Category:

August 06th, 2014

8/6/2014

We need to remember it was Reagan/Clinton that started the privatization of all that is public----neo-liberalism. Clinton did as much damage to the state of our democracy than any President and that comes from the fact that he ran as a Democrat as he was embracing a Republican policy of global and free markets. The Democratic Platform protects labor and justice and free and global markets kill labor and justice. Reagan was a Republican pushing Republican policies for wealth and profit.....so, it is Clinton who created this political deceit for Democratic voters of telling them what they want to hear and then do what you want. It was George Bush who then did that to the Republican voters by adopting neo-liberal policies of corporate welfare/cronyism/corruption. This is what the Tea Party fights on the Republican side

and it is what labor and justice should be fighting on the Democratic side.

I want to revisit health care policy and look at what deregulation and dismantling the public sector oversight and accountability of health care is looking like. Clinton was the culprit in starting the move of public universities as corporate research facilities. Patenting products using taxpayer money takes the public university from public interest and holding power accountable to creating data that supports that university-patented product.

RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU KNOW THIS IS BAD PUBLIC POLICY? IT LITERALLY KILLS PEOPLE. THAT'S A NEO-LIBERAL/NEO-CON FOR YOU-----ANYTHING FOR PROFIT!

The Clintons have a major shareholder stake and spent their time in office pushing Monsanto all over the world.......industrialized patented food. Below you see one of the products that resulted-----for Monsanto it was EQUAL sugar substitute. There is no problem creating new food products----the problem is that none of these biotech food products goes through the clinical trial research that finds how these new products not only effect people, but in the case of food----the food chain.

The point I take from the article below is that we are finding over and over that much of the obesity and diabetes in society today is created by these products released with little to no research. This is important because the same neo-liberals who worked to dismantle regulations and oversight of health research are the ones passing Affordable Care Act which seeks to move the working and middle-class out of full health coverage and into preventative health only. They scorn those low-income people who are obese and suffering from diabetes as careless! Actually all Americans are victims of these biotech advancements and our health will show it!

ALL OF MARYLAND POLS ARE NEO-LIBERALS AND NEO-CONS CREATING THESE POLICIES.

Just as Clinton ended Welfare as he pushed NAFTA and global markets knowing millions of Americans would be impoverished and unemployed-----creating the deepest poverty in US history---we are having a health crisis in America at the same time Obama and today's neo-liberals are working to end access to the health care for those Americans subjected to food that should have never passed FDA approval. Note that this professor was a Perdue University academic.......the ability to get money and do research that proves corporate accountability in harm is drying up and Trans Pacific Trade Pact allows corporations to sue for these kinds of studies as hurting profits. So, the intent is to harass and eliminate any attempts to hold corporations accountable at universities across the US.

These are Republican policies of small government with free markets so don't vote Republican to rebuild public protections!

The Center for Public Integrity

Meet Susan Swithers, a Purdue University professor who conducts studies about the health effects of artificial sweeteners.

As The Center for Public Integrity reporter Chris Young writes today, trade groups representing diet- and low-calorie food companies will go to great lengths — and often use questionable public relations tactics — to protect its interests by blasting the work of academics such as Swithers.

Read our investigation here:

Critic of artificial sweeteners pilloried by industry-backed scientists

Critic of artificial sweeteners pilloried by industry-backed scienConflicts abound among industry's defenders, even on national TV
Susan Swithers is no stranger to food industry criticism.

In fact, the Purdue University professor anticipates a swift public relations blitz from trade groups representing diet- and low-calorie food companies every time she publishes a study about the health effects of artificial sweeteners.

“They reflexively put out a press release that spins it as, ‘Here’s what’s wrong with the study,’” says Swithers, a professor of behavioral neuroscience who has been researching artificial sweeteners for the past decade. “I’m sure I’m on somebody’s Google Alert at this point.”

Still, even Swithers was surprised by the way in which the diet food industry attacked a paper she published last summer that raised health concerns about popular sugar substitutes used in snack foods and diet drinks. In her widely publicized work, published as an opinion article in the journal Trends in Endocrinology and Metabolism, Swithers reviewed recent studies on artificial sweeteners and concluded that people who frequently consume sugar substitutes “may … be at increased risk of excessive weight gain, metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease.”

Seizing on the “opinion” tag, the food and beverage industry responded quickly. The American Beverage Association, for example, dismissed the paper’s findings, arguing that it was “not a scientific study.”

But perhaps the strongest, most wide-ranging attacks came from the Calorie Control Council, a lesser-known industry group with an innocuous-sounding name, a long history and a penchant for stealthy public relations tactics. The organization, which is run by an account executive with a global management and public relations firm, represents the low- and reduced-calorie food and beverage industry. But it functions more like an industry front group than a trade association.

In criticizing Swithers, the Council relied on industry-funded scientists, bloggers and dietitians — it even wrote a letter to the professor’s university demanding that the school stop promoting “biased science.”

“The intimidation tactics, going to somebody’s employer, it just seems to go beyond the realm of what’s reasonable,” says Swithers, who disputes the “opinion” critiques by noting that her paper was peer-reviewed and based on her assessment of recent scientific studies conducted about artificial sweeteners. “But I guess that’s par for the course in their world.”

Indeed, tracking the Calorie Control Council’s efforts to discredit Swithers’ paper on artificial sweeteners provides a lesson in how the food and beverage industry will go to great lengths — and often use questionable tactics — to protect its interests. With a brand new artificial sweetener about to hit the market, and with the science still unclear about the safety of sugar substitutes, industry’s efforts to discredit science unfavorable to their interests are unlikely to end anytime soon.

“This isn’t personal,” Swithers acknowledges. “This is about somebody’s bottom line."

_____________________________________________
I'm highlighting today common products that are now connected to one major disease vector----diabetes. Children are now getting early-stage diabetes and it is less about family genetics and pre-disposition and more about the dismantling of public protections in our Federal agencies for food and drugs. Over and again you will see that women are being hit the hardest in this failure to adequately test because when shortcuts are allowed to maximize profits it is women and children that are dropped in clinical testing.

Lipitor is a great product....we would not want to lose the benefits it provides. The point is that all of these side effects may have been mitigated by simple reformulation. That is what clinical trial data forces product designers to do. Is ten years of clinical trials and reformulation worth creating a product people can trust? IN A FIRST WORLD DEMOCRACY THAT IS A GREAT BIG YES.

NEO-LIBERALS AND NEO-CONS SAY-----TAKE YOUR CHANCES---WE'RE IN IT FOR THE PROFIT!

Lipitor Lawsuits Claim Drug Causes Diabetes, Seek Damages for Suffering

The attorneys at Morgan & Morgan are actively filing lawsuits on behalf of women who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes after using Lipitor. Several studies have linked Lipitor and other cholesterol-lowering statin drugs to an increased risk of diabetes, particularly in middle-aged and older women. Our attorneys believe that the maker of Lipitor, Pfizer, Inc., failed to properly warn consumers of this risk and is therefore legally responsible for the medical bills, pain and suffering and lost wages of women who developed diabetes as a result of taking Lipitor.

If you or a loved one was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes after using Lipitor, you may be able to sue the drug’s manufacturer and recover compensation for your injuries. If you have questions about your legal rights or would like more information on filing a lawsuit, complete our free case review form today. The attorneys at Morgan & Morgan are offering this online consultation with no cost and no obligation.

Why Are Lawsuits Being Filed?

Typically, lawsuits involving pharmaceuticals allege that a drug is unreasonably dangerous and/or that the manufacturer failed to provide adequate warnings for side effects associated with the drug. Women filing lawsuits against Pfizer allege:

Patients and doctors were not adequately warned about the risk of developing Type 2 diabetes with use of Lipitor
Pfizer promoted Lipitor as safe and effective, despite knowing that it could elevate blood sugar levels and/or cause Type 2 diabetes
Lipitor’s label never carried a warning that it could cause changes in blood sugar levels and/or Type 2 diabetes until the FDA requested a label change in February 2012
Even after the label change, Lipitor’s label still does not adequately warn patients about the risk of Type 2 diabetes
Patients who developed diabetes due to Lipitor use now have to undergo regular testing of their blood glucose levels, adhere to a strict diets and take medication for the remainder of their lives and are at an increased risk for kidney disease, blindness, heart disease and other complications of diabetes

These lawsuits are seeking to reimburse patients for physical and emotional suffering, and the cost of past and future medical care.

Is This a Class Action?

This is not a class action lawsuit. Our attorneys are helping women who have used Lipitor and developed Type 2 diabetes file individual lawsuits to recover compensation for their specific injuries.

To help conserve judicial resources and ensure a consistent and efficient resolution to the growing litigation, a multidistrict litigation (MDL) has been formed to handle these lawsuits. This means that all federally-filed lawsuits, as well as any future cases filed in federal courts, will be transferred to the U.S. District Court District of South Carolina to be overseen by the Honorable Judge Richard M. Gergel. Judge Gergel will manage the lawsuits and oversee the pretrial and discovery process, which includes taking witness testimony and reviewing relevant documents. While one judge is overseeing the litigation, each plaintiff will retain his or her own lawsuit, attorney and right to an individual award.

How is Lipitor Causing Diabetes?

Several studies have uncovered a link between Lipitor and Type 2 diabetes, a life-long condition that causes a patient to develop high blood sugar levels. To understand the potential link between Lipitor and Type 2 diabetes, it is important to understand the science behind the disease.

In the body, food is broken down into sugar (glucose), which travels through the bloodstream. In a normal patient, the pancreas will release insulin in response to a meal to reduce blood sugar levels and allow glucose to enter the body’s cells, providing them with the energy needed to function. Patients with Type 2 diabetes, however, cannot produce enough insulin or cannot use the insulin well enough. As a result, glucose cannot enter the body’s cells and instead builds up in the blood, causing a spike in blood sugar levels. High levels of sugar in the blood can result in a number of serious health problems, including organ damage and heart attack.

Researchers suspect that Lipitor can inhibit the function of the pancreatic cells responsible for storing and releasing insulin, and may also decrease the body’s sensitivity to the hormone.

Studies on Lipitor

Highlight Diabetes Risk for Women, Statin Users

Patients on a high-dose Lipitor regimen may have an increased risk of developing diabetes A number of studies have linked use of Lipitor and cholesterol-lowering drugs known as statins to diabetes. In 2013, researchers in Canada found that patients taking Lipitor had a 22 percent increased risk of developing diabetes compared to those taking Pravachol, another drug used to lower cholesterol. Two years earlier, a study based on data from three large clinical trials also suggested that patients on a high-dose Lipitor regimen may have an increased risk of developing diabetes, especially if they have other risk factors for the disease. The trial included nearly 4,000 adults who did not have diabetes, but had a history of stroke. It is believed that women, including those with a healthy body mass index (BMI), are at the highest risk of developing diabetes from statin use.

FDA Warning Highlights Increased Diabetes Risk

In February 2012, the FDA released a statement on Lipitor and statins. The agency warned that patients taking these drugs may have an increased risk of developing high blood sugar levels and type 2 diabetes, and announced that changes will be made to the drugs’ labeling to reflect this concern. According to an FDA spokesperson, prescribing doctors should assess patients’ blood sugar levels after they have started treatment with Lipitor or another statin.

The FDA warning also commented on the potential risk for liver injury, memory loss and muscle damage; however, the current litigation surrounding Lipitor pertains only to the manufacturer’s alleged failure to warn about the type 2 diabetes risk.

At Morgan & Morgan, our attorneys have been assigned leadership roles in some of the largest defective drug litigations across the country and have recovered millions on behalf of injured patients. We believe that the maker of Lipitor put profits before patient safety and are committed to helping patients recover the compensation they deserve. For more information on how we may be able to help, do not hesitate to contact us today. There is no cost or obligation.

____________________________________________

Below you see the kind of advocate for eliminating the FDA and public protections because of the costs and limits to profit. Remember, public universities are the ones that do these clinical trials and taxpayer money funds them. Ten year clinical trials are expensive but the product rarely harmed the public. If this is too costly for private industry they should not be in the PHARMA business. What Clinton, Bush, and Obama are doing with universities as research corporations is placing what this article below suggests on steroids. Universities like Johns Hopkins has a BioTech building attached just to rifle these biotech products through with patents ------with absolutely no value to humanity for the most part. Most of these 'innovations' are simply are reshuffling of compound configuration and this rifling is what is causing class action lawsuits to soar. The solution say neo-liberals and neo-cons-----take away the ability of the public to sue for health damages.

Neo-liberals and neo-cons say----TAKE YOUR CHANCES-----IF YOU ARE INJURED YOU ARE A LOSER/VICTIM.

BASIC RESEARCH ON THE CHEMISTRY OF THESE 'INNOVATIONS' IS WHAT PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES DO. ONCE WE KNOW THE SCIENCE THEN WE GO TO MARKET AND 'INNOVATE'.

The excuse of harming people by delaying new product is bogus. So few people are in need of these new products and exceptions are made for those needing these products as a last resort.

Paying for Permissionless Innovation

by Adam Gurri
August 4, 2014

Here at The Ümlaut we’re big fans of permissionless innovation—the concept and Adam Thierer’s excellent book. The biggest, most consequential enemy of permissionless innovation in the US is undoubtedly the FDA. Its long, expensive approval process delays access to life-saving drugs and other innovations for years, dramatically increases the price of such things once they reach the market, and skews the investment incentives for the health industry. Many economists would like to see the FDA radically reformed, some would like to abolish it entirely. In the spirit of the sort of political compromises that Milton Friedman was famous for proposing, I’d like to suggest an intermediate solution: a permissionless premium. Here’s how it would work: there would be some specified amount (either an absolute amount per unit or a percentage of the revenue) that patients would have to pay in order to get a given drug or access to a medical device before it was FDA approved. The patient should be made well aware that the risks are at this point unknown (not that they’re thoroughly understood just after FDA approval anyway). The revenue would bolster the FDA’s budget, thus in theory helping to investigate the risks associated with the drug and drugs like it in the future.

Moreover, this would allow pharmaceutical companies to start getting revenue before FDA approval, lowering the burden of their overhead. As things currently stand, they spend billions on drug development and by the time the FDA process is complete they have a very short window before their patent expires. As Alex Tabarrok documents well, the result is that pharma companies have almost no incentive to develop drugs that treat diseases that are anything other that very broadly experienced. The pharma dream in this scenario is not to find an effective treatment for rare but aggressive cancers, but to find the next Lipitor.

However, if they could develop experimental new drugs for rare diseases that could be bring in revenue immediately, that might just change the cost-benefit analysis sufficiently to see some real progress on that front. The premium will act as a Pigovian tax rather than an outright ban on the consumption of such still largely untested drugs, and will help fund both pharmaceutical companies and the FDA’s efforts to increase our stock of medical knowledge. It seems, from a number of perspectives, to be a win-win.

_____________________________________________________________________

The hype for the ACA was having insurance would create better health results. As we know, requiring people to buy insurance and then having people unable to afford co-pays and deductibles to access that care are two different things. Neo-liberals never expected access to health care----they are pushing everyone to preventative health. Counseling on better eating habits and blood tests will control diabetes. Except, that is not true. The environmental exposures as we saw in the articles above will not be mitigated by preventative care. The huge numbers of people aging into these policies already having diabetes will not be helped because most people can only afford Bronze and/or Medicaid coverage.

The US was already at the bottom in the developed world for health outcomes.....the ACA will take the US to third world status.....

'A widely cited experiment in Oregon offered an early look at what happens when people suddenly get Medicaid coverage. Researchers found that physical health, like obesity and the prevalence of diabetes, did not change much'.

Affordable Care Act to provide preventive health care coverage to millions with diabetes

July 22, 2010

The Obama Administration has announced implementation of the Affordable Care Act, which will require new insurance plans to provide preventive care without cost-sharing to millions of Americans.

With expanded access to preventive services, individuals may obtain the information they need to make health care decisions that are right for them.

Plan LevelInsurance

                            Company Pays
Bronze        60% of health care costs

                                You Pay
                    40% of health care costs

Silver              Company pays
                    70% of health care costs

                              You pay
                       30% of health care costs

___________________________________________

Access to preventative health care will do nothing with widespread health disease and infection vectors brought from deregulation and global markets. We are already back to the age of The Jungle-----US food is as contaminated as before US advanced to the first world society. Now we are being assaulted by biotech industry food and health care products that create pre-conditions. All of the promotion of access to insurance is simply hype.

We must remove corporate structures from our public universities and rebuild our public health system being dismantled with deregulation and neo-liberalism. We must demand Expanded and Improved Medicare for All to allow all citizens access to basic medical procedures and treatments.

WE PAID TAXES FOR DECADES TO HAVE THE COVERAGE WE NEED ------THESE TAXES ARE PAYROLL TAXES INTO MEDICARE TRUSTS AND INCOME TAXES THAT FUND NIH AND NCA RESEARCH. YOU PAID FOR YOUR ACCESS TO QUALITY CARE. CORPORATE FRAUD AND CORRUPTION EMPTIED GOVERNMENT COFFERS.

NYT Covers Food Safety Deregulation the US Beef Export Crisis

Bad Cow Disease
By Paul Krugman
The New York Times, June 13, 2008
Straight to the Source

"Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken / She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it's labeled chicken."

That little ditty famously summarized the message of "The Jungle," Upton Sinclair's 1906 exposé of conditions in America's meat-packing industry. Sinclair's muckraking helped Theodore Roosevelt pass the Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act - and for most of the next century, Americans trusted government inspectors to keep their food safe.

Lately, however, there always seems to be at least one food-safety crisis in the headlines - tainted spinach, poisonous peanut butter and, currently, the attack of the killer tomatoes. The declining credibility of U.S. food regulation has even led to a foreign-policy crisis: there have been mass demonstrations in South Korea protesting the pro-American prime minister's decision to allow imports of U.S. beef, banned after mad cow disease was detected in 2003.

How did America find itself back in The Jungle?

It started with ideology. Hard-core American conservatives have long idealized the Gilded Age, regarding everything that followed - not just the New Deal, but even the Progressive Era - as a great diversion from the true path of capitalism.

Thus, when Grover Norquist, the anti-tax advocate, was asked about his ultimate goal, he replied that he wanted a restoration of the way America was "up until Teddy Roosevelt, when the socialists took over. The income tax, the death tax, regulation, all that."

The late Milton Friedman agreed, calling for the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration. It was unnecessary, he argued: private companies would avoid taking risks with public health to safeguard their reputations and to avoid damaging class-action lawsuits. (Friedman, unlike almost every other conservative I can think of, viewed lawyers as the guardians of free-market capitalism.)

Such hard-core opponents of regulation were once part of the political fringe, but with the rise of modern movement conservatism they moved into the corridors of power. They never had enough votes to abolish the F.D.A. or eliminate meat inspections, but they could and did set about making the agencies charged with ensuring food safety ineffective.

They did this in part by simply denying these agencies enough resources to do the job. For example, the work of the F.D.A. has become vastly more complex over time thanks to the combination of scientific advances and globalization. Yet the agency has a substantially smaller work force now than it did in 1994, the year Republicans took over Congress.

Perhaps even more important, however, was the systematic appointment of foxes to guard henhouses.

Thus, when mad cow disease was detected in the U.S. in 2003, the Department of Agriculture was headed by Ann M. Veneman, a former food-industry lobbyist...

0 Comments

April 22nd, 2014

4/22/2014

0 Comments

PLEASE CHECK BELOW MY BLURB ON PUBLIC MEDIA'S ATTACK ON FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS AND ELECTION VIOLATIONS! I WILL SPEAK TODAY ON BILL AND HILLARY CLINTON AS GLOBAL CORPORATE CHAMPIONS REEKING HAVOC ON THE WORLD WITH ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTER AND IMPOVERISHMENT!

Below you see that WYPR is about to block my campaign from speaking about the issues of this election. Mind you, my comments are always factual where the comments of the politicians given media coverage are not. This violates Federal Election laws. As you heard this morning, WYPR is no longer stating where a governor's forum was held because, as I state, all 501c3/4 political debates and forums must invite all candidates for office. At a time when elections are being bought.....at a time when candidates running for office are working for corporations in pay-to-play, it is critical that America has a public media that is not involved in this corporate corruption. I will be contacting all businesses that advertize with WYPR to ask why they support this suspension of Rule of Law and free and fair elections!

'Congratulations on your decision to run for the office of governor of Maryland . WYPR always supports diverse opinions and we wish you well in your campaign.
By the rules of the Public Broadcasting Act and by WYPR policies, the use of WYPR's airways, website, or social media outlets by ANY political candidate during an election campaign is strictly prohibited. We very much appreciate your cooperation with these restrictions AND you are welcome to contact our general manager who would be happy to provide further explanations. Therefore, we ask that you not make further postings as we are required to remove all of your posting to date and in the future so long as you are a candidate for public office.
Thank you for understanding'.

If a candidate cannot make comments on a public media site and those same candidates are excluded from all election coverage on public media in Maryland then how does that meet with Federal Election Laws requiring all 501c3/4 organizations to give all candidates for election a forum for their campaigns? Do you think constantly referring to all but the global corporate candidates meets that requirement? Of course not------I will continue to post my research information on policy as my organization Citizens Oversight Maryland does. Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland looks forward to WYPR giving all campaigns and platforms access to public media airwaves!

Here in Maryland all the media is preparing to block any comments about Bill and Hillary Clinton as the 2016 will see an onslaught of political advertizing and social media/email campaigning. As a candidate for governor of Maryland I was just told by WYPR that I cannot comment on their facebook page about election issues and at the same time they are refusing my campaign any media coverage. My campaign is completely blocked. Meanwhile, the candidates who are going to advance these global corporate policies of Pacific Trade Pact (TPP) and Clinton's global corporate rule has unlimited airtime on public media. BELOW YOU SEE WHAT BILL AND HILLARY HAVE BEEN UP TO SINCE ENDING GLASS STEAGALL AND PUSHING NAFTA-----THEY ALLOWED DEVELOPING WORLD'S TO BE ENSLAVED BY US CORPORATIONS AND WHEN THOSE NATIONS KICKED OUT THESE US CORPORATIONS NEO-LIBERALS ARE NOW MOVING INTO AFRICA, THE CARIBBEAN, AND IF TRANS PACIFIC TRADE PACT IS PASSED.,......INTO THE US. It is people of color who are being enslaved whether Asian, black, or Hispanic, but the Trans Pacific Trade Pact will take all Americans to the developing world level. See why it is so important for WYPR to block my campaign?

Haiti has been made the new sweat shop of the West. Clinton is bringing US manufacturing from Asia and installing them in the West.....first in the Caribbean and then in the US when TPP is installed. US labor unions know this is what will happen and they know that all of Maryland candidates for Governor of Maryland except Cindy Walsh for Governor will do this....Brown, Gansler, and Mizeur as well as the republicans.

Bill Clinton: Haiti’s Neo-Colonial Overlord

Tue, 11/16/2010 - 14:03 — Ashley Smith

by Ashley Smith

Bill Clinton is no friend to Haiti. The former president, who inflicted great harm to the Haitian people while in office, now acts as a kind of regent, “promoting sweatshops, tourism, and export-oriented agriculture.” A primary actor in stripping Haiti of its sovereignty, Clinton “is putting Haiti up for sale to multinational capital.”

Bill Clinton: Haiti’s Neo-Colonial Overlord

by Ashley Smith

Ashley Smith is a featured speaker at a “Day of Outrage in Harlem” rally and march in support of the people of Haiti, on November 20. The theme of the protest is, “U.S. Out of Haiti – Clinton Out of Harlem.”

“Clinton has betrayed all his humanitarian promises and failed to collect even a fraction of the promised $10 billion for reconstruction.”

The corporate media portrays former President Bill Clinton as a great humanitarian friend of Haiti. The truth could not be more different. He has always supported policies in the interests of multinational corporations and the Haitian ruling class at the expense of the country’s workers, urban poor and peasantry.

After the 1991 coup that toppled Haitian President Jean Bertrand Aristide, Clinton as President did maintain relatively ineffective sanctions. But he violated his campaign promise and continued George Bush Sr.’s policy of jailing Haitian refugees in Guantanamo. He also pressured Aristide to adopt free market economic policies as the condition of restoring him to power in 1994.

Clinton succeeded in getting Aristide to moderate his program of social reform and drop tariffs on rice to the advantage of U.S. Agribusiness. He then compelled Aristide’s successor, Rene Preval, to further deregulate the economy successfully turning Haiti into the most free market economy in the Western Hemisphere, and consequently its poorest.

“Clinton pressured Aristide to adopt free market economic policies as the condition of restoring him to power in 1994.”

Confronted with this evidence, he recently apologized for impoverishing the lives of peasant farmers in Haiti. But as always with Clinton, his rhetoric could not be more different than his policies. After the second U.S.-backed coup against Aristide in 2004, Clinton has worked with former World Bank employee Paul Collier, multinational corporations and the Haitian elite to impose another free-market plan on Haiti. While U.N. troops have occupied Haiti since 2004, Clinton and Collier toured the country promoting sweatshops, tourism, and export-oriented agriculture.

After the devastating January 2010 earthquake in Port au Prince, Clinton became co-chair of Interim Haiti Recovery Commission. He is now the country’s neo-colonial overlord. He has betrayed all his humanitarian promises and failed to collect even a fraction of the promised $10 billion for reconstruction. And his reconstruction plan is the same free market plan he has been touting since 2004. He is putting Haiti up for sale to multinational capital.

The last thing Haiti needs is more “help” from Bill Clinton and the U.S. Instead, the U.S. and other imperial powers including the U.N. should get out of Haiti and pay reparations so that Haitians can rebuild their country in their own interests.

Ashley Smith can be reached at: ashley05401@yahoo.com. For information on the November 20 “Day of Outrage in Harlem,” contact Nellie Bailey at harlemtenants@gmail.com

__________________________________________

Trans Pacific Trade Pact (TPP) is a neo-con/neo-liberal effort to end the national sovereignty of all nations signing this pact and handing control of all public policy and law enforcement to global corporate tribunals. This is all courtesy of Bill and Hillary Clinton who, with Reagan embraced neo-liberalism and took the people's democratic party and handed it to corporations. This is why labor and justice, 80% of the democratic base has been silenced. We need labor unions to stop backing these neo-liberals and in Maryland all candidates other than Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland will push TPP.

Below you see the Neo-conservative think tank and the neo-liberal think tank all getting their dander up because the nations around the world being forced into TPP are fighting it and kicking the leaders out who signed this treaty. Don't think for one minute that any neo-liberal pol will not vote to pass this! Obama has built the lobby structure to push it through. Also note that NGOs are included in this TPP stakeholder deal. NGOs are simply corporations made to be non-profits controlling public policy!

IN THE US THAT WOULD BE OBAMA AND IN MARYLAND ALL OF THE MARYLAND ASSEMBLY AND CANDIDATES FOR GOVERNOR ARE PASSING LAWS SUPPORTING TPP!

Don't think that because a few democratic Congress people have shouted against Fast Track for TPP that it is not advancing------all of the policies passed during Obama's Administration have been TPP related. Bush set the stage and Obama is super-sizing it.

WE ARE AT THE CROSSROADS IN STOPPING TPP-----STOP ELECTING GLOBAL CORPORATE POLS!

Crunch Time for the Trans-Pacific Pact — and for U.S. Leadership in Asia

By Claude Barfield Thursday, October 10, 2013

Filed under: World Watch, Economic Policy

At a crucial time in U.S.-Asian relations, China is stealing the limelight. America needs to get back in the game. Admittedly, one can overreact to the negative consequences of President Obama’s decision to cancel his trip to Asia and forego participation in the Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) leaders’ meeting and the East Asian Summit. But it would also be a mistake to underestimate the blow — at least in the short term — to the ability of the United States to project a confident leadership role in the region. Headlines such as “Obama cancels Asia trip. Is the U.S. ‘pivot’ in jeopardy?” and “As Obama’s Asian ‘pivot’ falters, China steps into the gap” are all too representative of the reaction both within Asia and around the world.

My AEI colleague Michael Auslin has suggested that the real danger to U.S. leadership does not stem from the past week’s debacles but rather from the fact that the Obama administration is presiding over a decimated defense budget that in future years cannot sustain U.S. security promises and obligations in Asia — let alone around the world. The point is well taken, but my analysis will concentrate on the short and medium term effects relating to soft diplomacy and prestige and, in more detail, to the implications for the major U.S. regional economic initiative, the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP).

Short-Term Losses

In the immediate future, the image embodied in Hillary Clinton’s robust announcement of an American ‘pivot’ to Asia and her comment that ‘We are back to stay’ will take a credibility beating. In the immediate future, the image embodied in Hillary Clinton’s robust announcement of an American “pivot” to Asia and her comment that “We are back to stay” will take a credibility beating. The White House had planned both practical deliverables in the TPP negotiations and also highly symbolic visits by the president to Malaysia and the Philippines. The picture of President Obama twiddling his thumbs in the White House and haggling over a looming U.S. default while Asian leaders meet in Bali and in Brunei will be hard to erase in the short term.

Worse, partly by coincidence, Chinese leaders stood ready to fill in the gap. Though long-planned, visits by President Xi Jinping to Malaysia and Indonesia captured headlines around the region, not least from the largesse dispensed along the way — a $15 billion currency swap agreement with Indonesia and a promise to triple trade with Malaysia to $160 billion by 2017. In a tag team display, Chinese Premier Li Keqiang is now off on follow-up official visits to Vietnam, Thailand, and Brunei. Though President Xi was circumspect at the two summit meetings, the Chinese press was euphoric and scornful. Typical was the comment of the Hong Kong-based Communist party newspaper, Ta Kung Pao: “Chinese President Xi Jinping has become the brightest star on the Asian diplomatic platform. . . . The influence of the U.S. is questioned more and more.”

Looking back over the week, even a former administration official and loyal Obama supporter, Kenneth Lieberthal of the Brookings Institution, was led to conclude: “This is a serious blow to U.S. diplomacy” that will raise doubts about the president’s “ability to deliver on commitments.”

Moving on, the potential impact of the president’s no-show at TPP negotiations is a likewise negative development but not necessarily a fatal one to the successful conclusion of the agreement. With or without Obama’s presence, the situation with regards to the negotiations stands as follows. Since 2010, when serious bargaining began, there have been 19 negotiating sessions. At this point, most if not all of the technical underbrush has been cleared away by the trade bureaucrats from the 12 member states. What is left is a group of at least a dozen highly sensitive political questions and judgments that must be settled by political leaders. Among the issues outstanding are rules and commitments related to state-owned enterprises (SOEs), the environment, labor, market access and rules of origin, intellectual property (IP), government procurement, services and investment, regulatory coherence and coordination, and data flows and protection, among others. (The list will vary from observer to observer and cannot be conclusive since no actual potential text has been made public).

Throughout 2013, TPP members have steadfastly maintained the goal of completing the negotiations by the end of the year, even though all knew that this was more a tactic to keep up momentum than a realistic endpoint. Neither President Obama nor other national TPP leaders could be expected to iron out the specific details of all of the aforementioned politically sensitive issues in the single day allotted to the TPP in Brunei. Rather, what Obama missed was the opportunity to push personally for a successful conclusion of the talks soon after the new year — and to weigh in with individual leaders on a limited number of issues where only the highest national leaders can seal the deal.

The Endgame

Neither President Obama nor other national TPP leaders could be expected to iron out the specific details in the single day allotted to the TPP in Brunei. Rather, what Obama missed was the opportunity to push personally for a successful conclusion of the talks. Without crying now over spilt milk, it will be crucial for the president and the administration to turn full attention to the TPP endgame. Trade policy and negotiations have been described by political scientists as a “two-level game.” On the first level, political leaders have to fix their own goals and bargain with their counterparts from other nations. In this case, the White House must decide quickly in coming weeks what its top offensive and defensive priorities will be. Will we demand, for example, quite detailed competition rules for SOEs? Will we push for greater IP protection for biotechnology products? Will the United States want enforceable rules in the environmental chapter and for health and safety provisions? And will the United States at this late date suddenly demand trade rules to curb currency manipulation? Defensively, the White House must make judgments on what we will give in return (and the offensive/defensive moves are linked): for instance, Vietnam has made it clear that it will not move on SOEs without U.S. concession on shoes and textiles. Further, what can the United States give on sugar or cotton? How much continued protection will it defend for the U.S. automobile industry? And what can we concede from our highly protected dairy sector?

Political timing is now crucial. U.S. companies with both offensive and defensive issues at stake are aware that it is crunch time for key decisions on the products and services they hold dear, and they have begun high-powered lobbying campaigns to achieve their disparate goals. While the administration has worked diligently with domestic stakeholders (including NGOs), its own domestic political actions in this two-level game must be redoubled. This means moving forward quickly with Congress to pass new trade promotion authority that sets out congressional trade priorities and guarantees a timely up or down vote for a future TPP agreement. Down the line, it will also mean that the president himself must be willing to spend the political capital to craft a coalition that can assure congressional approval of the TPP (most particularly with congressional Republicans, who will almost certainly provide the majority of the votes).

At a news conference in the wake of the Pacific summits, President Obama ruefully admitted that missing the Asian leaders’ meeting was “almost like not showing up” for his own party, and that this inevitably “created a sense of concern” on the part of U.S. allies and trading partners. But on the larger canvass of U.S. leadership in Asia, the damage is not irreparable. Despite the burst of Chinese triumphalism, Asian nations certainly are aware that Beijing has in reality not backed off it belligerent stands and demands regarding the East and South Chinas seas — nor its bullying of smaller nations such as Vietnam and the Philippines. The ongoing, huge buildup of Chinese military prowess only underscores the perceived necessity for an enduring U.S. defense presence as a counterbalance.

In addition to committing full diplomatic and political resources to completing and passing the TPP, the president should also move with dispatch to assuage the “sense of concern” in Asia by quickly rescheduling the cancelled trips to Southeast Asia and add on Japan and Korea. For the TPP, there might be a quick payoff for the negotiations, as Korea was widely expected to announce at the Brunei summit that it would join the talks, but apparently backed off when Obama cancelled. A visit to Seoul might just seal that deal and further tip the balance toward the TPP as the lead institution in a new regional economic architecture.

____________________________________________

Right now the only thing saving Americans from this third world agreement is that citizens of other nations are in the streets and kicking their political leaders out of office to stop this Trans Pacific Trade Pact (TPP). In the US .......labor and justice leaders are backing the same neo-liberal candidates who will push these policies through. In Maryland, all the candidates for governor......especially Gansler, Brown, and Mizeur will push TPP through EXCEPT CINDY WALSH FOR GOVERNOR OF MARYLAND!

As you hear, Clinton is stating the lifting of democratic and labor conditions even as ALL INTERNATIONAL LABOR AND JUSTICE ORGANIZATIONS ARE SHOUTING LOUDLY AND STRONGLY AGAINST IT!

Clinton Announces Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement

Clinton Announces Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement Video Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urged Vietnam to pursue democracy while announcing details of a a new trans-Pacific trade agreement focused on south Asia, during a visit to Hanoi on Tuesday. (July 10)

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press

Clinton Announces Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement

AssociatedPress
441,355 781 views 14 24 Published on Jul 10, 2012

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urged Vietnam to pursue democracy while announcing details of a a new trans-Pacific trade agreement focused on south Asia, during a visit to Hanoi on Tuesday. (July 10)

Here in Maryland all media is captured by corporations and we are seeing the Clinton machine locking up all areas of campaigning and election exposure. Public media needs to be the one source of free and fair elections and in Maryland------WYPR and MPT controls most public media and they are completely blocking all candidates that do not support pushing TPP through.

Bill Moyers on why the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade agreement is death for democracy
11/5/2013 10:05am by Gaius Publius

Many of you know I’ve been covering TPP (the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement) for a while now — for example, here. Obama and the rest of the neoliberal (“free-trade”) Democrats are dying to implement it, and the Republican servants of the same fine CEOs are not far behind.

But the TPP is complicated — at least in appearances — and the public is having a hard time bottom-lining it, in between taking kids to soccer and paying bills in the evening. By comparison, characterizing Keystone is easy — “Want to drink goo from your faucet and watch the earth cook? Support Keystone.”

It’s not really hard to understand TPP though, once you see the pattern — TPP puts the ruling class (and the corporations they control) in charge of most aspects of our economic and regulatory life. It rewrites the laws of every nation that signs it, all to increase the wealth of our pathological betters. We just need more people saying that.

Now comes Bill Moyers with an excellent, listenable primer on what TPP is and why it spells death to democracy (literally) and breathes even more life into the predator 1% of the 1%.

Governments involved with our betters in implementing the TPP “corporate-rule” agreement. These are the perps.

But don’t take my word for it. Listen to Moyers’ great introduction, then to the discussion with Yves Smith of Naked Capitalism and Dean Baker of CEPR. This is one of the best ways to come up to speed on TPP I’ve found — very tight, very clear:

From the video’s introduction at Vimeo:

A US-led trade deal is currently being negotiated that could increase the price of prescription drugs, weaken financial regulations and even allow partner countries to challenge American laws. But few know its substance.

The pact, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), is deliberately shrouded in secrecy, a trade deal powerful people, including President Obama, don’t want you to know about. Over 130 Members of Congress have asked the White House for more transparency about the negotiations and were essentially told to go fly a kite. While most of us are in the dark about the contents of the deal, which Obama aims to seal by year end, corporate lobbyists are in the know about what it contains.

And some vigilant independent watchdogs are tracking the negotiations with sources they trust, including Dean Baker and Yves Smith, who join Moyers & Company this week. Both have written extensively about the TPP and tell Bill the pact actually has very little to do with free trade.

Instead, says Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, “This really is a deal that’s being negotiated by corporations for corporations and any benefit it provides to the bulk of the population of this country will be purely incidental.” Yves Smith, an investment banking expert who runs the Naked Capitalism blog adds: “There would be no reason to keep it so secret if it was in the interest of the public.”

Suitable for sharing with your friends and online associates. Seriously; help to make TPP a household name ahead of the Senate hearings on it and the Fast-Track legislation that will introduce it.

We’ll be following this closely as well. At some point soon, we’ll all need concerted and raucous citizen opposition. As Moyers and company show, this is as big a deal as stopping Big Carbon in its tracks. If we don’t prevent this, TPP will rewrite constitutions across the globe, including here at home.

And believe me, our poor Constitution has taken on a lot of rewriting lately. Save the Constitution. Help kill the TPP “corporate-rule” agreement. (More information here.)

__________________________________________

Bill and Hillary Clinton were the head cheerleaders for Monsanto and are now major shareholders in chief of this global disaster waiting to happen. Yes, Bill Gates is now partnered with all of this and is behind global PHARMA and killing public health around the world. You know......public media's 'good billionaire'.

The reason you will see corporate NPR/APM keep all political comment to neo-liberals and neo-cons is that they want only global corporate pols to get airtime even is the only media outlet that should promote free and fair elections and -----PUBLIC MEDIA.

WYPR IN MARYLAND HAS DELIBERATELY CAPTURED ALL PUBLIC MEDIA AND SILENCES ELECTION RACES NOT COMMITTED TO GLOBAL CORPORATIONS!

Monsanto and Hillary Clinton's Redemptive First Act as Secretary of State

By Linn Cohen-Cole
Op-Ed News, February 9, 2009
Straight to the Source

For those who hope Obama will bring something different to the world, we must first see clearly what is happening, and make demands of him that are profound, not show.

Liberals are pleased he may appoint a White House farmer to plant an organic garden. That is empty show.

Meanwhile corporations like Monsanto are moving rapidly to take control of food supplies ... and democracies, including ours. www.dailykos.com/story/2009/2/1/192127/2714/736/691835

Obama chose Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State. We cannot know what deals were struck to make her stop her destructive campaigning long after it was apparent she had lost. But we do know that Mark Penn, CEO for Burson-Marsteller, one of the world's large PR firms representing Monsanto.
http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/?lid=392
advised her for years and ran her campaign. And when she showed up again, by Obama's side, suddenly so did a man named Michael Taylor ... also again.

MIchael Taylor is a Monsanto lawyer Bill Clinton once put in charge of the FDA where he approved Monsanto's rBGH. Hillary was back, andObama was putting Taylor on his transition team. www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_15710.cfm

Using the transition team's advice, Obama appointed Tom Vilsack to head the USDA, overriding 20,000 opposing "grassroots" emails. The objection to Vilsack? His deep Monsanto connections.

www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_15573.cfm

Hillary Clinton's connections to Monsanto go way back the Rose Law Firm where she worked. Rose represents Monsanto, Tyson, and Walmart -the world leaders in#genetic engineering, animal production and industrialized food. She received favors there, as did Bill. In office, Bill's USDA immediately and significantly weakened chicken waste and contamination standards, easing Tyson's poultry-factory expansion, www.financialsense.com/editorials/engdahl/2006/0828.html , and his USDA head, Espy, was indicted for bribes, money laundering, and much more, with Tyson was the largest corporate offender.

What happened specifically with Monsanto?
Bill appointed Michael Taylor head of the FDA and put other Monsanto employees in as US Agricultural Trade Representatives, onto International Biotechnology Consultive Forums, and more ...

Original story, more: http://www.opednews.com/articles/Monsanto-and-Hillary-Cli...

By MBD June 29, 2013
Yes, Monsanto Actually DID Buy the BLACKWATER Mercenary Group!

A report by Jeremy Scahill in The Nation revealed that the largest mercenary army in the world, Blackwater (later called Xe Services and more recently “Academi“) clandestine intelligence services was sold to the multinational Monsanto. Blackwater was renamed in 2009 after becoming famous in the world with numerous reports of abuses in Iraq, including massacres of civilians. It remains the largest private contractor of the U.S. Department of State “security services,” that practices state terrorism by giving the government the opportunity to deny it.

Many military and former CIA officers work for Blackwater or related companies created to divert attention from their bad reputation and make more profit selling their nefarious services-ranging from information and intelligence to infiltration, political lobbying and paramilitary training – for other governments, banks and multinational corporations. According to Scahill, business with multinationals, like Monsanto, Chevron, and financial giants such as Barclays and Deutsche Bank, are channeled through two companies owned by Erik Prince, owner of Blackwater: Total Intelligence Solutions and Terrorism Research Center. These officers and directors share Blackwater.

One of them, Cofer Black, known for his brutality as one of the directors of the CIA, was the one who made contact with Monsanto in 2008 as director of Total Intelligence, entering into the contract with the company to spy on and infiltrate organizations of animal rights activists, anti-GM and other dirty activities of the biotech giant.

Contacted by Scahill, the Monsanto executive Kevin Wilson declined to comment, but later confirmed to The Nation that they had hired Total Intelligence in 2008 and 2009, according to Monsanto only to keep track of “public disclosure” of its opponents. He also said that Total Intelligence was a “totally separate entity from Blackwater.”

However, Scahill has copies of emails from Cofer Black after the meeting with Wilson for Monsanto, where he explains to other former CIA agents, using their Blackwater e-mails, that the discussion with Wilson was that Total Intelligence had become “Monsanto’s intelligence arm,” spying on activists and other actions, including “our people to legally integrate these groups.” Total Intelligence Monsanto paid $ 127,000 in 2008 and $ 105,000 in 2009.

No wonder that a company engaged in the “science of death” as Monsanto, which has been dedicated from the outset to produce toxic poisons spilling from Agent Orange to PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), pesticides, hormones and genetically modified seeds, is associated with another company of thugs.

Almost simultaneously with the publication of this article in The Nation, the Via Campesina reported the purchase of 500,000 shares of Monsanto, for more than $23 million by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which with this action completed the outing of the mask of “philanthropy.” Another association that is not surprising.

It is a marriage between the two most brutal monopolies in the history of industrialism: Bill Gates controls more than 90 percent of the market share of proprietary computing and Monsanto about 90 percent of the global transgenic seed market and most global commercial seed. There does not exist in any other industrial sector monopolies so vast, whose very existence is a negation of the vaunted principle of “market competition” of capitalism. Both Gates and Monsanto are very aggressive in defending their ill-gotten monopolies.

Although Bill Gates might try to say that the Foundation is not linked to his business, all it proves is the opposite: most of their donations end up favoring the commercial investments of the tycoon, not really “donating” anything, but instead of paying taxes to the state coffers, he invests his profits in where it is favorable to him economically, including propaganda from their supposed good intentions. On the contrary, their “donations” finance projects as destructive as geoengineering or replacement of natural community medicines for high-tech patented medicines in the poorest areas of the world. What a coincidence, former Secretary of Health Julio Frenk and Ernesto Zedillo are advisers of the Foundation.

Like Monsanto, Gates is also engaged in trying to destroy rural farming worldwide, mainly through the “Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa” (AGRA). It works as a Trojan horse to deprive poor African farmers of their traditional seeds, replacing them with the seeds of their companies first, finally by genetically modified (GM). To this end, the Foundation hired Robert Horsch in 2006, the director of Monsanto. Now Gates, airing major profits, went straight to the source.

Blackwater, Monsanto and Gates are three sides of the same figure: the war machine on the planet and most people who inhabit it, are peasants, indigenous communities, people who want to share information and knowledge or any other who does not want to be in the aegis of profit and the destructiveness of capitalism.

So why were so many media outlets, editorialists and bloggers clamoring to say that the purchase was a “hoax”?

That’s a good question. The more cynical among us might suspect a financial incentive from Monsanto itself to such “journalists.” Monsanto indeed has hired a public relations team to seek out critical blogs and websites reporting on their crimes against both Nature and humankind. We have seen this first hand in comments on PoliticalBlindSpot.com articles on Monsanto. It is not beyond the realm of possibilities that they have created blogs where seemingly legitimate authors write organic thoughts, observations and rebuttals. The public presumes these are real-world people, when in fact they are working PR for the company.

But the core argument of those who claim that the Monsanto purchase of Blackwater is not true lies in the fact that we can only officially document Blackwater being hired by Monsanto for years. Immediately following this extensive work that Blackwater did for Monsanto, they sold the company. Because of the nature of how the sale transpired, it is impossible to document who the sale was to. The obvious and logical conclusion to insiders (particularly in the private security industry), however, is that the sale was in fact to Monsanto who had been employing the group.

Xe (now Academi) has, indeed, been purchased, and while there’s no way of DOCUMENTING who the new owners really are, the logical conclusion would be that Monsanto, who had been employing them prior to the sale are the new owners. This, of course, would also make sense of the secrecy surrounding the deal and the identity of the new owners. The company was bought out by private investors via private equity companies that don’t have to divulge any of their dealings, with Bank of America providing much of the $200 million in financing for the deal.

New York-based USTC Holdings said it will acquire Xe and its core operating subsidiaries, but did not disclose the price or terms of the agreement in a statement.

USTC Holdings is an investor consortium led by private equity firms Forte Capital Advisors and Manhattan Partners.

Various researchers have been trying to document the buy via a paper trail, but so far without much luck. That, of course, is the point…

Keeping it private

One thing that is known: Forte Capital Advisors is the baby of long-time Blackwater ally Jason De Yonker:

DeYonker has unique experience with the Company that dates back to its founding in the late 1990s. He advised the Company through development of its early business plan and expansion of the Moyock training facility as well as supporting negotiations of its first training contracts with U.S. government agencies. Between 1998 and 2002, Mr. DeYonker co-managed Xe founder, Erik Prince’s family office which included management of Mr. Prince’s portfolio companies.

What does that mean? The guy is a glorified accountant.

Prior to joining Forté, Jason co-managed a +$100 million family office. In addition to actively managing various platform companies, Jason was a part of the executive team responsible for family wealth management.

Jason has spent the last 18 years advising on various mergers, acquistions and divestitures with an aggregate transaction value greater than $1 billion. Jason’s experience include: transaction advisory, portfolio management, real estate development, venture capital and cross border dealings. Jason began his career with Arthur Andersen Corporate Finance Group, and was a Director in Deloitte & Touche’s Corporate Finance Group. He also was the Finance Director for the West Family Trust, a venture capital group focused on cross-border transactons.

Jason recieved a Bachelor of Business Administration, with a concentration in finance and accounting, from the Univeristy of Michigan.

The other investor? It looks like the very junior partner will be Manhattan Partners, a private equity company – a shop that gathers money from anonymous rich investors and uses the pool of cash to leverage buyouts of big companies they wouldn’t have been able to take over on their own.

Manhattan Partners invests in “compelling growth and special situation transactions,” but this will be their first known foray into defense industries – WarIsBusiness.com reports (via Spencer Ackerman):

Manhattan Growth Partners is led by Dean Bosacki and Patrick McBride. Bosacki serves on the board of “the world’s largest commencement photography business,” among other companies. Manhattan Growth Partners, which describes itself as “a progressive thinking private equity firm,” also holds a majority interest in Hugo Naturals, a line of organic, vegan-friendly soaps, lotions, scents and soy candles sold at Whole Foods and other greenwashed retailers.

At the end of the day, it would seem the logical conclusion is that in spite of arguments to the contrary, Monsanto in fact did by the Blackwater mercenary group… or at least the renamed Blackwater Xe (now Academi) Services group. The big question now is why?

__________________________________________

All over the world Monsanto and GMO are tied to massive crop failures as industrial agriculture and Monsanto's patented seed controls all the world's food when a nation allows it to enter their country. This is why Monsanto has needed to become militarized and it is why Bill and Hillary Clinton has had to make the Trans Pacific Trade Pact (TPP) about forcing nations to allow industrial farming into nations signing these pacts. SEE WHY THE CITIZENS OF THE WORLD ARE FIGHTING THESE TRADE DEALS?

The American people are relying on nations of the world to force these neo-liberal policies down while US media captures all journalism on this fight against global trade agreements!

Scientists Warn EPA Over Monsanto’s GMO Crop Failures, Dangers

by Anthony Gucciardi
March 12th, 2012
Updated 11/04/2012 at 12:07 am

A group of scientists is calling for major federal action in order to deal with the threat posed by Monsanto’s GMO crops, now petitioning the EPA to address the issue head on. The group of 22 academic corn experts are drawing attention to the immense failure of Monsanto’s genetically modified corn, which is developing mutated and resistant insects as a result of its widespread usage. Corn is critical not only as a food staple, but is heavily used in ethanol production, animal feed, and much more. As GM corn becomes the norm, currently taking over 94 percent of the supply, these scientists are seriously concerned about the future of corn production.

Joseph Spencer is one outspoken member of the group, a corn entomologist with the Illinois Natural History Survey, part of the University of Illinois. Spencer states that what is happening is no surprise, instead it is something that needs to be addressed. Warning the EPA over the dangers, the experts sent a letter on March 5th to the agency explaining their worries regarding long-term corn production prospects in light of GMO crops failures. Specifically, the experts are worried about the lack of protection presented by GMO crops against rootworms.

The EPA has already acknowledged that Monsanto’s GMO crops are creating resistant rootworms, which are now ravaging the GMO crops as they mutate to the biopesticide used known as Bacillus thuringiensis (BT). The EPA found that the resistant rootworms, which are evolving to resist the insecticide, are currently found Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota and Nebraska. After the EPA evaluated documented cases of severe crop damage as well as reports from entomologists, the EPA stated “Monsanto’s program for monitoring suspected cases of resistance is ‘inadequate’”.

Essentially, the GMO crops are doing the opposite of their supposed purpose — leading to more damage from rootworms as they become mutated to resist the defense of the crops. And Monsanto has answered by simply further genetically modifying the Bt, which research shows is extremely ineffective.

“When insecticides overlay transgenic technology, the economic and environmental advantages of rootworm-protected corn quickly disappear,” the scientists wrote.

It’s time for the EPA and other agencies to address the serious threats to nature and human health presented by Monsanto’s genetically modified creations.

0 Comments

February 27th, 2014

2/27/2014

0 Comments

I LISTENED AS CORPORATE NPR/APM SHOUTED A WIN FOR MANUFACTURING BRINGING MIDDLE-CLASS JOBS BACK TO THE US......BUT, I KNOW AS NEO-LIBERALS SHOUT THIS AS A WIN.....THEY ARE READY TO PASS TPP WHICH WILL NEGATE ALL ENVIRONMENTAL AND LABOR LAWS! WIN-WIN FOR US GLOBAL CORPORATE PROFITS!

Regarding public private partnerships in building US manufacturing infrastructure:

Imagine a billion dollar US global corporation needing Federal tax money to partner in building manufacturing plants in America. Neo-liberals laud this as a great day for US citizens and building the middle-class with strong manufacturing jobs. I spoke of Obama's sending of hundreds of billions of dollars to build corporate university research facilities like those attached to Johns Hopkins and University of Maryland.....both operating as private corporations and much of the labor outsourced to Right to Work corporations and states. Earlier we saw tens of billions of dollars sent under the guise of green industry with so little oversight or forethought that many of those startups are now out of business and in some cases firms built with taxpayer money sold for profit for those receiving these grants. We hear all the time that these businesses were connected to Obama and neo-liberal campaign donations. It's not a bad deal to donate a few million and come away with billions in taxpayer money! The Green Industry buildup could have would have worked if the US was not competing in global markets but simply rebuilding its own domestic economy. THAT'S A NEO-LIBERAL FOR YOU!!!

As I have shown, public-private partnerships are only about having the public pay for infrastructure and operations making corporate profits soar. NO DEMOCRAT WOULD PUSH THESE POLICIES AS THEY HAND OUR TAX MONEY RIGHT INTO THE POCKETS OF THESE CORPORATIONS. We do not need to be held hostage for job creation and we have reached the bottom in this hostage-taking policy.

As we see in this article below, Illinois, as with Maryland, is home of the biggest of neo-liberals. Obama and Rahm Emanuel are Wall Street through and through. Dick Durbin was the original BREAK THE GLASS STEAGALL WALL crew with Clinton wanting these global corporations and corporate rule. Democrats had no choice in the 2008 election as Hillary would be doing the same as Obama had she been elected. WE NEED TO SHOUT FOR BERNIE SANDERS AS ALL CANDIDATES FOR NEXT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION ARE AGAIN....NEO-LIBERALS.

Let's look at where we are with this return of US global corporations and rebuilding manufacturing in America. Remember, TPP is all about removing all US law that diminishes corporation's ability to profit!

REMEMBER, BALTIMORE AND MARYLAND HAVE THEIR MANUFACTURING INSTITUTES----BIOTECH INDUSTRY. SO, ALL OF WHAT I AM BLOGGING TODAY DEALS WITH MARYLAND AS WELL.

Pollution Treatment Medical Materials
A Lastest News about Pharmaceuticals in China

Pollution Treatment Medical Materials Mfg. Industry in China

Jiangsu province has most leading pollution treatment medical materials mfg. enterprises, and among all top 100 large pollution treatment medical materials mfg. enterprises across China, 16 are located in Jiangsu. According to China Pollution Treatment Medical Materials Mfg. Industry Profile - the industry research report issued by Zeefer Consulting, Jiangsu, Guangdong and Shandong are the major production bases for pollution treatment medical materials mfg. industry in China. Beijing, Zhejiang, Tianjin, Liaoning, Anhui, Hubei and Jiangxi are the secondary distribution areas for this industry.

In terms of market size, in 2009, pollution treatment medical materials mfg. enterprises above designated size achieved a sales revenue of more than USD 950 million. Jiangsu, Shandong and Guangdong ranked top 3 in terms of sales revenue, enterprises in these regions engaged in pollution treatment medical materials mfg. production achieved a sales revenue of more than USD 400 million. in all, taking a share of more than 45% of the gross sales revenue from above designated size pollution treatment medical materials mfg. enterprises across China. The total number of enterprises above designated size in pollution treatment medical materials mfg. industry was more than 150, a rise of more than 45% on a year-on-year basis. On an annual average, total employees in pollution treatment medical materials mfg. industry exceeded 8,500, an increase of more than 3% on a year-on-year basis.

In terms of industry-wide profit, in 2009, profits of enterprises above designated size in pollution treatment medical materials mfg. industry added up to more than USD 55 million, a decline of more than 25% on a year-on-year basis. A total of more than 20 enterprises suffered a loss, and the total loss of these enterprises amounted to more than USD 4 million. On average, the ratio of return on assets in pollution treatment medical materials mfg. industry was higher than 7%.

In terms of market position of foreign enterprises in China, in 2009, sales revenue from foreign enterprises engaged in pollution treatment medical materials mfg. production in China added up to more than USD 300 million, taking a share of more than 30% of the gross sales revenue from pollution treatment medical materials mfg. enterprises across China. Foreign enterprises in China pollution treatment medical materials mfg. industry achieved a ratio of return on sales of more than 3%, lower than the industry average.

____________________________________

A 'manufacturing institute'------sounds like a manufacturing corporate university. Let's think about the digital manufacturing industries now. China is now an environmental basket case because US manufacturers of Apple, Microsoft, and all cellular devices use very damaging elements in these product manufacturing and did nothing to make sure the environment was safe. So, huge Super Fund worthy waste dumps across China are leeching into soil and water surrounding these US manufacturing factories. TPP specifically allows corporations to ignore US environmental laws because the costs would take away profit. What corporations will take over these manufacturing institutes?

In China, US corporations would build factories and then surround these factories with workers living quarters. So, these workers were tied to hazardous working conditions and then exposed to the environmental waste surrounding their living conditions. SOUND FAMILIAR? That is of course what we already see in US manufacturing/mining right now as Obama has continued Bush's total disregard to environmental oversight.

SO, WHAT DO YOU THINK WILL HAPPEN AT THESE MANUFACTURING INSTITUTES HANDLING DIGITAL MANUFACTURING? US workers will be made into Chinese workers with no workplace safety and forced to live around areas due to be contaminated.

THAT'S A NEO-LIBERAL FOR YOU!!!!! RUN AND VOTE FOR LABOR AND JUSTICE IN ALL PRIMARIES TO SHAKE THE NEO-LIBERAL BUGS FROM THE RUG!

US Sen. Durbin lauds federal manufacturing grants
US Sen. Durbin, Chicago mayor laud federal grants for manufacturing labs in Ill., Mich.

Associated Press
February 23, 2014 2:03 PM

CHICAGO (AP) -- Top Illinois politicians say a multimillion-dollar institute bound for Chicago will be the nation's flagship research site for digital manufacturing.

Democratic U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Gov. Pat Quinn on Sunday publicly heralded Chicago's selection by the Defense Department as the site of one of two manufacturing institutes.

President Barack Obama is to announce the initiative Tuesday. The Detroit area landed the second institute, which will focus on lightweight metals.

The institutes are being seeded by $70 million each from the Defense Department and millions more from outside sources under a public-private partnership.

Emanuel says the landing the lab "solidifies Chicago's place as the epicenter of the digital manufacturing revolution." Durbin says the initiative's goal is to make factories smarter, faster and more efficient.

______________________________________________

TPP allows for the US to become just as polluted and it will be the taxpayer that pays to mitigate the damage. Whether PHARMA, textiles, or software industries----

THESE ARE THE FACES OF CHINESE ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTER AND THEY ARE COMING BACK TO US WITH NEO-LIBERALS WORKING HARD TO MAKE SURE NO US LAWS WILL HURT PROFITS!

The price of success: China blighted by industrial pollution – in pictures

A Greenpeace report has called on the Chinese textile industry to clean up its processes after finding high levels of pollution in the southern industrial towns of Xintang – the "jeans capital of the world" – and Gurao, a manufacturing town 80% of whose economy is devoted to bras, underwear, and other clothing articles.

The report said the pollution is emblematic of textile manufacturing in China and the industry must review its practices

theguardian.com, Wednesday 9 February 2011 08.12 EST

Apple criticized for China supply chain pollution

By Michael Martina

BEIJING Wed Aug 31, 2011 1:07pm EDT

(Reuters) - Chinese environmental groups accused Apple Inc of turning a blind eye as its suppliers pollute the country, the latest criticism of the technology company's environmental record.

Toxic discharges from "suspected Apple suppliers" have been encroaching on local communities and environments, a coalition of environmental organizations said on Wednesday in a 46-page report alleging efforts to conceal pollution.

Widespread environmental degradation has accompanied China's breakneck economic growth, and the government has been criticized for failing to take steps to curb pollution.

"The large volume of discharge in Apple's supply chain greatly endangers the public's health and safety," said the report, issued on the website of the Beijing-based Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs (www.ipe.org.cn).

The report alleges that 27 suspected Apple suppliers had severe pollution problems, from toxic gases to heavy metal sludge. In one case, the report said, a nearby village experienced a "phenomenal rise in cases of cancer."

Apple has decided to "take advantage of loopholes" in developing countries' environmental management systems to "grab super profits," it said.

Apple does not disclose who its suppliers are. The environmental groups said public documents and five months of research and field investigation led to the findings in the report.

"A large number of IT supplier violation records have already been publicized; however, Apple chooses not to face such information and continues to use these companies as suppliers. This can only be seen as a deliberate refusal of responsibility," the report said.

This is not the first time Apple has been targeted for environmental infractions and its secretive supply chain management in Chinese factories, where it assembles most of its products.

In January, several of the same non-governmental organizations issued a report alleging woeful environmental records for the iPad and iPhone maker's China-based contract manufacturers.

In February, workers at a Taiwanese-owned factory in eastern China making touch screens on contract for Apple aired their grievances over a chemical poisoning after using N-Hexane, a toxic solvent.

Apple says it maintains a rigorous auditing regime and all its suppliers are monitored and investigated regularly.

"Apple is committed to driving the highest standards of social responsibility throughout our supply base," Apple spokeswoman Carolyn Wu told Reuters.

"We require that our suppliers provide safe working conditions, treat workers with dignity and respect, and use environmentally responsible manufacturing processes wherever Apple products are made," she said.

Apple is not alone in drawing criticism from environmental groups. Some of the world's leading brands rely on Chinese suppliers that pollute the country's environment with chemicals banned in Europe and elsewhere.

Many Western multinationals -- including toymaker Mattel Inc, which suffered a toxic lead paint scandal in 2007 -- have struggled to regulate product quality across scores of suppliers in knotted Chinese supply chains.

Environmental degradation has emerged as one of the most potent fault lines in Chinese society.

Beijing has repeatedly promised to clean up its stressed environment. But it often fails to match that rhetoric with the resources and political will to enforce its mandates, as local officials put growth, revenue and jobs ahead of environmental protection.

___________________________________________

Now, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that when US manufacturing left the US to work in developing countries, they took the pollution with them and sadly, made those developing countries into environmental basket cases. 58% of air pollution abatement would mirror toxic land and water pollution as well. Imagine if all of that manufacturing comes back to the US -----supersized-----AND WITH NO US ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS TO HINDER PROFIT. THAT IS WHAT TPP DOES UNDER THAT GUISE OF BRINGING US MANUFACTURING AND JOBS BACK TO AMERICA. Neo-liberals are trying to create the same working conditions for these overseas US manufacturers as they had in China because WE WOULDN'T WANT TO HINDER US GLOBAL CORPORATE COMPETITION AND ALL THOSE JOBS!

REMEMBER, US MANUFACTURING IS COMING HOME BECAUSE IT WAS FORCED OUT BY DEVELOPING NATIONS BUILDING THEIR OWN ECONOMIES AND MAKING IT TOO HARD FOR US CORPORATIONS TO DO BUSINESS IN THESE COUNTRIES. THEY ARE NOT COMING HOME TO HELP YOU AND I WITH STRONG MIDDLE-CLASS JOBS!

'Since the 1970s, US manufacturing output has risen by 70% but air pollution has fallen by 58%. Was this due to improved abatement technology or shifting dirty production abroad'?

US Manufacturing and Pollution: Abatement or Displacement

Arik Levinson has written a good summary piece on the clean-up of US manufacturinga nd the relationship between trade and technology on the reduction in pollution experienced in the US.

Matt Cole and I have done some work in this area and Matt even manages to sneaks in with a citation in the Levinson article.

This paper of ours covers a similar topic:

Why the Grass is Not Always Greener: The Competing Effects of Environmental Regulations and Factor Intensities on US Specialization

Abstract
The global decline in trade barriers means that environmental regulations now potentially play an increasingly important role in shaping a country’s comparative advantage. This raises the possibility that pollution intensive industries will relocate from high regulation countries to developing regions where environmental regulations may be less stringent. We assess the evidence for this possibility by examining the USA’s revealed comparative advantage (RCA) and other measures of specialization. We demonstrate that US specialization in pollution intensive sectors is neither lower, nor falling more rapidly (or rising more slowly) than in any other manufacturing sector. We offer an explanation for this finding. Our analysis suggests that pollution intensive industries have certain characteristics - specifically they are intensive in the use of physical and human capital - that makes developing countries less attractive as a target for relocation. We demonstrate econometrically the economic and statistical significance of these factors and illustrate how they appear to oppose the effects of environmental regulations as determinants of US specialization.

Suggested Citation

Matthew A. Cole, Robert J.R. Elliott, and Kenichi Shimamoto. "Why the Grass is Not Always Greener: The Competing Effects of Environmental Regulations and Factor Intensities on US Specialization" Ecological Economics 54.1 (2005): 95-109.

Here is the link to the Levinson article. It is worth reading in full. His findings fit well within the literature and his results are intuitive and most importantly plausible (which always helps).

What accounts for the clean-up of US manufacturing: technology or international trade? [Vox]

Since the 1970s, US manufacturing output has risen by 70% but air pollution has fallen by 58%. Was this due to improved abatement technology or shifting dirty production abroad?

Antiglobalisation protesters display signs denouncing international trade's role in polluting the environment.1 Pundits write Op-Ed pieces cautioning that increased trade has environmental costs.2 And a majority of Americans agree that "freer trade puts the United States at a disadvantage because of our high ... environmental standards".3

Are they correct? Over the past thirty years, while the real value of US manufacturing output has increased by more than 70 percent, the total annual air pollution emitted by US manufacturers declined substantially, by 58 percent for the sum of four common air pollutants.4

One explanation for the clean-up of US manufacturing is that the protesters are correct, and that thanks to freer trade, the US now imports polluting goods it once produced domestically, and concentrates domestic manufacturing on goods less likely to incur environmental regulatory costs. Of course, there is an alternative explanation: thanks to improved technology (cleaner fuels, end-of-pipe abatement, process changes, etc.) US manufacturers may now be able to produce more output using less pollution. Which of these explanations, trade or technology, accounts for the dramatic clean-up of US manufacturing pollution?

Conclusion:

What is the bottom line? Increased net imports of polluting goods account for about 70 percent of the composition-related decline in US manufacturing pollution. The composition effect in turn explains about 40 percent of the overall decline in pollution from US manufacturing. Putting these two findings together, international trade can explain at most 28 percent of the clean-up of US manufacturing.

Why should we care?

If the 75% reduction in pollution from US manufacturing resulted from increased international trade, the pundits and protestors might have a case. Environmental improvements might be said to have imposed large, unmeasured environmental costs on the countries from which those goods are imported. And more importantly, the improvements in the US would not be replicable by all countries indefinitely, because the poorest countries in the world will never have even poorer countries from which to import their pollution-intensive goods. The US clean-up would simply have been the result of the US coming out ahead in an environmental zero-sum game, merely shifting pollution to different locations. However, if the US pollution reductions come from technology, nothing suggests those improvements cannot continue indefinitely and be repeated around the world. The analyses here suggest that most the pollution reductions have come from improved technology, that the environmental concerns of antiglobalization protesters have been overblown, and that the pollution reduction achieved by US manufacturing will replicable by other countries in the future.

_______________________________________________

MAKING THE WAY FOR RETURN OF US MANUFACTURING! IT'S ALL ABOUT JOB CREATION AND NOT THAT THEY WERE FORCED OUT OF DEVELOPING COUNTRIES AND HAD TO COME BACK TO US.

The first thing a super-majority of neo-liberals did in 2009 was pass law that made cost of business even cheaper for mainly global corporations since it is expanding global corporate assets that has been the focus of the years since the economic collapse. Let's look at the targeted areas....and we see ENTERPRISE ZONE BUSINESSES, WATER UTILITY, AND SOFTWARE. Just in Maryland that would be all of Baltimore Development Corporation areas and the HighStar VEOLA Environment privatization of Maryland and Baltimore water utilities!

So, at a time of financial crisis the first thing neo-liberals did was pass law that allowed almost immediate depreciation tax write-offs that are huge revenue from corporations.

THIS IS TIED WITH THE MOVEMENT OF MANUFACTURING BACK TO THE US AND WILL BE ANOTHER HUGE DROP IN CORPORATE TAX REVENUE COMING IN OVER TIME.

Below you see the jump from 200 -2013 in how much of a deduction corporations are taking. Even if you support businesses getting more money back.....you can see this will mostly effect large corporations who place a great strain on public infrastructure. Again, the burden falls on local and state citizens to fill this revenue loss and is why Maryland is socking it to middle/working class citizens with taxes and fees and preying on us with fines.

50 and 100 Percent Bonus Depreciation

For the years 2008 through 2013 the law provides for 50% or 100% extra depreciation in the first year qualifying property is placed in service. See Note 5, above for qualifying dates. In order for property to qualify for the additional first-year depreciation deduction it must meet all of the following requirements. First, the property must be (1) property to which MACRS applies with an applicable recovery period of 20 years or less, (2) water utility property (as defined in Section 168(e)(5)), (3) computer software other than computer software covered by Section 197, or (4) qualified leasehold improvement property (as defined in Section 168(k)(3)). Second, the original use of the property must commence with the taxpayer (that is, the property must be new). Third, the taxpayer must purchase the property within the applicable time period. Fourth, for listed property business use must exceed 50%.

Maximum Section 179 Expense Deduction

Tax Year Amount Phaseout Begins

2013 $500,000 $2,000,000
2012 500,000 2,000,000
2011 500,000 2,000,000
2010 500,000 2,000,000
2009 250,000 800,000
2008 250,000 800,000
2007 125,000 500,000
2006 108,000 430,000
2005 105,000 420,000
2004 102,000 410,000
2003 100,000 400,000
2001 or 2002 24,000 200,000
2000 20,000 200,000

Note. The Sec. 179 deduction reverts by law to a maximum of $25,000 for taxable years beginning after 2013. (That's calendar year 2014 and subsequent years for most taxpayers.) The phaseout drops to $200,000. It's expected that the deduction and phaseout will be increased substantially with any tax law changes or an extender package.

Note. An increased Sec. 179 deduction is available to enterprise zone businesses and renewal community business in certain situations. In addition, an increased Sec. 179 deduction is available for certain Sec. 179 Disaster Assistance property. Check the rules in place at the time the property is placed in service. Finally, the maximum deduction for heavy sport utility vehicles and certain other vehicles is restricted to $25,000.

____________________________________________________

Below you see two articles addressing TPP and environment. Let's be clear.....Obama and neo-liberals never had any intentions of including environmental protections in TPP. Environmental laws are the driver of a lot of manufacturing costs after all. So, what these areas slated as 'manufacturing institutes' have to look forward to is Chinese-level of pollution. Mountaintop removal will look environmentally friendly when neo-liberals are done with these manufacturing plans.

So, what happens in Maryland as the Biotech manufacturing industry hub? Look at China's PHARMA pollution for the answer.

Published on Wednesday, January 15, 2014
by Common CommonDreams.org

Leaked TPP 'Environment Chapter' Shows 'Corporate Agenda Wins'

US called main 'outlier' when it comes to strong protections; Leak comes as Obama tries to ram trade deal through Congress
- Jon Queally, staff writer

Confirming the suspicions and fears of environmental campaigners and concerned individuals across the globe, Wikileaks on Wednesday released a draft version of the 'Environment Chapter' from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), exposing most of the so-called "environmental protections" as toothless policies that serve to protect corporate profit not Mother Earth.

In its review of the chapter—which covers environmental issues related to trade, including climate change, biodiversity and fishing stocks; and trade and investment in 'environmental' goods and services—Wikileaks described the chapter as functioning like "a public relations exercise" and saying the text is most notable "for its absence of mandated clauses or meaningful enforcement measures."

"Today's WikiLeaks release shows that the public sweetner in the TPP is just media sugar water," said Wikileaks' publisher Julian Assange in a statement. "The fabled TPP environmental chapter turns out to be a toothless public relations exercise with no enforcement mechanism."

The draft chapter, which was presented at the Salt Lake City, Utah round of negotiations that took places in November, contains language from the participating nations describing their positions on environmental protections that would be included in the final deal.

According to Jane Kelsey, a professor of environmental law at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, the leaked text of the agreement shows no balance between commercial interests and those of the environment.

"Instead of a 21st century standard of protection, the leaked text shows that the obligations are weak and compliance with them is unenforceable... The corporate agenda wins both ways." --Jane Kelsey, Univ. of Auckland

"Instead of a 21st century standard of protection, the leaked text shows that the obligations are weak and compliance with them is unenforceable," she writes in a public statement (pdf) Wednesday. "Contrast that to other chapters that subordinate the environment, natural resources and indigenous rights to commercial objectives and business interests. The corporate agenda wins both ways."

Kelsey's review of the draft also points out that the main outlier on environmental protections is the United States. She also notes that because the protections included in the draft fall short even of those contained in previous trade agreements backed by the US, passage of the deal will create a "particular political dilemma" for President Obama and other backers. She writes:

The text falls far below the standards it has insisted are included in all US free trade agreements since May 2007, which resulted from a deal reached between the Democrat-‐controlled Congress and President George W Bush.

The most fundamental problem for the US is the refusal of all the other countries to agree that the chapter should be subject to the same dispute settlement mechanism as the rest of the agreement. It provides for consultation at officials and ministerial levels, leading to arbitration and agreement to a plan of action, but there are no penalties if the state does not implement the plan.

Obama is going to find this a very hard sell to domestic constituencies. The timing of the leak could hardly be worse. On 9 January 2014 a Bill seeking fast track authority was presented to the Congress. The controversial fast track process requires the Congress to accept or reject the deal as a whole and imposes a strict time limit on debate. The numbers were already stacking up against the Bill, with Democrats especially critical of the erosion of their powers and the secrecy of the negotiations, as well as the reported content. This leaked environment chapter will further erode support among Democratic members of the House of Representatives who are up for re-election later this year.

Obama is going to have to rely heavily on unfriendly Republicans.

Read Wikileaks' full press statement here and view the complete draft version here (pdf).

The secretive TPP trade deal between the United States and 11 other Pacific rim nations that has been negotiated with the backing of corporate interests but kept secret from the general public and even most lawmakers from the participating countries.

Ilana Solomon, the director of the Sierra Club’s Responsible Trade Program, responded to the leaked draft by telling the New York Times on Wednesday that the language in the deal omits crucial protections against increased environmental destruction caused by globalized trade practices.

“It rolls back key standards set by Congress to ensure that the environment chapters are legally enforceable, in the same way the commercial parts of free-trade agreements are,” Ms. Solomon said.

_____________________________________

Saturday, 18 January 2014 16:30
Leaked TPP Environment Chapter Shows Obama Betrayal of Greens

Written by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.

Leaked TPP Environment Chapter Shows Obama Betrayal of Greens

0 Comments

January 30th, 2014

1/30/2014

0 Comments

AS YOU WILL READ BELOW, FARM SUBSIDIES STARTED AS AN AID TO SMALL FARMERS JUST AS THE FHA STARTED TO FINANCE HOMES FOR THE LOW-INCOME. NEO-LIBERALS AND NEO-CONS HAVE ALLOWED ALL PUBLIC AGENCIES TO BE CAPTURED BY CORPORATE INTERESTS AND EXTEND THE CORPORATE WELFARE SYSTEM.

THEY ARE BLOWING UP YET ANOTHER AGENCY MEANT TO HELP THE WORKING CLASS!

Obama's TPP and the Farm Bill now ready to pass:

The Affordable Care Act, the Immigration Reform, and the Farm Bill are all legislation tied to TPP and pols have been waiting for TPP to be signed to move all the legislation forward.

As we are seeing, all the legislation waiting for the TPP to be signed is now ready to move as neo-liberals and neo-cons work to make sure all the law works with the TPP treaty laws. That means, with agriculture neo-liberals had to move from an outright farm subsidy by paying farmers not to farm to a disguised subsidy.....crop insurance. That's all this issue is about ......what the TPP requirements are. Now, for the American taxpayer it means a lot more tax money for corporate subsidy as global warming is making the mid-west a dust bowl. WAIT A MINUTE,....I THOUGHT THE DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS WERE AGAINST CORPORATE SUBSIDY? Are you kidding.....trillions in corporate tax breaks in the guise to job creation to expand US corporations globally not a corporate subsidy? THAT'S RIGHT....NEO-LIBERALS ARE ONE GREAT BIG CORPORATE TAX SUBSIDY.

I listened to our local Maryland Chesapeake Bay environmental advocate do a nice job outing O'Malley's failure to press legislation into action.....that's what Maryland does to look progressive....it passes laws and then never enforces them. The way we know this man is not working for REAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES......he never mentions that having a global food corporation is very, very, very very bad for Maryland and the US. He does mention the political sway but not the damage these industrial food corporations reek on our food chain and environment. Even the farmers that own most of the farmland on the Eastern Shore of MD and VA are industrial agriculture. As my grandmother used to say about all those tomatoes growing on the shore.....all of them are shipped away and we are left with bad tomatoes. INDEED. It's the global market that pays more you know.

That is the big picture with the Farm Bill. It is designed to make sure global agriculture does not lose money just as oil subsidies and all the public private partnerships are made to hand all corporate losses to the taxpayer or consumer. THIS IS WHAT NEO-LIBERALS DO....THEY WORK FOR WEALTH AND PROFIT JUST LIKE REPUBLICANS! THEY ARE NOT DEMOCRATS SO WE NEED TO RUN LABOR AND JUSTICE IN ALL PRIMARIES!

So this is what all of Maryland neo-liberals did for you and me.....crop insurance will pay for crop failure in a region of the US that we all know is and will continue to become a dust bowl as global warming weather changes will be long-term. So, global agriculture goes on a buying spree overseas buying all the most fertile land to start farming overseas and will import America's food supply while taxpayers subsidize farms in the mid-west that fail year after year. It guarantees the US will have almost no viable agriculture as these billions of dollars being sunk into failed farming could be used to move US farming further north where climate would not be as extreme and where there may actually be aquifers with water. Remember, all of the mid-west aquifers are drying because global agriculture drained domestic resources so that global corporations could make more profits. THIS IS THE FARM BILL. Meanwhile small family farms are disappearing as land grabs and all these farm subsidies go to the big AG and never to the small farmer.

If you look at the Eastern Shore of MD and VA you will find the same thing. A few great big farm industries own much of the land and cart away the food to sell overseas. This industrial farming is why so much fertilizer is being used and not used correctly. If mom and pop farmer simply used his/her own chicken poop to fertilize a small farm that grew produce for the locals and maybe to send to Baltimore for example.....we would not have the flood of nitrogen, phosphorus and others into the Chesapeake Bay. The same for the global Perdue. If we did not have a global meat industry, but rather went back to small farmers with some chicken houses that fed local and some regional areas, we would not have all that chicken poop, all that processed body waste, and all those hormones and anti-bodies global corporate food suppliers use to maximize profit. So, this is the story the Chesapeake Bay advocate did not tell. What happens with these laws aimed at correcting these problems is as with the RAIN TAX.....it will increase expenses for the small farmers that have little to do with the pollution.

This is what the Farm Bill does on a national level. It expands and supports global agriculture and global meat which in turn gives us unhealthy food and drains resources.....

AND ALL OF MARYLAND NEO-LIBERALS VOTED FOR IT!

They didn't do it for the Food Stamps because remember, in 2009 they had a super-majority of democrats that could have funded Food Stamps for a decade or more at full value and they did not because they wanted to pretend Food Stamps were forcing them to compromise!

RUN AND VOTE FOR LABOR AND JUSTICE IN ALL MARYLAND PRIMARIES TO SHAKE THE NEO-LIBERAL BUGS FROM THE RUG!

Look below who Obama and Maryland neo-liberals have as the chief negotiators for the agriculture part of TPP------MONSANTO.....

THE ENTIRE WORLD HATES MONSANTO AND DO NOT WANT IT IN THEIR COUNTRIES BUT ARE BEING FORCED WITH THESE TRADE DEALS TO LET THIS MONOCULTURE DISASTER INTO THEIR COUNTRIES!

Top Agriculture Negotiator on to the TPP: Monsanto
Protect the land from Monsanto

Educate! Food and Water, TPP

By Barbara Chicherio, www.nationofchange.org
June 24th, 2013

Something is looming in the shadows that could help erode our basic rights and contaminate our food. The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) has the potential to become the biggest regional Free Trade Agreement in history, both in economic size and the ability to quietly add more countries in addition to those originally included. As of 2011 its 11 countries accounted for 30 percent of the world’s agricultural exports. Those countries are the US, Australia, Brunei, Chile, Canada, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Viet Nam. Recently, Japan has joined the negotiations.

Six hundred US corporate advisors have had input into the TPP. The draft text has not been made available to the public, press or policy makers. The level of secrecy around this agreement is unparalleled. The majority of Congress is being kept in the dark while representatives of US corporations are being consulted and privy to the details.

The chief agricultural negotiator for the US is the former Monsanto lobbyist, Islam Siddique. If ratified the TPP would impose punishing regulations that give multinational corporations unprecedented right to demand taxpayer compensation for policies that corporations deem a barrier to their profits.

There appears not to be a specific agricultural chapter in the TPP. Instead, rules affecting food systems and food safety are woven throughout the text. This agreement is attempting to establish corporations’ rights to skirt domestic courts and laws and sue governments directly with taxpayers paying compensation and fines directly from the treasury.
Article image

Though TPP content remains hidden, here are some things we do know:

Members of Congress are concerned that the TPP would open the door to imports without resolving questions around food safety or environmental impacts on its production.
Procurement rules specifically forbid discrimination based on the quality of production. This means that public programs that favor the use of sustainably produced local foods in school lunch programs could be prohibited.
The labeling of foods containing GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) will not be allowed. Japan currently has labeling laws for GMOs in food. Under the TPP Japan would no longer be able to label GMOs. This situation is the same for New Zealand and Australia. In the US we are just beginning to see some progress towards labeling GMOs. Under the TPP GMO labels for US food would not be allowed.
In April 2013, Peru placed a 10-year moratorium on GMO foods and plants. This prohibits the import, production and use of GMOs in foods and GMO plants and is aimed at safeguarding Peru’s agricultural diversity. The hope is to prevent cross-pollination with non-GMO crops and to ban GMO crops like Bt corn. What will become of Peru’s moratorium if the TPP is passed?
There is a growing resistance to Monsanto’s agricultural plans in Vietnam. Monsanto (the US corporation controlling an estimated 90% of the world seed genetics) has a dark history with Vietnam. Many believe that Monsanto has no right to do business in a country where Monsanto’s product Agent Orange is estimated to have killed 400,000 Vietnamese, deformed another 500,000 and stricken another 2 million with various diseases.

Legacies of other trade agreements that serve as a warning about the TPP have a history of displacing small farmers and destroying local food economies. Ten years following the passage of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) 1.5 million Mexican farmers became bankrupt because they could not compete with the highly subsidized US corn entering the Mexican market.

In the same 10 years Mexico went from a country virtually producing all of its own corn to a country that now imports at least half of this food staple. Mexican consumers are now paying higher prices for Monsanto’s GMO corn.

With little or no competition for large corporations Monsanto, DuPont and Syngenta now control 57 percent of the commercial food market.

While the TPP is in many ways like NAFTA and other existing trade agreements, it appears that the corporations have learned from previous experience. They are carefully crafting the TPP to insure that citizens of the involved countries have no control over food safety, what they will be eating, where it is grown, the conditions under which food is grown and the use of herbicides and pesticides.

If the TPP is adopted the door will be open wider for human rights and environmental abuse. Some of the things we should expect to see include:

more large scale farming and more monocultures;
destruction of local economies;
no input into how our food is grown or what we will be eating;
more deforestation;
increased use of herbicides and pesticides;
increased patenting of life forms;
more GMO plants and foods; and
no labeling of GMOs in food.

Together these are a step backwards for human rights and a giant step towards Monsanto’s control of our food.

Please pass the word to others about the TPP as most Americans are unaware of this trade agreement or its ominous effects if passed.

***************************

HAVE YOU NOTICED THAT WHETHER FEDERAL, STATE, OR LOCAL -----THE COMMON PHRASE TODAY IS -------FAILED PUBLIC POLICY.

The reason you hear of massive protests around the world is the TPP and citizens in these countries are set on getting rid of politicians allowing their countries to become involved. The US will do the same as people are able to hear the truth and because TPP is illegal it can be made NULL and VOID if passed. Many of the countries involved are developing and have agriculture as their way of life and what neo-liberal politicians writing these TPP want to do is have US dominated global agriculture to come in and do what was done in the US to these subsistence farmers.

IT IS TRULY EVIL STUFF AND YOUR NEO-LIBERAL RIGHT HERE IN MARYLAND IS BACKING IT!

So, what will happen in these countries is global agriculture will take over, the meats and food will be filled with hormones and anti-biotics and GMO seeds will cause massive crop failure by making crop pests resistant to any chemical treatment. Can you imagine what a country like China will do to hogs if they own Smithfield....even as we are told they will operate in the US? I know, you say 'can it get worse'?

THAT'S A NEO-LIBERAL FOR YOU!!!!!
********************

TPP: Doubling down on failed trade policy

Posted March 6, 2013 by Karen Hansen-Kuhn

Used under creative commons license from Gobierno de Chile.

A 2010 summit with leaders of the member states of the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement (TPP).

The 16th round of negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) began this week in Singapore. That trade deal has the potential to become the biggest regional free-trade agreement in history, both because of the size of the economies participating in the negotiations and because it holds open the possibility for other countries to quietly “dock in” to the existing agreement at some point in the future. What started as an agreement among Brunei Darussalam, Chile, New Zealand and Singapore in 2005 has expanded to include trade talks with Australia, Canada, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, the United States and Vietnam. Japan and Thailand are considering entering into the negotiations, and others are waiting in the wings.

And yet, despite the potential of this agreement to shape (and in very real ways override) a vast range of public policies, there has been very little public debate on the TPP to date. Governments have refused to release negotiating texts. Media attention on agriculture and the TPP has focused on New Zealand’s insistence on access to U.S. dairy markets and Japan’s concerns over rice imports.

While important, that debate is much too narrow. The TPP is not only about lowering tariffs. It has the potential to greatly expand protections for investors over those for consumers and farmers, and severely restrict governments’ ability to use public policy to reshape food systems. The fundamental causes of recent protests across the globe over food prices, the rising market power of a handful of global food and agriculture corporations, as well as the dual specters of rising hunger and obesity around the world, point to the need to transform the world’s food systems, not to lock the current dysfunction situation in place.

In Who’s at the Table? Demanding Answers on Agriculture in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, IATP raises questions around investment, food safety (especially in emerging new food technologies), procurement and competition policy that should guide an informed public debate around the right rules for agricultural trade.

Trade policy should start from such goals as ending global hunger, enhancing rural and urban incomes and employment, and encouraging a transition to climate friendly agriculture--not from the bottom line of multinational corporations. The burden of proof should be on governments to demonstrate that the commitments being negotiated in the TPP will advance the human rights to food and development. Given the stakes for agriculture and food systems in all of the countries involved, they should include all stakeholders in a frank discussion of the trade rules that are needed to ensure that food sovereignty, rural livelihoods and sustainable development take precedence over misguided efforts to expand exports at any cost. That is what should be on the table in Singapore.
******************************************

If you look at this article you will see the big AG subsidizing is one great big fraud and below this article you will see pols concerned that Food Stamp and fuel subsidy has too much fraud. Indeed, there is pressure placed on the poor to sell their Food Stamps....but solving the need for them will eliminate that problem.....corporate fraud by people having millions of dollars....THIS NEEDS ATTENTION. This Farm Bill simply super-sizes the opportunity for fraud as these global agriculture corporations are now working both the import and export side of the aisle.

REMEMBER, WITH CORPORATIONS AND THE RICH NO LONGER PAYING TAXES YOU AND I ARE THE ONES HANDING OUR TAX REVENUE STRAIGHT INTO THE POCKET OF CORPORATE SUBSIDY!

Corporate Welfare Racket: Big Agriculture’s Crop Insurance Fraud

posted by Marcos Da Silva September 13, 2013 Current Events,

A federally subsidized crop insurance program instituted in the wake of the Dust Bowl to help protect American farmers has matured into an undesirable situation that facilitates opportunism by duplicitous growers and financial institutions, who bank on exploiting the trust of taxpayers who helplessly foot the bill.

Today’s federal crop insurance makes it dangerously easy for planters to commit fraud and hold a cavalier attitude about crops they have no incentive to maintain since they will be compensated regardless of their yield or success. Farmers need not have a vested interest in caring for their crops and may gamble on risky plantings.

The arrangement is pretty much a setup for taxpayers.

The government pays 18 approved insurance companies to run its crop insurance program, doling out $1.4 billion last year to cover the “administrative costs” incurred by these insurance companies. The government then pays farmers to buy coverage AND on top of that, it also pays the bills on losses if losses exceed predetermined limits.

And this all happens even as farm income this year is expected to top $120 billion, its highest inflation-adjusted mark since 1973, and as median commercial farm household income hits $84,649, almost 70 percent higher than that of the typical American household.

Taxpayers should not finance payments for a business sector that is more than capable of thriving on its own.

Crop Insurance Anatomy Of A Fraud

For obvious reasons, the growing insurance tab is a bipartisan target.

In a budget strained America, even diametrically opposed figures such as President Obama and Republican House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan recognize a problem with the bloated subsidized insurance program, but the farm and insurance lobbies, which spent at least $52 million influencing lawmakers in the 2012 election cycle, are resilient forces.

“We have been subsidizing some of the farmers who least need it in a way that is really costing taxpayers a lot of money,” said Senator Jeanne Shaheen, a Democrat of New Hampshire. “We’re never going to solve our budget challenges if that’s what we’re doing.”

Crop insurers say that the subsidized insurance helps stabilize food prices while protecting farmers from losses and sparing politicians from ad-hoc farm bailouts. But unlike direct farm aid payments, which are capped at $40,000 per farm, there is no limit on crop insurance subsidies.

And there is no transparency. The names of those receiving payouts from the program are kept secret. In 2011, 26 anonymous farmers each got annual subsidies of more than $1 million; and more than 10,000 received $100,000 or more. One grower of tomatoes and peppers in Florida enjoyed a subsidy of $1.9 million.

It pays to be a farmer in America.

Crop Insurance Covering Companies' CostsThe U.S. crop insurance program, intended to safeguard farmers from natural disasters, has mutated into an income support mechanism that almost eliminates risk from agriculture and helps private insurance companies benefit from public assistance.

And when it’s not the insurance companies benefitting at taxpayer expense, it’s the farmers.

By law, insurers are obligated to cover anyone who applies for crop insurance. Yet. farmers pay only about 38 percent of their insurance bills. Policies protect as much as 85 percent of a farm’s average yield, but over 70 percent of policies guarantee income rather than yield.

When last year’s drought drove corn prices to record highs, farmers with “harvest price option” policies were paid those inflated prices for what didn’t even grow — contributing to a record bill for taxpayers and record income for farmers. Taxpayers bore the burden of almost 75 percent of the 2012 insurance payouts.

And that’s not even accounting for any collusion there might be between insurance companies and farmers, or as taxpayers like to call it…

Fraud.

Exposing dangerous flaws in America’s crop insurance program in North Carolina, in 2009 it was discovered that an entire network of insurance agents, claims adjusters and farmers had been conning the government for over a decade to the tune of $100 million in taxpayer money.

Last December, Harry Dean Canady, found himself pleading guilty to defrauding the federal crop insurance system for $1 million. But Canady was the tip of the iceberg in the largest fraud in the program’s history, a case that so far has ensnared 41 North Carolina tobacco farmers, insurance agents and claims adjusters whose law breaking cost taxpayers close to $100 million.

The evidence is incontrovertible:

America’s crop insurance system is in need of serious reform.

*********************************************

There is a funny part in this article that states that there is a scheme to give fuel subsidy with food stamps that circumvents the law!!!! That's why they needed to cut. The Farm Bill is a republican one -----all the things a global corporation needs and democrats pretended it was all about the Food Stamps. Poor people are indeed often forced to hand over Food Stamps or try to sell them for money. That reflects on you and me....

House Passes Farm Bill, Crop Subsidies Preserved
By AP / Mary Clare Jalonick Jan. 29, 20143

After years of setbacks, a nearly $100 billion-a-year compromise farm bill cleared the House on Wednesday despite strong opposition from conservatives who sought a bigger cut in food stamps.

The five-year bill, which preserves generous crop subsidies, heads to the Senate, where approval seems certain. The White House said President Barack Obama would sign it.

The measure, which the House approved 251-166, had backing from the Republican leadership team, even though it makes smaller cuts to food stamps than they would have liked. After wavering for several years, the GOP leaders were seeking to put the long-stalled bill behind them and build on the success of a bipartisan budget passed earlier this month. Leaders in both parties also were hoping to bolster rural candidates in this year’s midterm elections.

House Speaker John Boehner did not cast a vote on the bill, a commonplace practice for a speaker, but he had issued a statement Monday saying it was “worthy of the House’s support.” Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., voted for the bill despite concerns from some in her caucus that the bill cut too much from the food stamp program.

The bill ultimately would cut about $800 million a year from the $80 billion-a-year food stamp program, or around 1 percent. The House had sought a 5 percent cut.

The legislation also would continue to heavily subsidize major crops for the nation’s farmers while eliminating some subsidies and shifting them toward more politically defensible insurance programs.

House Agriculture Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., called the compromise a “miracle” after trying to get the bill passed for almost three years. An early version of the legislation was defeated on the House floor last June after conservatives said the food stamp cuts were too modest and liberal Democrats said they were too deep.

The House later passed a bill with a higher, $4 billion cut, arguing at the time that the program had spiraled out of control after costs doubled in the last five years. But cuts that high were ultimately not possible after the Senate balked and the White House threatened a veto. The Senate had sought a cut of $400 million annually.

Many House conservatives still voted against the bill — 63 Republicans opposed it, one more than in June.

One of those conservative opponents was Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind. “It spends money we simply don’t have,” he said.

But 89 Democrats supported it, bolstered by the lower cut in food stamps. The top Democrat on the agriculture panel, Minnesota Rep. Collin Peterson, said he also enticed some of his colleagues with more money for fruit, vegetable and organic programs.

The final savings in the food stamp program would come from cracking down on some states that seek to boost individual food stamp benefits by giving people small amounts of federal heating assistance that they don’t need. That heating assistance, sometimes as low as $1 per person, triggers higher benefits, and some critics see that practice as circumventing the law. The compromise bill would require states to give individual recipients at least $20 in heating assistance before a higher food stamp benefit could kick in.

Some Democrats said the food stamp cut still is too high.

Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, one of the states that have boosted benefits through heating assistance, said the cut will be harmful on top of automatic food stamp cuts that went into place in November.

“I don’t know where they are going to make that up,” McGovern said.

To pass the bill, Lucas and his Senate counterpart, Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, found ways to bring many potential naysayers on board. They spent more than two years crafting the bill to appeal to members from all regions of the country. They included a boost in money for crop insurance popular in the Midwest; higher rice and peanut subsidies for Southern farmers; and renewal of federal land payments for Western states.

They also backed away from repealing a catfish program — a move that would have angered Mississippi lawmakers — and dropped House language that would have thwarted a California law requiring all eggs sold in the state to come from hens living in larger cages. Striking out that provision was a priority for California lawmakers who did not want to see the state law changed.

For those seeking reform of farm programs, the legislation would eliminate a $4.5 billion-a-year farm subsidy called direct payments, which are paid to farmers whether they farm or not. But the bill nonetheless would continue to heavily subsidize major crops — corn, soybeans, wheat, rice and cotton — while shifting many of those subsidies toward more politically defensible insurance programs. That means farmers would have to incur losses before they could get a payout.

The almost $100 billion-a-year bill would save around $1.65 billion annually overall, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The amount was less than the $2.3 billion annual savings the agriculture committees originally projected for the bill.

An aide to Lucas said the difference was due to how the CBO calculated budget savings from recent automatic across-the-board spending cuts, known as sequestration.

**********************************
Here is a local look at how ordinary farming families see this farm bill and what it does to the fabric of our US agriculture system.....Nebraska is a solidly RED state so these are views from conservatives.....who by the way want to get rid of neo-cons just as democrats want to get rid of neo-liberals.

Farm subsidies: Largest corporate welfare program Tell North Platte what you think
by The Platte Institute - 6/30/2012

Last week, the United States Senate passed a new farm bill which, among its many provisions, changes the way crop insurance is calculated, makes some changes to farm subsidies, and finances new price support programs.

While the bill still has to pass the House of Representatives, it once again raises the issue of farm subsidies and their effects on the overall economy.

Farm subsidies first began during the Great Depression when Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt enacted price floors and began paying farmers not to grow crops in order to deal with oversupply and stop prices from falling.

Since then, Congress has passed similar farm bills sustaining these subsidies approximately every five years, resulting in a gross distortion of the agricultural markets.

These subsidies were originally intended to help small family farmers from bankruptcy due to falling commodity prices, but they have since become America's largest corporate welfare program.

Farm subsidies are awarded based upon the type of crop grown - with 90 percent being awarded for growing corn, wheat, rice, cotton, and soybeans - and the amount of crop grown, with high producers receiving higher subsidies. This means that most subsidies go not to the family farmer who could face bankruptcy in the event of a bad yield, but instead go to large farms and agribusinesses who can afford to produce the favored crops in massive quantities.

The corporate welfare nature of farm subsidies becomes clear when one examines exactly where the subsidies go. Nebraska currently receives $239 million in direct payment subsidies, the seventh-highest payment in the nation.

Those payments go to the 73.2 percent of all Nebraska farmers who collect government subsidies.

Of those 73.2 percent, 10 percent collected 62 percent of all subsidies awarded in the state. The top 10 percent of subsidized farmers in Nebraska collected an average of $35,752 per year in subsidies between 1995 and 2010, while the bottom 80 percent of Nebraska's subsidized farmers collected an average of $1,334 per year in subsidies over the same time period.

Adding to the idea that farm subsidies are far from a "safety net" is that fact that Nebraska farmers are currently seeing record-high farm income. In 2011, the net total farm income was $5.4 billion, a 35 percent increase over 2010, a year where farmers already saw their income increase 49 percent from 2009.

Farm income accounted for one-third of the state's income growth in 2011. On a national level, 2010 Census data indicates that the average farm household income was 25 percent higher than the average for all U.S. taxpayers.

On top of all this, some of the subsidies go to organizations that do not use farming as their primary income, further diminishing the role of subsidies as a last resort safety net.

For example, between 1995 and 2010, the 19th largest recipient of farm subsidies in the state of Nebraska was the University of Nebraska Board of Regents, who received $2,797,796 in subsidies from the federal government over those 15 years.

Nebraskans must recognize that we do not need subsidies to have a thriving agricultural sector.

The example of New Zealand shows that when a country eliminates subsidies it can actually create innovation which improves the economic health of the agricultural sector. In 1984, the New Zealand government subsidized 44 percent of all sheep farming, meaning that although farmers sold lamb for $30, it was only actually worth $12.50 in the international marketplace with the government making up the difference.

That same year New Zealand eliminated their sheep farming subsidies. By 1989, after changing how they produced, processed, and sold their product, New Zealand farmers found a new market for their lamb and began selling it for $30 without government assistance. By 1999, the price had increased to $115.

Far from providing a safety net to small farmers - something that is better provided through things like crop and disaster insurance - farm subsidies have become tools for corporate welfare, taking taxpayer money and giving it to organizations that do not need it.

Nebraskans should encourage their federal representatives to end farm subsidies and allow farmers to be independent from the government.

0 Comments

December 10th, 2013

12/10/2013

0 Comments

Breaking the Glass Steagall wall and NAFTA started this mess and now TPP seeks to make it a disaster-----in Maryland we have BEN CARDIN, ELIJIAH CUMMINGS, SARBANES SR, NANCY PELOSI, AND STENY HOYER TO THANK FOR THIS MESS. They voted for all of these global market policies knowing it would create this totalitarian structure!

“The Obama administration appears to have almost no international support for controversial new trade standards that would grant radical new political powers to corporations, increase the cost of prescription medications and restrict bank regulation…”

For the full article: http://huff.to/IzVNyz
For more info: www.ExposeTheTPP.org

Talking about the Affordable Care Act and how it will take people's ability to access most health care away is directly tied to the TPP. I spoke of Obama and neo-liberals deliberately forcing the world to create higher prices for PHARMA but they are doing something more dangerous to your health----the World Health Organization takes exception to just about everything the World Trade Organization is doing. It not only harms people's health, it is creating a disaster of epic proportion as the US spreads food policy that will cripple world food production, control access to food markets, and kill people with food-born disease-vectors.

THIS IS NOT HYPERBOLE AND YOUR NEO-LIBERAL IS PUSHING THESE POLICIES!

FROM BALTIMORE CITY HALL, TO THE MARYLAND ASSEMBLY, TO CONGRESS AND OBAMA-----NEO-LIBERALS ARE CREATING POLICY THAT PLACES PROFIT OVER LIFE.

I would like to note that the article below came with a DO NOT COPY OR DISTRIBUTE WARNING....NOTICE IT IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT ON FOOD AND TRADE------NOT TOP-SECRET. Please go to this document and see the structuring of US food policy and how it takes the US to developing world standards and defines HARM in ways that make it impossible for the public to seek justice just as they claim they have done with the legal term of 'FRAUD'.....OH, THAT'S TOO VAGUE TO BE PROVEN THEY SAY OF OUTRIGHT HARM!

FOOD FIGHT The U.S., Europe, and Trade in Hormone-treated Beef

Charan Devereaux, Robert Lawrence and Michael Watkins

Case Studies in United States Trade Negotiation: Vol 2 Resolving Disputes (Washington DC: Institute for International Economics) 2006

The Trans-Pacific Partnership Would Undermine Food Safety

The TPP would require us to import meat and poultry that do not meet U.S. food safety standards.
The TPP would require us to allow food imports if the exporting country claims that their safety regime is "equivalent" to our own, even if it violates the key principles of our food safety laws. These rules would effectively outsource domestic food inspection to other countries.

Under TPP, any U.S. food safety rule on pesticides, labeling or additives that is higher than international standards would be subject to challenge as "illegal trade barriers." The U.S. would be required to eliminate these rules and allow in the unsafe food, or we would face trade sanctions.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration already inspects less than 1% of all seafood imports for health hazards. Entering into the TPP with Malaysia and Vietnam, both TPP negotiating parties and major seafood exporters, would increase seafood imports and further overwhelm inspectors' limited ability to ensure the safety of our food. Some TPP countries have serious shrimp and fish safety issues. For example, even with the minimal inspections, high levels of contaminants have been found in Vietnam's seafood.

Under the TPP, food labels could also be challenged as "trade barriers." The TPP would impose limits on labels providing information on where a food product comes from. The TPP also would endanger labels identifying genetically modified foods and labels identifying how food was produced. TPP would expand the limits on consumer labels already included in existing "trade" agreements, like the World Trade Organization (WTO). But already under the WTO, the U.S. dolphin-safe tuna fish label and our country-of-origin meat and poultry labels have been successfully attacked by other countries. And, under TPP, a foreign meat processing or food corporation operating within the United States could directly challenge our policies that they claim undermine their expected future profits - meaning a barrage of new attacks.

____________________________________________
Imagine a VISIGOTH-class of lying, cheating, and stealing people wanting only to get richer sitting around a table saying-----THERE ARE TOO MANY PEOPLE IN THE WORLD TAKING TOO MUCH OF OUR WEALTH TO SUPPORT. What would they do to get rid of them? They would ignore all of the scientific research that says using antibiotics and hormones in meat will make people susceptible to mass disease resistance-----as is happening with food crops----and expand the practice all over the world selling it cheaply to the world's lower/middle class.

IF YOU KNOW YOU ARE CREATING A SITUATION OF HARMING YOUR CITIZEN'S ABILITY TO FIGHT DISEASE AND YOU PLACE THAT SITUATION ON STEROIDS-----YOU ARE AN EVIL-DOER!

The TPP has Obama and neo-liberals demanding that the world not only open their markets to US anti-biotic/hormone meat but is teaching nations how to use it in their countries to maximize meat sales.

This is only my opinion as I cannot say this meeting around a table happened-----but the proof is in the pudding----the meat pudding.

ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE – a global food safety problem
Richard Lawley | September 23, 2013 Food Safety Watch

The development of antibiotics in the 1940s led to a revolution in the treatment of infectious diseases. But after more than 60 years of use and misuse, many antibiotics have lost much of their effectiveness as bacteria develop resistance to them. This situation has arisen partly as a result of overuse in clinical medicine, but also as a consequence of the huge quantities of antibiotics used in agriculture, not only to treat infections in animals, but also to increase productivity in the meat industry by promoting animal growth. Antibiotic-resistance is now recognised as a global public health issue and as major food safety problem. Although the EU has taken action to tackle antibiotic resistance, many other countries have not. As demand for cheap meat rises in developing economies, what can the food industry do to help postpone the arrival of a ‘post-antibiotic era’ in medicine?

There is no doubt that the widespread availability of antibiotics since the 1940s has saved the lives of countless people who might otherwise have fallen victim to what are now considered minor bacterial infections. Unfortunately that very availability has also led to decades of what is now considered to be reckless overuse of antibiotics in medicine and in agriculture. The result has been that bacterial pathogens have been continuously exposed to antibiotics for a considerable time and have developed resistance to them. Many antibiotics have become less and less useful as therapeutic agents as resistance in microbial populations has increased. The situation has now reached crisis point as the armoury of effective antimicrobial drugs is depleted and there are worryingly few alternatives in the development pipeline to re-stock it. The World Health Organisation (WHO) now regards antibiotic-resistance as a “global threat”, stating that more than 25,000 people die each year in the EU of infections caused by antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

The development and spread of resistance

Antibiotic-resistance is not only a threat to public health but has also become an important food safety issue. This has come about largely because of the widespread use of antimicrobial drugs in agriculture. In many countries, notably the USA, it is estimated that more than half of all antibiotics produced are used by agriculture. Much of the demand is for therapeutic drugs used to treat bacterial diseases like mastitis and respiratory and enteric infections in livestock, but antibiotics are also used at sub-therapeutic levels, both to prevent infection and as animal growth promoters. This latter phenomenon was discovered in the USA more than 60 years ago when poultry fed on the by-products of a fermentation process to produce tetracycline were found to gain weight more rapidly than normal. The mechanism responsible for this effect is still not understood, but may have something to do with the suppression of the normal gut microflora allowing greater nutrient uptake by the animal. The discovery led to widespread incorporation of antibiotics into animal feed at sub-therapeutic levels from the 1950s onwards – a practice that was highly successful in increasing productivity and feed efficiency. In the USA, the quantity of antibiotics used as growth promoters rose by a factor of fifty between 1951 and 1978, while therapeutic use in humans and animals increased only tenfold over the same period. Similar patterns were reported in other countries where intensive livestock farming was developing. At the same time, it became apparent that bacterial isolates from animals and humans were rapidly becoming more resistant to commonly used antibiotics. One report published in the UK in 1961 showed that the proportion of E. coli isolates from poultry resistant to tetracycline rose from 3.5% to 63.2% in the four-year period after the antibiotic’s introduction in 1957.

How did the dramatic increase in tetracycline resistance seen in the UK in the late fifties happen so fast? At least part of the answer lies in the mechanisms by which antibiotic resistance arises and then spreads in bacterial populations. Bacterial cells can acquire resistance through a mutation in the DNA of the genome. When the mutated cell is in the presence of an antibiotic to which it carries resistance it has a considerable competitive advantage over susceptible cells, which die out. In this way the resistance gene quickly becomes dominant in the population. But resistance is more often acquired through genes located on plasmids and other mobile DNA fragments passing from one cell to another (horizontal transmission). The two cells need not be of the same species and it is also possible for more than one resistance gene to be transmitted on the same fragment of DNA, since they are often co-located. This means that a bacterial cell can acquire co-resistance to several different antibiotics in a single horizontal transmission event. In this way, multiple-resistance can spread very rapidly through mixed microbial communities, which are able to thrive when the antibiotics concerned are present. In other words, the presence of the antibiotic in the environment selects for resistance genes in the bacterial population.

Concerns for the food industry

The WHO considers that the food supply chain plays an important part in the dissemination of antibiotic-resistant bacteria from animals into the human population. Animal products like raw and cured meats, eggs, unpasteurised dairy products and farmed fish are all potential vehicles for transmission, as is fresh produce contaminated by agricultural animal waste through irrigation or manuring. Furthermore, the global extent of modern food and feed supply chains provides a mechanism for the rapid spread of antibiotic-resistant strains around the world. For the food industry, the development of antibiotic resistance is a particular safety hazard when it occurs in bacterial pathogens that can be transmitted from animals to humans (zoonoses).

Some of the most common agents of foodborne disease are zoonoses, including Salmonella, Campylobacter and verocytotoxigenic E. coli (VTEC). Strains of all these pathogens showing resistance to multiple antibiotics have arisen over the last 30 years and have been involved in serious food poisoning outbreaks. One of the best known examples is Salmonella Typhimurium definitive phage type (DT) 104. S. Typhimurium DT104 isolates are typically resistant to five types of antibiotic: ampicillin, chloramphenicol, streptomycin, sulfonamides, and tetracycline. The pathogen was first isolated in the UK in the 1980s and was later discovered to be endemic in cattle, which acted as a reservoir for contamination of meat production. It then spread worldwide with alarming speed during the 1990s and is now common, especially in Europe and North America. S. Typhimurium DT104 has also shown a worrying ability to acquire resistance to other types of antibiotic, including the clinically important fluoroquinolones and cephalosporins.

Other foodborne pathogens of special concern are strains of Campylobacter resistant to the fluoroquinolone antimicrobial drug ciprofloxacin, which is an important therapeutic drug used to treat human infection and is sometimes used in the treatment of gastrointestinal disease. It has emerged that the use of enrofloxacin, another fluoroquinolone, in food animals has resulted in the development of resistance to ciprofloxacin in Campylobacter and in Salmonella. The notably virulent strain of E. coli O104:H4, which caused the major fatal outbreak of infection in Germany in 2011, was resistant to a number of antibiotics, including ampicillin, trimethoprim, cephalosporins and tetracycline. It was also found to possess a plasmid-borne gene for extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) production. E. coli strains with the ESBL gene are often resistant to a wide range of important therapeutic antibiotics and infections are notoriously difficult to treat. They are most common in urinary tract infections, but the presence of ESBL in foodborne pathogens is an emerging concern. The best known of all antibiotic resistant bacteria, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA, has also been turning up occasionally in livestock and foods of animal origin. According to the WHO there is evidence that antibiotic resistance in Salmonella has been “associated with more frequent and longer hospitalisation, longer illness, a higher risk of invasive infection and a twofold increase in the risk of death in the two years after infection.” Infections by resistant Campylobacter strains are also linked to a greater risk of invasive illness.

The most recent surveillance report for antibiotic resistance in zoonotic bacteria was published earlier this year by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and by the European Centre for Disease Control (ECDC). The data presented in the report comes from 26 EU member states and three other countries and was collected in 2010. It shows that antibiotic resistance was common in Salmonella, Campylobacter and E. coli isolates from animals and food samples. Of special concern is the high proportion of isolates, especially from poultry, resistant to ciprofloxacin. Resistance to ciprofloxacin, nalidixic acid and tetracyclines in Campylobacter isolates from meat and animals was found at levels from 21% to 84%.

Current strategies

Considering how long ago the problem of antibiotic resistance was first recognised, governments have been almost glacially slow in addressing it. The first warning was contained in a report produced by a UK government committee in 1969. The Swann Report recommended that antibiotics used in human medicine should not be used as growth promoters and advised that a committee should be set up to review and authorise antibiotic use. These recommendations were eventually followed, but not until almost thirty years later. At the time the report was largely ignored. The use of antibiotic growth promoters continued worldwide until 1986, when the practice was banned in Sweden. As research uncovered more about the dangers of unrestricted antibiotic use in food animals, other countries began to take action, notably Denmark. Measures were also introduced at EU level as concerns grew, and all antibiotic growth promoters were finally withdrawn in 2006. Nevertheless, there is evidence that in some Eastern European countries, antibiotics are still widely available without prescription and could be being used by farmers. Additionally, large quantities of antibiotics continue to be used to prevent and treat diseases in food animals.

The steps taken in the EU have not been replicated elsewhere in the world, even though the WHO also recommends that antibiotic growth promoters be banned or quickly phased out. The USA is one of the biggest meat-producing nations and has yet to ban growth promoters despite prolonged campaigns by consumer groups and others. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is the body responsible for regulating antibiotic use, but although it has expressed a wish to see growth promoters phased out, action has been limited. For example, in 2000 the FDA proposed the banning of enrofloxacin use in poultry, but legal challenges delayed the measure until 2005. The US meat industry is a powerful lobby and is reluctant to accept the banning of antibiotic growth promoters for economic reasons. The issue is controversial and has led to the commissioning of a large body of research into the effectiveness or otherwise of banning growth promoters as a means of controlling the development of antibiotic resistance.

Nevertheless there is evidence from countries where bans have been in place for some time. A WHO expert panel has studied the effect of the withdrawal of antibiotic growth promoters from food animals in Denmark on human health, animal health, animal production and the national economy. The panel focused on pig and poultry production and found a significant decrease over 10 years in the prevalence of enterococci resistant to glycopeptide antibiotics previously used as growth promoters. They also found a 50% drop in the use of antibiotics in pig production, both as a result of withdrawing growth promoters and a policy to reduce the use of therapeutic antibiotics by improvements in animal husbandry. Over the same period, pig productivity improved significantly. So it seems that the use of growth promoters can be discontinued and the risk to human health reduced, without long term damage to the economics of food animal production. Similar effects have been reported in Sweden and in Norway, where the fish-farming sector has been very effective in reducing antibiotic use. But in the EU as a whole the prevalence of antibiotic resistant bacteria in food and animals has remained more or less unchanged since growth promoters were withdrawn in 2006. One reason for this may be the persistence of resistance genes in the bacterial population even when the antibiotic concerned is removed from the environment. It may take several more years before the effects become clear.

Reducing antibiotic use

A wide range of policy measures has been developed to tackle the problem of antibiotic resistance in bacteria in the food chain. The elimination of antibiotic growth promoters in food animals is just one of these. Other regulatory measures recommended by WHO include ensuring that antibiotics can only be given to animals when prescribed by a veterinarian, and ensuring that important clinical drugs like fluoroquinolones are only administered to treat animals when their use is fully justified. There are also important steps that can be taken to reduce the need for therapeutic antibiotics in animals, including improving animal health and preventing disease by better biosecurity and vaccination programmes, and by improving on-farm hygiene practices. WHO also points out that there may be economic incentives to prescribe antibiotics inappropriately, which should be eliminated. Finally, better surveillance is needed to determine the real usage of antibiotics in animals and to track the prevalence of resistance in foodborne bacteria. The EFSA surveillance report shows how much useful information can be revealed by this method, but the results suggest significant variation in the effectiveness of surveillance programmes in different countries. There is room for improvement.

It is clear that the development of resistance in bacterial pathogens is a major public health hazard, which threatens to make antibiotics virtually redundant as treatments for infection, with potentially catastrophic results. Whether antibiotic use in food animals is a major factor in this development is a more contentious issue. The evidence suggests not only that it has an important role, but also that antibiotic use in food animals can be cut dramatically without rendering the industry economically unviable. It seems an obvious and important way forward, but given that it is now 43 years since the Swann report was published, it seems unlikely that any solution will be a speedy one.

References

Tackling antibiotic resistance from a food safety perspective in Europe
World Health Organisation, Regional Office for Europe, 2011

The EU summary report on antimicrobial resistance in zoonotic and indicator bacteria from humans, animals and food in 2010
EFSA Scientific Report, March 2012

________________________________________
Who can tell that placing food production in the hands of global agri-businesses is a bad thing? EVERYONE. So, when the WTO says it helps solve the food crisis, we say------global food corporations are causing the food crisis for goodness sake!

Let's look at the mid-west. The aquifers in the mid-west have been pumped dry because of sending US food all over the world rather than having the policy of developing food growth in developing worlds. Ship food aid------grow corn for bio-fuel----turn arid land into farmland -----all policies that allowed agri-businesses to go global while destroying the US environment. That's not bad enough say neo-liberals. We need to use GMO products to eliminate variety in food sources and poison living creatures needed for the health of food products. So, the US has ravaged aquifers with the threat of an end to local fresh water supply, it has dying insects needed for pollination and plant health because plants with GMO have systemic poison that kills all insects, we have GMO crops around the world failing because of blight caused by resistance to GMO by fungal and viral diseases. The US agri-business and investment firms are buying fertile land all over the world to make the world's population dependent on the 1% for food and water.

DON'T WORRY THE 1% SAY----WE ARE DO-GOODERS ONLY LOOKING OUT FOR OUR FELLOW MAN------HOW COULD ANYTHING GO WRONG!

So, the same people creating food, water, and land crises are telling us they have the solution-----LET'S HAND ALL OF THE ABOVE TO THE 1% TO HANDLE THROUGH INTERNATIONAL TRADE TRIBUNALS!

NEO-LIBERALS AND NEO-CONS ARE ALL ABOUT WEALTH AND PROFIT AT THE EXPENSE OF LABOR AND JUSTICE. ALL OF MARYLAND'S POLS ARE NEO-LIBERALS HAVING WORKED TO CREATE THIS MESS.

HUMMMMMM.....these trade articles saying that international trade in food has brought down food prices. Let's see, prices for nuts in America have soared since exporting started.....Americans are being told to eat less meat as the prices become too expensive to afford because of exporting....going to Whole Foods for organics protected from anti-biotics/hormones/GMO all tied with global trade now costs your whole paycheck as the saying goes. THEY ARE LYING.

International trade helps solve food crisis: WTO

By Jonathan Lynn

GENEVA Sun May 10, 2009 3:33pm EDT REUTERS

Pascal Lamy, Director-General of the World Trade Organization (WTO), attends the European Business Summit in Brussels March 26, 2009.

Credit: Reuters/Eric Vidal

(Reuters) - International trade is part of the solution to the global food crisis and not one of its causes, the head of the World Trade Organization said on Sunday.

Global integration represented by trade enabled food to be transported from where it could be produced efficiently to where there was demand, said WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy.

Geography meant many countries -- Egypt, for example -- could never be self-sufficient in food, he said in a speech prepared for an International Food and Agricultural Trade Policy Council conference in Salzburg, Austria.

"International trade was not the source of last year's food crisis," Lamy said.

"If anything, international trade has reduced the price of food over the years through greater competition, and enhanced consumer purchasing power."

Sharp rises in food prices in 2007 and 2008 led to riots in many countries over food shortages.

Prices have since come off their peaks but many experts argued agricultural trade exacerbated the problem and was not in the interest of poor farmers or consumers in poor countries.

Lamy said Olivier De Schutter, the United Nations special rapporteur on the right to food, had condemned an excessive reliance on trade in the pursuit of food security, while some farmers' groups had also called for greater self-sufficiency.

Trade could not be behind the volatility in food prices, as agriculture accounts for less than 10 percent of world trade, while only 25 percent of world farm output is traded globally, compared with 50 percent of industrial goods, Lamy said.

"To suggest that less trade, and greater self-sufficiency, are the solutions to food security, would be to argue that trade was itself to blame for the crisis," he said.

Lamy said the sensitive nature of food meant agriculture received special treatment in international trade rules compared with industrial goods such as shirts or tires.

Developing countries were becoming more competitive in farm trade, with agricultural exports from developing to developed countries rising 11 percent a year between 2000 and 2007, faster than the 9 percent growth in trade in the other direction.

Although millions continue to suffer from hunger, the share of personal incomes spent on food in the poorest countries was declining, Lamy said.

________________________________________________

For those wondering how US meat industry and processing plants returned to Sinclair's 'The Jungle', the document below describes the governmental dismantling of a first world food inspection and food safety system to a level of developing world acceptance. Now, this document gives the impression that the developed world will help other nations come to better standards, but as we know in the US......we have fallen to developing world standards. TPP places this liberalism on steroids taking away most sovereign regulations across the board and leaving a broad definition of what constitutes scientific proof public harm is being done. Consider that Penn State provides research that says fracking chemicals do not harm to public health and that a study of the effects of coffee and caffeine paid for by Starbucks shows that you can drink several cups of coffee every day without harm-----it is good for you they say! When universities are made into corporations the research is no longer in the public interest.....the research will be used to make it impossible for the public to prove HARM.

For most health advocates the most criminal of food policies lie with US meat contamination with antibiotics and hormones......known to be harming human health and being exported to nations around the world not wanting the stuff. Obama is making the acceptance of antibiotic and hormone meat, just as he is demanding GMO food be allowed as part of these International Trade Agreements. This is why you are seeing wide-spread national laws being passed to stop chemically tainted meat and GMO as hazardous to the health of humans.

NATIONS AROUND THE WORLD ARE LEGISLATING TO PROTECT THEIR CITIZENS FROM UNITED STATES FOOD POLICY!

Neo-liberals and neo-cons are pushing policy that will kill people en masse because they could care less about people as they work to maximize profit!

FOR FOOD, AGRICULTURE,AND THE ENVIRONMENTFOCUS10 • BRIEF5OF17 • SEPTEMBER2003FOODSAFETY INFOODSECURITYANDFOODTRADE

Food Safety Issues in International TradeSPENCERHENSONWhile not trade measures per se, food safety regulationsand standards can impede trade and significantly affectthe ability of developing countries to access markets, particularlyin industrialized countries (see Brief 6 for examples). In part, thisreflects the growing use of these measures globally in responseto the rapid increase in scientific and technical understanding offood-borne hazards to human health (see Brief 4).In extreme cases, countries are denied access to exportmarkets: their exports may be banned from other countriesbecause they fail to meet food safety standards, or the costs ofcompliance may be prohibitively high. Outright bans are mostlyapplied as temporary measures when acute food safety issuesare identified (see the account of Nile perch exports fromKenya to the European Union in Brief 8). Even when exporterscan comply with food safety requirements, their competitivenessrelative to other exporters may be diminished because of theirrelatively high compliance costs (see Briefs 7 and 9). Bothmacro- and microeconomic effects of food safety regulations canbe extremely damaging for export-oriented countries.In developing countries compliance may require action byboth government and individual exporters. Introducing certifica-tion procedures would be a government action, for example,while improving hygiene in processing facilities would be a pri-vate action.Typically, the less developed a country, the higher thecosts of compliance, since its food safety capacity and regula-tions tend to be less strict.Most of the effects of food safety requirements on tradestem from government regulation. It is increasingly recognizedthat voluntary food safety standards can also impede trade (seeBrief 12). Exporters may comply voluntarily with establishedstandards because customers require it or to meet food safetyregulations. If such standards are so widely applied that in effectthey become mandatory within a product market, exportersmay have little or no choice but to comply.The case studies in this set of briefs show how food safetyrequirements have affected exports of fish, groundnuts, meat,grains, and fresh fruits and vegetables. In some cases, exportershave been unable to gain market access because of stiff require-ments; in others, existing export flows are threatened or cur-tailed by new regulations.Food safety requirements in export markets can have a pro-found impact on the way that supply chains for agricultural andfood products in developing countries operate. For example, evi-dence suggests that exporters of fresh vegetables in Kenya haveresponded to stricter pesticide controls in the European Unionby procuring from a few large commercial farmers who are easi-er to oversee than numerous small-scale producers. Similarly,the European Union’s stricter hygiene requirements for fish andfishery products have induced the Indian shrimp sector toemploy a permanent workforce instead of casual labor.THE SPS AGREEMENTTo establish and enforce rules regarding the application of foodsafety, the Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement of theWorld Trade Organization (WTO) permits countries to takelegitimate measures to protect the life and health of consumers(as well as animals and plants), provided such measures can bejustified scientifically and do not unnecessarily impede trade.The Agreement requires that risks be kept to an acceptablelevel, however. WTO members are asked to accept the foodsafety measures of other members if they impose an equivalentlevel of protection. Before any new measure is implemented, aformal notification must be submitted through the WTO and aminimum period provided for comments from other members.The SPS Agreement makes specific reference to internation-al standards as the benchmark against which national measuresare judged. In the case of food safety, the key international stan-dard-setting body is the Codex Alimentarius Commission. Theinternational harmonization of food safety measures potentiallybenefits developing countries, although many do not have thecapacity to participate effectively in the Codex Alimentarius.Consequently international standards may fail to take adequateaccount of their needs and special circumstances (see Brief 11).Given that developing countries typically implement lessstrict food safety regulations and standards than industrializedcountries, in principle the SPS Agreement should help to facili-tate trade by improving transparency, promoting harmonization,and preventing the implementation of measures that cannot bejustified scientifically. Much depends, however, on the ability ofdeveloping countries to effectively participate in the reformedtrade arena.The Agreement itself tries to facilitate this byacknowledging the problems that developing countries face incomplying with SPS measures and allowing for special and differ-ential treatment. For example, members are instructed to takeaccount of the special needs of developing countries, particularlythe least developed, when adopting food safety and other SPSmeasures. Such needs might include extended time for meetingnew standards or the provision of technical assistance.Implementation issues—many involving the SPSAgreement—for developing countries were negotiated prior tothe 2001 Doha meeting of the WTO. Participants agreed that(1) better guidelines are needed to help establish equivalent reg-ulations in different countries; (2) to encourage participation instandard setting, developing countries will receive assistancefrom five major international organizations; and (3) developingcountries should receive financial and technical assistance, forexample to facilitate participation in international standard-set-ting organization
CONSTRAINTS TO COMPLIANCEConsiderable investment is required to enhance food safetycapacity in developing countries, in order to comply with regula-tory requirements in export markets and in the SPS Agreement.Given that industrialized countries largely set the standards thatapply in world trade, the burden of retooling often falls heavieston developing countries. Moreover, at the current time manydeveloping countries lack the necessary capacity to use the pro-visions of the SPS Agreement to defend their exports againstquestionable food safety measures or to justify the food safetyrequirements they apply to imports.Capacity to implement effective food safety controls is ofvital importance to agricultural and food exports from develop-ing countries. For example, importing countries frequentlyrequire guarantees that minimum standards of hygiene havebeen applied in the manufacture of a food product or that freshfruits and vegetables do not have excessive residues of pesti-cides. The exporting country must be able to comply with theserequirements and to demonstrate that compliance has beenachieved. While basic scientific and technical infrastructure isclearly vital, administrative structures, management, financing, andhuman capital are also important elements. Indeed, the experi-ences of many countries suggest that the lack of efficient man-agement or sustainable levels of resources can seriously com-promise the effectiveness of food safety controls.The role of the private sector is often neglected in discus-sions of national food safety capacity. Often, however, it isthrough the specific actions of individual producers and proces-sors that compliance with food safety requirements is achieved.An example is the application of Hazard Analysis CriticalControl Point (HACCP) approaches and other hygienic prac-tices by private enterprises in the production, processing, andhandling of agricultural and food products. Further, capacitybuilding in the private sector can complement, and indeed maybe a substitute for, the development of public sector capacity.An example is investment in laboratory testing facilities. In anumber of developing countries, the private sector has estab-lished its own laboratories, either within individual enterprisesor through an industry organization, because public capacity isinsufficient to meet SPS requirements in export markets.In many developing countries a multitude of governmentministries, departments, and agencies are involved in food safetymatters. Furthermore, the responsibilities of these various partsof government are often not clearly defined or they overlap inresponsibilities. Poor communication and coordination areother problems. As a consequence, administrative response tochanging food safety requirements in export markets can beslow and bureaucratic. Therefore, while changes in food safetyrequirements may be communicated well ahead of time, thereare numerous examples of developing countries struggling tocomply at the last minute.In certain circumstances the structure and modus operandiof production systems and supply channels for agricultural andfood products in developing countries may be incompatible withfood safety requirements in industrialized country markets orthey may impose greater costs of compliance. For example, sup-ply chains with large numbers of small-scale producers or inter-mediaries can be difficult to coordinate and control. Further-more, traditional methods of production may conflict with highlydeveloped food safety requirements and, in the most extremecases, are prohibitively expensive. In turn, compliance with SPSrequirements in export markets can induce changes in produc-tion systems and supply channels.CONCLUSIONSFood safety regulations and standards are increasingly influencingthe ability of developing countries to access markets for agricul-tural and food products, particularly in industrialized countries.The rudimentary and outdated food safety controls of manydeveloping countries may provide adequate protection to thedomestic population, but they are ill-equipped to meet exportmarket requirements. Further, developing nations are unable toparticipate effectively in the international institutions that haveevolved to establish global food standards and provide rules forthe implementation of national measures. However, countriesor private suppliers that invest in the required capacity to meetchanging food safety standards may enjoy a strategic advantage.A number of intergovernmental agencies (such as the Foodand Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the WorldHealth Organization, and the World Bank) and national donorshave provided technical assistance to enhance food safety capaci-ty in developing countries. The WTO’s SPS Committee attemptsto monitor these efforts and to provide a mechanism throughwhich developing countries can channel their requests for assis-tance. It has also tried to address developing countries’ con-cerns about the provisions of the SPS Agreement and how theyare being applied by WTO member countries. The internationalstandard-setting organizations have also explored ways toincrease participation of developing countries in their activities.In many countries, however, capacity for food safety remains farbelow international standards, and food safety requirementscontinue to act as a significant barrier to markets of industrial-ized countries.■For further reading see S. J. Henson and J.Wilson,Understanding the Nature of Sanitary and PhytosanitaryCapacity, (Washington, D.C.:World Bank, 2002); S. J. Henson,R. J. Loader,A. Swinbank, M. Bedahl, and N. Lux,Impact ofSanitary and Phytosanitary Measures on Developing Countries,(Reading, UK: Centre for Food Economics Research,University of Reading, 2000); IICA (Inter-American Institutefor Co-operation in Agriculture),Food Safety in InternationalAgricultural Trade (Costa Rica, 1999).Spencer Henson (shenson@uoguelph.ca) is an associate professor in the Department of Agricultural Economics and Business, University of Guelph, Canada

0 Comments

August 06th, 2014

April 22nd, 2014

February 27th, 2014

January 30th, 2014

December 10th, 2013

Author

Archives

Categories