Laws and Sausages

Dear Readers, I have been away, out of state, visiting my elderly parents. I have seen first hand what today's food is doing to people, my parents, my daughter, all the city folks. I even ate some of it and felt very ill afterwards. My parents eat 3 meals a day out and their health is failing. No wonder.
Speaking of food, just in from Doreen Hannes is the following. If you ever wondered how bills are turned into law, and the majority of them don't get that far, be sure to read this article. Keep fighting the good fight, fellow freedom loving people.

The Law and Sausage----

©Doreen Hannes March 17, 2008

There's an old saying a German friend of mine told me a long while ago, and it has proven to be true. It goes like this, "Those who love the law or sausage should not see either being made." I can't say that I was ignorant about sausage at all, but until last year, when I found myself in the ironic position of trying to get a law enacted to protect us from regulation, I wasn't aware of how completely ridiculous the legislative process actually was.

Since they took Civics out of public school long before I graduated from those hallowed halls, I hadn't much in the way of real knowledge beyond "I'm a Bill on Capitol Hill". I knew there were a lot of steps and that it wasn't easy, but not that it was actually perverse. Based on what I've learned, I'm going to tell you a little story, and I do hope you'll enjoy it.

The first step is to get a bill introduced. This is what people are continually sending you action alerts about "call to support this bill", or "contact to object to that bill". Getting something introduced is the easy part. They are read twice, meaning the summary is read, and then placed on the calendar to be referred to committee. Most legislation never goes beyond the introduction phase for various reasons. Perhaps because the power structure doesn't care about the issue, or possibly even the one who introduced the bill doesn't care about it, or even as a matter of popularity regarding the legislator who introduced the bill. But when it does go beyond the simple introduction, it can get very interesting in very short order. In the case of our bill, Missouri Senate Bill 428, it was a very good piece of legislation, that addressed several issues in NAIS and would have basically stopped the Missouri Dept of Agriculture from participating and made the program truly voluntary in Missouri kept it at the Federal level as well. It made it through committee unscathed, and then was read a third time, debated and voted upon. It made it through our Senate and left with a vote of 29 for and 2 against. Things were looking good.

Then it went to the House and all hell broke loose. Despite many appeals to Speaker Rod Jetton to have this bill assigned to a committee with a friendly Chair instead of an adversarial one, he assigned it to the House Ag Policy committee with Representative John Quinn as Chair. This is where it began to get interesting or sickening depending on your position. The hearing was given and several citizens testified for the bill alongside Senator Purgason, who was present as the author of the bill. Then those opposed to the bill testified against it. These included the usual suspects, Farm Bureau, and the Missouri Cattlemen's Beef Association, as well as a rep of the Pork Producers. We learned that one's testimony time could be yielded to another from the Catllemen, as three guys stood up and yielded their time to Mike John who I believe was testifying for both the Cattlemen and MFA (Missouri Farmer's Association) in opposition to the bill. He said many things that weren't entirely true and then made a whopper of a statement saying that "those who are opposed to NAIS are either, environmental extremists, animal rights activists, or people who want to sell diseased animals."

After the hearing was finished, Senate bill 428 was still in its original and desirable form. Then, the darling Rep. Quinn, who became the handler of the Bill in the house upon it being assigned to his committee, changed the 4 page positive bill into a 96 page negative bill that would establish statewide pro CAFO (concentrated animal feeding operations) zoning and also establish NAIS via statute along with many other less contentious things. This effectively morphed SB428 into an evil piece of legislation that now needed to be opposed instead of supported and the first rule of "careful with that legislation, honey" was learned. A bill may be great as introduced, then changed in committee before hearing, changed before being voted out of committee, then changed again on the floor before being perfected and voted upon, then changed again in the opposing house's committee, then changed again before being voted out of committee, then changed before leaving the floor and being perfected, then changed in conference committee. So backing a bill by it's number is a very, very dangerous thing to do. One may say "support XYZ bill as introduced", but watch what happens to it along the way, or you may be calling in support of something that does the exact opposite of it's original intent, or has had something else repugnant added to it along the way that would be worse than any possible good from the bill you were supporting.

On with the saga of SB428…..

Now the job of telling people to go against SB428 needed to be done. It still hadn't gotten out of committee, but if you like to track legislative history, you can see how the bill reads on the Missouri General Assembly website and how it read upon introduction as a comparison. Needless to say, people were a bit confused by the "We're for it"-"No, we're against it" dance.

Happily, this version of SB428 didn't make it out of committee, and was killed by time constraints. After the legislative session was out, Representative Quinn received the Farm Bureau Legislator of the Year Award ostensibly for his effective destruction of SB428,.However, we were left with trying to get an amendment slapped onto a different piece of ag legislation to protect the citizens of Missouri from regulation by the enactment of protective statute. (That's a mouthful, isn't it?) So Representative Dethrow introduced a smaller, less detailed and not as protective amendment to SB156, which had become an "omnibus ag bill", much to the chagrin of the senator who had introduced the original legislation. No one wants their legislation to get tangled up with the most controversial topics in the legislature, but it simply can't be helped in many cases.

After Rep Dethrow introduced this amendment, which passed on the House floor with a vote of 135 for and 10 against, we ran into another surprising facet of making sausage. We were called in to 'negotiate' on the verbiage with none other than Farm Bureau, the Cattlemen and MFA, all big lobbying groups at the Missouri Capitol and all in opposition to constraining NAIS in any way in the state of Missouri. We sat for a full day in the same room with these proponents of NAIS arguing about the word 'any', with the Department of Agriculture and the State veterinarian as well. We were told to come back the next day to continue to argue about the word 'any' and hopefully come to a conclusion. During a rather sleepless night away from home (again), I was struck by the realization that there was no point to this action at all. So in the morning, when we reconvened with all of those paid lobbyists and the salaried State employees, I said, " I see no reason to sit in a room discussing details with those who have been pushing for this program. The House and the Senate have done their job. The people have been represented, and you lose. If the shoe were on the other foot, you wouldn't agree to sit and argue with us after the vote had occurred. I will discuss particulars with the Governor's office, the Dept of Ag and the Attorney General's office, who are legitimate government bodies, but not with the groups who want this so they can make more money." They all left the room and we continued to argue about the word 'any' but now from separate rooms.

This went on all day until those in the other room on salary were done putting in their eight hours. The word 'any' still remained in its enigmatic form, and they were unhappy with their inability effect to change it after the vote.

Now the new vehicle for protective legislation against NAIS, SB156, had to go to conference committee. Conference committee is comprised of members of both the House and Senate and those members are appointed by the leaders of the respective houses and is convened when legislation regarding the same topic has gone through both houses with different language. Here, the ineffable Representative Quinn, again played the hand of Farm Bureau, whom we refer to as either the fourth arm of government in Missouri or the lobbying branch of the USDA, and put off two sessions of the Conference committee hearing. We, representing opponents of NAIS, were again sent into a room to discuss particulars and address verbiage concerns, but this time only with representatives of the Dept of Ag and the State vet. The governor's office and the Attorney Generals office had people present as well, and they approved of what we came up with. Finally, after we were not entirely happy with the compromise made, which would allow the Missouri Dept of Ag to register people and properties into NAIS for the purpose of adding value to their marketing, but otherwise constrained the Missouri Dept of Ag from implementing NAIS, the Department's Undersecretary, Matt Boatright, wanted us to allow the guy with one duck who wanted to go full on NAIS to be able to participate in this boondoggle of a federal program. We declined, and left about 11pm with the legislative session due to expire in three days.

The next day, the Conference Committee met and the 'compromise' bill with a clause added at the request of Quinn that would allow the Governor to overturn the bill if it affected commerce and was approved and voted out of committee with a 7-3 vote. Representative Quinn was the handler of SB156 and he signed off on it, saying he would bring it up on the floor where it needed to pass the House and then move on to pass the Senate, and be a finished piece of business. The last day came and the Senate was waiting to adjourn until after the House adjourned because they wanted to get this vehicle to constrain NAIS completed for the year. Despite the ability to pull the bill from Rep Quinn's hands and bring SB156 to the floor, Speaker Jetton decided to leave it in Quinn's hands to show his support for his chair appointment. Representative Quinn met Ray Cunio, (a fellow NAIS opponent and Property Rights advocate extraordinaire), while getting a cup of coffee and told him, "Ray, you may as well go home because I am not bringing it up." And he didn't. The House adjourned, and then the Senate adjourned….So ends the saga of this particular foray into the legislative process with SB428 and SB156 (along with HB747, HB428, HB478 all against NAIS) and no resolution of the problem.

Now we are in the midst of another legislative session, with a new bill that has legs, SB931, but it isn't as strongly restrictive against NAIS as is really necessary, and this bill has passed the Senate 28-3 and is likely to go into another committee headed up by yet another staunch supporter of the Farm Bureau…..And so the wheels of the sausage grinder turn.

====================

And this, no doubt, is how the fine freedom fighters in Missouri ended up feeling after all that was over. ~ Hen

Just for fun!

Channel surf the internet with the StumbleUpon toolbar to find great websites, videos, photos and more based on your interests. StumbleUpon learns what you like and makes better recommendations. It is fun and you find sites that you wouldn't normally, well, stumble upon.

So, stumbling rather than doing housework, I fell into What Breed of Conservative Are You? It's a quick little quiz. My results below, surprise, surprise, surprise...

My Conservative Identity:

You are an Anti-government Gunslinger, also known as a libertarian conservative. You believe in smaller government, states’ rights, gun rights, and that, as Reagan once said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’”

Take the quiz at www.FightLiberals.com

NAIS Down Under and Our Own Pin Heads

It has been a crazy week if you are keeping abreast of the beef recall issue. But our recap should start here, from John Carter, former president of the australian Beef Association, who told R-Calf's annual convention goers, Fight NAIS Down to the Last Cowboy. He calls their system "expensive chaos", and this is the system USDA keeps touting as the best of the best, the system we want to copy.

The next item also comes from Australia, more looking elsewhere to see what we are going to be up against. The Australian Parliament (an anagram of partial men, by the way) has proposed a Horse Disease Response Levy bill of $100 which will effect all registered horse owners. Oh, yes, this bill, as I understand it, is so that INDUSTRY can pay their fair share of the clean-up after the equine influenza outbreak but it will affect all horse owners down under.

Now, let's talk about the Hallmark beef recall. Senator Tom Harkin and Representative Colin Peterson both are saying that a mandatory animal id would have prevented the meat recall. Then Dr. Randy Wheeler, an assistant state veterinarian at the Iowa Department of Agriculture, piped up and said the same thing. Peterson took it to a whole different level when he warned, "Now, there’s going to have to be some people that are going to have to be forced to come along..." Sir, are you sure you want to open that can of whup ass? I do not think you understand the ramifications of mandating NAIS on we, the people.

The Brownfield Network reported that, "Harkin said, even though much work remains to be done on the current farm bill, he's looking beyond that legislation to the issue of national animal identification. According to Harkin, the Westland/Hallmark beef recall, the largest in the nation’s history, shows the importance of having what he calls a "comprehensive" animal ID system that covers all animals and provides 48 hour traceback to the farm or ranch." Harkin also said he, "wouldn't rule out Congressional action to make national animal ID mandatory." To take a line from Bill O'Reilly, what a pin head.

Yet, there was this excellent article in the Wall Street Journal, which I will post in full because the WSJ is by subscription only, that shows traceback is available even through manufacturing.

Retracing the Beef-Supply Trail

After Recall, Swift Data Collection
Is Paramount for Food Companies

By JULIE JARGON
March 4, 2008; Page A12

As food makers scramble to comply with the nation's largest beef recall, their system of data collection -- which can trace the origin of the contents in its products down to the individual can -- is being put to the test.

H.J. Heinz Co. discovered over the weekend that it has one product -- Boston Market lasagna with meat sauce -- that contained beef from Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing Co. Yesterday, Heinz recalled 40,000 cases of the product.

Pittsburgh-based Heinz discovered that beef from Hallmark/Westland made its way into the 12.5-ounce cartons of Boston Market lasagna by conducting its own investigation, which involved looking at the source of meat for all of its U.S. products and then determining whether any of its suppliers or co-packers used beef from Hallmark/Westland. Because the beef Heinz used in its lasagna was blended with beef from other suppliers, it took some time to pinpoint the source.

Hallmark/Westland, of Chino, Calif., on Feb. 17 recalled 143 million pounds of beef after a video from the Humane Society of the United States showed sick or injured cattle being prodded to their feet with hoses and electric shocks. Regulators say the company at times slaughtered such downer cows, a practice that is generally banned because the cows carry a higher risk of having mad-cow disease. No reports of illness have been associated with the beef, and it is characterized as a Class II recall, meaning there is a remote probability that consumption will result in adverse health consequences.

In Washington, a congressional panel is moving ahead with a subpoena compelling Hallmark/Westland President Steve Mendell to appear at a March 12 hearing. The House Energy and Commerce Committee's investigations panel said it will meet tomorrow to authorize the subpoena after Mr. Mendell declined to testify last week. "As the CEO of the company with the dubious distinction of being responsible for America's largest meat recall, it is important the committee hear Mr. Mendell's perspective," said committee Chairman John Dingell (D., Mich.). Mr. Mendell couldn't be reached for comment.

The Hallmark/Westland recall highlights the complex network of suppliers for large packaged food companies -- but it also shows how quickly they can trace the origin of their ingredients. While many food companies already traced ingredients, laws aimed at stemming bioterrorism in the wake of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, made it mandatory for companies to trace their production one step forward and one step back, says Craig Henry, chief operating officer of the scientific and regulatory affairs division of the Grocery Manufacturers Association.

He adds that large companies are often better able to trace ingredients back quickly than smaller manufacturers, who may not have automated tracking systems. He says he expects to hear about more products affected by the recall.

"We have very deep trace capabilities. All incoming ingredients are tracked. We know into what recipe they're used and at what time those ingredients are used. It's all computerized," says Roz O'Hearn, a spokeswoman for Nestle Prepared Foods Co., a unit of Switzerland's Nestle SA. About 49,000 cases comprising two varieties of Hot Pockets sandwiches made by Nestle were recalled.

ConAgra Foods Inc., of Omaha, Neb., also recalled some products that were made during just a few days of production, including Slim Jim meat and cheese sticks, Pemmican beef jerky, Hunt's spaghetti sauce with meat flavor, one Banquet macaroni & cheese meal, Manwich with beef in a refrigerated tub and a small quantity of food-service and private-label lasagna with beef. "Because we have data and records on our suppliers and on our ingredients, and because the impact overall was small, we were able to determine the scope quickly," says ConAgra spokeswoman Teresa Paulsen.

General Mills Inc., which had to recall one version of soup containing meatballs made, in part, from Hallmark/Westland beef, has thousands of suppliers for ingredients ranging from the oats in its Cheerios cereal to the tomato puree in its Totino's pizza rolls. After news of the recall broke, General Mills pulled from a database the names of its products that contain beef. A team of five people also began reviewing a list of suppliers to see whether any were customers of Hallmark/Westland. They found just one -- and that supplier, whose identity the company wouldn't reveal, sells only meatballs to General Mills.

General Mills' supplier knew from its records that it had purchased beef from Hallmark/Westland only during a two-month window in late 2007. General Mills' sourcing department, which keeps detailed records on every purchase from a vendor, was then able to zoom in on its records from that two-month window and determine that the meatballs made with that beef were added to its Italian Wedding soup only on five days between Sept. 28 and Oct. 26, 2007.

By Friday, Feb. 22, General Mills was calling retailers around the country and sending them emails and faxes, notifying them that it was recalling the more than 200,000 cans of Progresso Italian Wedding soup made during those five days of production.