress worked to remedy the lack of enforcement of
the Packers & Stockyards Act in the 2008 Farm Bill. The Farm Bill required
USDA to write rules to address the problems of manipulative markets and
unfair contracts as a first step to addressing the problems of unfair livestock
markets.
-
- USDA's Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
(GIPSA) drafted rules as Congress directed. The rules aim to bring greater
fairness to livestock and poultry markets. The proposed rules clarify which
practices by meatpackers and their partners are unfair, discriminatory
or deceptive under the Packers and Stockyards Act.
-
- These rules are vital to the livelihood of ranchers,
poultry growers and feeders across our country. Without them, the
trend of vertical integration, manipulated markets and unfair contracts
will persist, resulting in the destruction of any free market system left
in the livestock and poultry sectors. USDA is reviewing of 60,000 comments
submitted (the majority of which support the rules) as well as conducting
additional analysis before publishing the final rule.
-
-
- WHAT THE GIPSA RULES DO
-
- The rules lay out criteria the packers must follow to
ensure contracts they make with producers, feeders and growers are fair.
These rules would help livestock producers in five major areas:
- It prevents packers from engaging in unfair trade practices
that harm livestock producers and result in the elimination of livestock
producers one at a time, or small groups at a time. (Sections 201.2 and
201.210.) It does this by defining "unfair, unjustly discriminatory
and deceptive practices or devices" to include:
-
- * Unjustified material breach of a contractual duty by
a packer.
-
- * A retaliatory action or omission by a packer.
-
- * An action to limit a livestock producer's legal rights
and remedies under the law.
-
- * Paying premiums or applying discounts without documenting
reasons.
-
- * A fraudulent practice likely to mislead a reasonable
livestock producer.
-
- * Any act that distorts or is likely to distort competition
in the market.
-
- It ensures GIPSA has the records needed to determine
if packers are engaging in the unlawful practices enumerated in the Packers
and Stockyards Act. (Section 201.94.) It does this by requiring packers
to maintain written records that provide justification for differential
pricing or deviations from standard prices offered to livestock producers.
-
- It ensures packers are not engaged in giving undue or
unreasonable preferences or advantages to select cattle feeders to encourage
and accelerate the concentration of the feeding sector of the livestock
industry (select feeders are incentivized to expand while non-select feeders
exit the industry). (Section 201.211.) It does this by listing factors
GIPSA could consider when determining if a feeder was subjected to legitimate
supply-demand forces, or if the feeder received undue or unreasonable treatment.
GIPSA may consider the following factors when making such a determination:
- * Whether contract terms are available to all producers
who individually or collectively can meet the conditions set by the contract.
- * Whether premiums are offered in a manner that does
not discriminate against other producers that can meet the same standards.
- * Whether information regarding livestock transactions
is disclosed to all producers when it is disclosed to one or more producers.
-
- It improves transparency in the fed cattle market. (Section
201.213.) It does this by requiring packers to provide GIPSA with sample
copies of each unique type of contract or agreement offered by packers.
GIPSA may then post a copy of each unique sample contract on its Web site
but GIPSA will not disclose to the public provisions containing trade secrets,
confidential business information and personally identifiable information.
-
- It prohibits packers from obtaining their supply needs
from other packers and from reducing competitive bidding for cattle. (Section
201.212.) It does this by prohibiting packer-to-packer sales and by prohibiting
two or more packers from sharing a single packer buyer.
|
