FSIS seeks comments on melamine investigation

A Federal Register document from the Food Safety and Inspection Service details the decision-making process that FSIS followed related to pet food scraps fed to swine and poultry that contained melamine and melamine-related compounds.

This document provides the public an opportunity to comment on those FSIS decisions. An advance copy is available by clicking here. The document will publish in the May 30, 2007, edition of the Federal Register.

Comments to the Federal Register associated with the FSIS issuance must be received by Aug. 28, 2007. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: This Web site provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on this Web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. In the "Search for Open Regulations" box, select "Food Safety and Inspection Service" from the agency drop-down menu, then click on "Submit." In the Docket ID column, select FDMS Docket Number FSIS-2007-0018 to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically.
  
  
• Mail, including floppy disks or CD-ROMs, and hand-or courier-delivered items: Send to Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, 300 12th Street, SW, Room 102 Cotton Annex, Washington, DC 20250.
  
  
• Electronic mail: FSIS.RegulationsComments@usda.gov.
  
  All submissions received by mail or electronic mail must include the Agency name and docket number FSIS-2007-0018. All comments submitted in response to this notice, as well as research and background information used by FSIS in developing this document, will be available for public inspection in the FSIS Docket Room at the address listed above between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Comments will also be posted on the agency's Web site.

USDA restructuring? Sounds good? Not a chance.

In another turn of events Rep. Colin Peterson, head of the House Ag Committee is saying he might call for a restructuring of USDA. Read about that here.

40 words in Farm Bill remove state's rights - You better make your voice heard on this one

Folks,

Of late things in Washington have been moving fast, too fast for a Congress that does not read the bills they pass. Certain people want certain outcomes in the Farm Bill, like making NAIS mandatory while requiring Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) and other legislation. Those certain people seem to be the ones who have so much power that there is no official oversight to their doings. Read this and see what I mean. [I've added my emphasis]

Provision would strip States of Control

The House Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy and Poultry passed on the full committee on Thursday a briefly-worded provision that could have huge ramifications for the abilities of state and local governments to effectively oversee anything involving agriculture.

[This takes away states rights to make decisions regarding agriculture - anything USDA wants USDA is going to get]

Under the heading Miscellaneous Provisions, Sec. 123 USDA Inspection and Determination of Non-Regulated Status, the subcommittee approved a provision that would ban a state or locality from "prohibiting an article the Secretary of Agriculture [ Mike Johanns] has inspected and passed, or an article the Secretary has determined to be of non-regulated status."

The provision passed on to the full committee without discussion.[Without discussion?]

It's a brief statement that, based on the interpretation, could prevent a state from establishing rules tighter than USDA or protecting the interests of local producers. It would seem as well the tiny provision would also tell states they don't have any right adopt food-safety or recall standards.

This proposed restriction on the rights of states is being offered at the same time dozens of lawmakers are pushing to allow state-inspected meat to be sold across the country. So on one hand, Congress is trying to clamp down on they way a state can regulate and on the other hand, Congress wants to give states more authority over meat inspections. [A la Hydra the many headed serpent]

The Center for Food Safety was about the only group to challenge the intent of this proposal. The center stated in a news alert that the provision appears to be aimed at enacted state laws that restrict the planting of genetically engineered crops. Further, the provision could prohibit states from taking action when food contamination cases occur, the center pointed out.

This biotech battle in a variety of states. Some, such as Iowa, Nebraska and others have passed legislation making sure local counties cannot adopt their own biotech planting bans. Voters in at least four California counties passed such measures, leading biotech seed and chemical companies to go into action and get lawmakers to make sure such bans could not occur in major biotech crop states.

Still, states in recent years have had to take action to protect the interests of markets, even when USDA has approved a product. Rice, in particular, comes to mind. Lawmakers in Arkansas, Missouri and California have created legislation against biotech rice because USDA approved a product that, if grown, would have caused major international or domestic commodity buyers to stop buying rice from those states. In other situations, USDA regulators didn't do enough to ensure companies prevented the spread of an unapproved product into the general crop planting. Arkansas, not exactly a bastion of liberal, locally-grown, organic consumerism, had to take action because two of its best varieties of long-grain rice were contaminated. European countries have continued to kick back shipments because of that.

It's not known at this point why this provision was added or ended up in the purview of a subcommittee on livestock, poultry or dairy. But if such a law is needed and would effectively strip authority from states and counties to follow the wishes of voters or the needs of their farmers, then shouldn't such a proposal demand a hearing, open debate and discussion before Congress offers a new, broad power to the Secretary of Agriculture with fewer than 40 words in the farm bill? [Can't you just read the headline? "Agriculture Czar Johanns said today...".

#####

Can you sense the duplicity in Washington, DC? Who is keeping your best interests at heart? Sadly the answer is NO ONE. The Farm Bill is being decided by revolving door, business to government agency bureaucrats. Iraq is just a distraction while those in Congress are taking away your rights. They just took away state's rights to decide on agriculture issues for their counties and towns, Who gets to set policy for states if the Farm Bill passes? The USDA's Secretary of Agriculture. Mike Johanns.

They call it cooked frog syndrome. If you put a frog in a pot of water and slowly turn up the heat, the frog never realizes the water is getting hotter to kill him.

Oh, right, why should you care about this? This means no state or locality can ban risky products when the federal government has failed to act to protect our health or the environment. The primary intent of this passage is to deny local or state rights to regulate
genetically engineered crops or food.

The biotech industry and big agribusiness have been trying to push similar bills in dozens of states across the country, and also at the Federal level with last year's so-called "Food Uniformity" bill. Now they want to sneak it into a committee hearing and hide it in the Farm Bill.
Like Paul Revere, I sound a warning. An urgent warning...Your government is being stolen by Democrats and Republicans alike who do not remember why they are in office and, certainly, can't recall their oaths of office.

People, everywhere, government is taking a serious turn. We have just got to wake everyone up.

Those of you who read this, please, please, please, reflect and ask God to bless you with insight, with clarity, with eyes to see, eats to hear, hearts to understand and act on in His will for you in this fight to keep our country.

Take Action Now! You can make a difference. You must help us make a difference. Email me and I will provide you with contact information for the subcommittee.

It's not for you and me that I work against these issues. No. It is for your children's children. The world is going to be lost for them if we don't get things straightened out now.

FDA/USDA sez melamine contaminated products at "levels calculated to be safe to consume."

Give me a break! No level of melamine can be considered anything but poisonous. The FDA and USDA are failing miserably and now, to cover their butts, are trying to tell people that the levels are safe to consume.

This is the link for their MELAMINE AND ANALOGUES SAFETY/RISK ASSESSMENT.

Within that risk assessment is this little nugget:

The assessment notes that melamine is not metabolized, and is rapidly excreted in the urine. Thus, it is not believed to accumulate in the body of animals.

I mean, I'm no scientist, but logically, if that statement were true how then did all those pets die? And, the numbers of pet deaths were severly under reported in the media.

How long can they keep lying?

I'm so glad I eat my own chickens and pork. You wouldn't catch me buying either in the grocery store.

FDA News

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE P07-82 May 7, 2007

Media Inquiries: FDA Press Office: 301-827-6242 USDA Press Office: 202-720-4623 Consumer Inquiries: 888-INFO-FDA

FDA/USDA Joint News Release: Scientists Conclude Very Low Risk to Humans
from Food Containing Melamine
USDA Releases Some Swine and Poultry for Processing

There is very low risk to human health from consuming meat from hogs and chickens known to have been fed animal feed supplemented with pet food scraps that contained melamine and melamine-related compounds, according to an assessment conducted by scientists from five federal agencies.

In the most extreme risk assessment scenario, when scientists assumed that all the solid food a person consumes in an entire day was contaminated with melamine at the levels observed in animals fed contaminated feed, the potential exposure was about 2,500 times lower than the dose considered safe. In other words, it was well below any level of public health concern.

The risk assessment is an important new science-based component of the continuing federal joint investigation into imported wheat gluten and rice protein concentrate from China that contained melamine and melamine-related compounds.

The risk assessment was conducted by scientists from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). This team is now compiling a scientific assessment of the risk to animal health associated with ingestion of animal feed containing melamine and its compounds.

FDA and USDA are in the process of identifying a group of experts to convene a scientific advisory board that would be charged with reviewing the risk assessment. This group would also be asked to contribute to future scientific analysis related to the risk of melamine and its compounds to humans and animals.

In the course of the investigation, it was discovered that pet food was contaminated by wheat gluten and rice protein concentrate that contained melamine and its compounds. Subsequently, scraps of contaminated pet food that contained only low levels of melamine were distributed to farms in a limited number of states and added to the feed consumed by swine and poultry. These scraps constituted only a small percentage of the farm animal rations. In addition, melamine is known to be excreted in animal urine. When exposure levels are much higher, as was the case with cats and dogs, the melamine and its compounds appear to cause the formation of crystals in the kidney systems, resulting in kidney damage. There was no indication of kidney damage in hogs. Both hogs and chickens known to have been fed contaminated feed appear to be healthy.

This dilution factor was an important piece of data considered in the multi-agency science-based human risk analysis and helps to support the conclusion that there is very low risk to human health from eating meat from animals that were fed the contaminated product. This conclusion supports the decision announced on April 28 not to recall meat from animals that were fed contaminated product.

Currently, swine and poultry on farms suspected of receiving contaminated feed are being held under state quarantine or voluntarily by the owners. In several cases, feed samples have tested negative for melamine and related compounds. These tests were conducted by federal laboratories or state laboratories using approved methods. It is assumed that because only small amounts of the contaminated feed were mixed with other rations, the melamine and related compounds were no longer detectable. USDA has concluded that, based on the human risk assessment and the inability to detect melamine in the feed samples, these animals no longer need to be quarantined or withheld from processing.

In other cases, feed samples have tested positive for melamine and related compounds; feed samples were not available; or feed samples have not yet been submitted for testing. These animals continue to be withheld from processing, but are not yet being culled, pending the results of the animal risk assessment. This assessment is expected to be completed within one week. At that time, USDA will determine whether these animals can be released for inspection and further processing.

USDA and FDA continue to conduct a full and comprehensive investigation. As additional information is confirmed, updates will be provided and decisions will be made using the best available science to protect the public's health.

To ensure no further contaminated products enter the U.S., the federal government will continue to monitor imported wheat and corn gluten as well as rice protein concentrate and isolates arriving from all countries destined for human and animal consumption. The FDA import alert for these products sourced from China remains in effect and U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue laboratory testing of the products as they enter the U.S. The inspections are a precautionary measure to ensure the safety of products entering at U.S. ports of entry. There is no evidence to suggest products bound for the human food supply are contaminated.

For additional information about the pet food and contaminated feed investigation, go to www.fda.gov or www.usda.gov. The human safety/risk assessment will be available online upon completion of an executive summary.

A biblical answer for USDA/APHIS and Mike Johanns

Proverbs 12:11

11 He who works his land will have abundant food,
but he who chases fantasies lacks judgment.

USDA, Mike Johanns, all you all, you are chasing a fantasy of food safety and disease tracking by the methods you are pursuing. You will never get full voluntary compliance for NAIS. You've got it all backwards. The real enemy of food, besides USDA and FDA are the CAFOs, importation of foreign, not inspected meat that doesn't have to meet the same NAIS obligations that you are trying and lying so hard to cram down our throats and the bogus USDA "organic standard". Don't you think it is time to re-evaluate and scrap your plans?

Here is Proverb 12 in full. It is a wise man who works to rightly divide the word of God. There is much profit in these words.

Proverbs 12

1 Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge,
but he who hates correction is stupid.

2 A good man obtains favor from the LORD,
but the LORD condemns a crafty man.

3 A man cannot be established through wickedness,
but the righteous cannot be uprooted.

4 A wife of noble character is her husband's crown,
but a disgraceful wife is like decay in his bones.

5 The plans of the righteous are just,
but the advice of the wicked is deceitful.

6 The words of the wicked lie in wait for blood,
but the speech of the upright rescues them.

7 Wicked men are overthrown and are no more,
but the house of the righteous stands firm.

8 A man is praised according to his wisdom,
but men with warped minds are despised.

9 Better to be a nobody and yet have a servant
than pretend to be somebody and have no food.

10 A righteous man cares for the needs of his animal,
but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel.

11 He who works his land will have abundant food,
but he who chases fantasies lacks judgment.

12 The wicked desire the plunder of evil men,
but the root of the righteous flourishes.

13 An evil man is trapped by his sinful talk,
but a righteous man escapes trouble.

14 From the fruit of his lips a man is filled with good things
as surely as the work of his hands rewards him.

15 The way of a fool seems right to him,
but a wise man listens to advice.

16 A fool shows his annoyance at once,
but a prudent man overlooks an insult.

17 A truthful witness gives honest testimony,
but a false witness tells lies.

18 Reckless words pierce like a sword,
but the tongue of the wise brings healing.

19 Truthful lips endure forever,
but a lying tongue lasts only a moment.

20 There is deceit in the hearts of those who plot evil,
but joy for those who promote peace.

21 No harm befalls the righteous,
but the wicked have their fill of trouble.

22 The LORD detests lying lips,
but he delights in men who are truthful.

23 A prudent man keeps his knowledge to himself,
but the heart of fools blurts out folly.

24 Diligent hands will rule,
but laziness ends in slave labor.

25 An anxious heart weighs a man down,
but a kind word cheers him up.

26 A righteous man is cautious in friendship, ^[a]
but the way of the wicked leads them astray.

27 The lazy man does not roast ^[b] his game,
but the diligent man prizes his possessions.

28 In the way of righteousness there is life;
along that path is immortality.

Footnotes:

1. Proverbs 12:26 Or man is a guide to his neighbor
2. Proverbs 12:27 The meaning of the Hebrew for this word is uncertain.

Wisconsin Premise ID enforcement put on hold

I think this it turning out to be the model test case for states trying to mandate NAIS. One hundred fifty ticked off farmers can make a difference.

The state of Wisconsin has stopped short, so far, of putting farmers who won’t accept a premise ID numbers, out of business.

The Wisconsin Department of Agriculture Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) issued a press release Friday saying it would still allow milk transporters and creameries to accept milk from farms that did not have a premise ID.

Wisconsin's new farm premise ID law went into effect Tuesday.

One De Soto area farmer went so far as to say he may sue the state if it doesn’t back off on its mandatory premise ID program.

"I have informed them that if my milk license is not renewed I will bring legal action," said Vernon County producer Mark Brothun.

Brothun runs a 40-cow grade A operation near De Soto with his wife, Jane, and made those statements to the DATCP board last week

The DATCP board had convened in Madison specifically to address the issue of premise ID. Brothun and three other dairy producers were scheduled to be heard that day, but a standing room only crowd of about 150-people soon began demanding answers from the DATCP board about what happens after May 1 if a farm doesn't have an ID number.

A number of Amish producers were in attendance to see what will happen to members of their community if they objected to the number based on religious beliefs. A group of about 200 Amish farmers met last month near Cashton with Brian Rude of the DATCP board and state Sen. Dan Kapanke to air their concerns that the law violates Bible scripture, which prohibits the buying and selling of animals that are numbered.

The premise ID system was intended to give authorities an easy system to track animals and prevent the spread of disease should there be an outbreak.

When a cow was discovered in Washington State in 2003 that had BSE (mad cow disease) and another cow with the same disease was found in Canada, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Canadian government began developing the numbering system. In 2004, the USDA developed the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). The NAIS followed the model of other countries in Europe by including three basic elements, which are premise identification, animal identification and eventually movement tracking.

Many countries in Europe have required numbering of farms and individual animals for years. In the United States, the NAIS was set up as a voluntary system. In 2004, Wisconsin passed legislation making premise identification mandatory.

Since that time many states have attempted to implement the system with varying success, but most states have relaxed requirements in the face of opposition. Wisconsin appears to be the only state using enforcement tactics like threatening to withhold milk licenses for producers without the premise ID.

Brothun sees the mandatory aspect the Wisconsin law as a direct contradiction to the federal law.

"The federal law states this is voluntary and they have to allow exemptions," Brothun said. "The number is a federally-issued number and the state is taking $1.7 million from the federal government to implement this."

DATCP spokesperson Donna Gilson said the Wisconsin law is more restrictive than the federal law, but that is not unusual.

"States are always free to make more stringent regulation than the federal law," Gilson said. "The federal government is giving money to all states to implement this, not just Wisconsin, and there is nothing in the federal law that says you can't make it mandatory."

Gilson said states often require varying degrees of regulation. She cited a recent example of pseudorabies in Wisconsin hogs that prompted Michigan to place a ban on all hogs from Wisconsin. Gilson said that is stricter than other states which have only banned hogs from that specific herd or area of the state.

Another major objection to the requirement for Brothun is that the number for his farm would be from the federal government.

"This is federally-generated number that runs with the property forever," Brothun said. "I am all for animal health, but there is no reason the state cannot generate a number internally."

Brothun said the state already has his milk license number and the federal number will just give USDA officials authority to come onto his property in certain situations.

"They could come on property at anytime and draw blood or take samples," Brothun said. "And if they decide to implement the next step, which is individual animal ID, which is implanting chips, we will essentially have a national herd."

Gilson said the number has to be federally generated because the state is implementing the number system for the federal government and the idea was to have a system that allows states to communicate quickly in the case of an emergency.

"Animals cross state lines on a regular basis and it's important that this database can talk to that database, etc.," Gilson said.

Brothun said the regulation is supposed to apply to all farms, but dairy farmers are being targeted first because it is easy to force compliance by not renewing their milk license.

"What about beef farmers and chicken farmers?" Brothun asked. "Are they not going to be able to sell their animals at the stockyard?"

Brothun and others have argued that there is an exemption allowance in the federal regulation that allows producers out of the program if the cost exceeds the benefit. Brothun said the burden to his operation would exceed the benefit. Those arguments seem to be getting to some officials, including State Representative Barbara Gronemus (D-Whitehall), who originally sponsored the bill, but now is questioning its cost.

"I am really disappointed," Gronemus said. "Never did I think this would eliminate the farmer's ability to make a living. We have people with a legitimate product that has already been inspected. Why shouldn't they be able to sell that product just because of this language on the books?"

Gronemus said she introduced the bill on the request of agriculture committee chairman Al Ott (R-Forest Junction).

"They had made attempts to get it done and couldn't get people to join and then asked me to see if I could get it through," Gronemus said. "I could just kick myself for putting my name to it now."

Gronemus said she disagreed with the value of the number for fighting disease outbreaks.

"We had a pseudorabies outbreak in the 1980s just like we do now and we handled that," Gronemus said. "What purpose does this number serve? We already have milk inspectors (who) know where every farm is now. Can't we use some other number?"

Gronemus said the administrative rules that have come out of the bill are not what she intended.

"I wish it were required that every bill have a statement at the top saying what the author’s intent was," Gronemus said. "I have fought with Madison lawyers for years on that and they refuse to allow that. That way when it is made into an administrative rule they know what the intent of the bill was."

Gilson disagreed saying every administrative rule requires public hearings and is sent back to the legislature for review. Legislators can ask for revisions, or if no action is taken the rules become effective after a certain period of time. Gilson said there were additional changes and a number of public hearings for this administrative rule.

Those rules required compliance over a year ago, but Gilson said producers were allowed that time to come into compliance when the threat of not renewing milk licenses came up.

"Where were all of these people when we had all the public hearings?" Gilson asked.

Gronemus said she has considered repealing the bill, but fears she will not get enough votes to get it out of committee. Ott chairs the agriculture committee and Gronemus said he is determined to implement the program.

"His behavior at hearings was so angry and defensive," said Gronemus. "If I were the chairman of that committee I would be demanding answers, but Mr. Ott is of different thinking."

Gronemus said she disagrees with refusing to pick up milk as an enforcement tool.

"What is a farmer supposed to do? Put a cork in the cow?" Gronemus asked. "They have to be milked everyday. They don't just stop."

When asked what he will do with his milk if DATCP enforces the law by not renewing his milk license, Brothun says he will likely be dumping his milk.

"I have informed them I am paid up and I have passed all my inspections and there is no reason not to issue my license," Brothun said. "If they don't I am ready to take legal action and I guess I will have to dump it."

As of Friday Brothun appears to have received a reprieve from the regulation, but only time will tell if that reprieve is temporary or if DATCP will continue to pursue mandatory enforcement.

Wisconsin Ag Department clarifies controversial registration law

See, this is good. Thirteen hundred (and I bet it is way more than that) objected to registering. A hundred and fifty or more ticked off people showed up at the pubic hearing the other day.

Now if we could get more people to show up at the State house in every state.

Snap...wake up.

Wisconsin Radio Network

Tuesday, May 1, 2007, 12:00 AM

By Jim Dick

A number of farmers in the state will not have their licenses pulled May first after all.

It's the law but about thirteen hundred farmers objected to registering their herds by May first. The Ag Department's Donna Gilson says they've now cleared up a number of misconceptions.

Namely, livestock will not be given identification numbers. It's just a premises registration where farmers tell the department what kind of livestock they have so they know what diseases they're susceptible to. Where they're located and where the farmer can be reached in an emergency.

Gilson says the registration would have been helpful during the search for pseudo rabies in Clark County because with that registration list one quick phone call could have told the pig farmers in the area what was going on and testing could have been conducted within a day.

As it was, Ag department agents spent four days driving up and down roads looking for unregistered pig farms to test for the virus.

No one's license will be pulled May first and the department is now working with farmers to make the new law work with minimal impact on farmers.

National Day of Prayer 56th Annual May 3, 2007

Like it or not, this country was founded on Christian principles. To those of you who this angers, you might consider that when the day comes for you to stand before the Lord how will you feel when He says, "You did not know me and I do not know you."

2 Chronicles 7:14 (KJV)

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

The History Of National Day Of Prayer

Because of the faith of many of our founding fathers, public prayer and national days of prayer have a long-standing and significant history in American tradition. The Supreme Court affirmed the right of state legislatures to open their sessions with prayer in Marsh vs. Chambers (1983).

The National Day of Prayer is a vital part of our heritage. Since the first call to prayer in 1775, when the Continental Congress asked the colonies to pray for wisdom in forming a nation, the call to prayer has continued through our history, including President Lincoln's proclamation of a day of "humiliation, fasting, and prayer" in 1863. In 1952, a joint resolution by Congress, signed by President Truman, declared an annual, national day of prayer. In 1988, the law was amended and signed by President Reagan, permanently setting the day as the first Thursday of every May. Each year, the president signs a proclamation, encouraging all Americans to pray on this day. Last year, all 50 state governors plus the governors of several U.S. territories signed similar proclamations.

The National Day of Prayer is Significant

The National Day of Prayer has great significance for us as a nation. It enables us to recall and to teach the way in which our founding fathers sought the wisdom of God when faced with critical decisions. It stands as a call to us to humbly come before God, seeking His guidance for our leaders and His grace upon us as a people. The unanimous passage of the bill establishing the National Day of Prayer as an annual event, signifies that prayer is as important to our nation today as it was in the beginning.

Like Thanksgiving or Christmas, this day has become a national observance placed on all Hallmark calendars and observed annually across the nation and in Washington, D.C. Last year, local, state and federal observances were held from sunrise in Maine to sunset in Hawaii, uniting Americans from all socio-economic, political and ethnic backgrounds in prayer for our nation. It is estimated that more than two million people attended more than 40,000 observances organized by approximately 40,000 volunteers. At state capitols, county court houses, on the steps of city halls, and in schools, businesses, churches and homes, people stopped their activities and gathered for prayer.

The National Day of Prayer is Ours

The National Day of Prayer belongs to all Americans. It is a day that transcends differences, bringing together citizens from all backgrounds. Mrs. Shirley Dobson, NDP chairman, reminds us: "We have lost many of our freedoms in America because we have been asleep. I feel if we do not become involved and support the annual National Day of Prayer, we could end up forfeiting this freedom, too."

History Summary

1775 - The first Continental Congress called for a National Day of Prayer
1863 - Abraham Lincoln called for such a day.
1952 - Congress established NDP as an annual event by a joint resolution, signed into law by President Truman.
1988 - The law was amended and signed by President Reagan, designating the NDP as the first Thursday in May.

Comment promoted to an entry so I can reply

Obewan said...

You guys are still looking for pet food contaminations (sic)........much of this gluten is food grade...this means we have been eating this melamine for many many years in very small quantities. Have you not seen the light that no one can be trusted? [Yes, I know no one in the food industry can be trusted.] Clearly Americans would not poison Americans. If you are that far away in China...how are you going to get me? Your (sic) not.... they are not a democracy and have no laws like ours..... am I the only one that sees the bigger picture here? [No, Obewan, you aren't the only one. If you have read through my blog at all you would know that I am one of the awake ones.] The Chinese use melamine as a common practice to cut the gluten and have been doing it for the past 15 years. The melamine is a poison...animals died! Have you not seen chronic diseases skyrocket around you and in your family? [This is another area I have tried to enlighten others about. As the food supply becomes more corrupt, the more diseases we see, more obesity, more drugs need to be sold, etc. It drives me nuts, really, that the populace can't seem to connect the dots.] All imported processed foods from anywhere out side this country need to stop coming into this country immediately [We are in 100% agreement.] .....the products can not be trusted....should I say this again? Systematic auto immune chronic disease means lots....no tons of money for the drug companies who are dealing with this intentional poisoning of Americans and their pets. You were not suppose to find out that they were cutting the food with a poison.....like a crack dealer gone bad!
Obewan

Thanks for your comments, we are on the same page. We need people like you, obviously awake to what is happening, to help us wake others up. Events in this country are happening faster and faster. It is frustrating that the majority of the citizens won't stand up and make a loud noise.