Raw Milk Use Share to be Tested this Week

You have to ask yourself why the gubermint is so all over people who are just trying to feed themselves in a healthy manner and at the same time allowing cattle to be imported from Canada and allowing cloned meat and milk (shudder...eew) to be sold into the human food chain without labeling. That's right, cloned meat is deemed to be the same as traditionally bred animals and as such, says USDA, needs no special labeling. Read about it here.

Anyway, this is what I wanted to notify you about, especially if you live in New York. If you live near Albany or Waterloo please make the effort to attend one of these hearings. The gubermint believes we aren't awake or paying attention. It is time for them to be proven wrong.

For more background information about the fight for our right to drink raw milk, please visit The Complete Patient.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE PLEASE

Meadowsweet LLC

c/o Steve and Barbara Smith,

2054 Smith Rd.,

Lodi, NY (607-582-6954)

email:dairy@meadowsweetfarm.com

January 16, 2008

Raw Milk Use Share to be Tested this Week

In March 2007, dairy farmers Steve and Barbara Smith of Seneca County, NY dropped their raw milk dealer's license in order to start an innovative cow share program. In an era where the pressures of agribusiness and state regulation threaten the viability of family run farms, the Smiths, who have more than 12 years experience at dairy farming, find themselves at odds with the New York Department of Agriculture and Markets.

The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FCLDF), a national organization set up to defend farmers and consumers from government interference, has taken on the Smiths' case. The Smiths' struggles with the Department of Agriculture and Markets will serve as a test case to determine if the State's regulatory power extends to a group of private citizens who produce and consume their own food of their own choice.

The Smiths reorganized their dairy into a limited liability company, Meadowsweet Dairy LLC (Meadowsweet) in March, 2007. The dairy delivers raw milk, yogurt, butter and buttermilk to the members of the cow share.

The newly formed LLC has only one asset, a herd of dairy cows. Meadowsweet members have an agreement with the Smiths to tend to, manage and house the herd for the benefit of the LLC. The equity interest for the LLC's 110 members is in the form of raw milk and raw dairy products produced by the cow herd and processed by the Smiths. This is accomplished without permits or licenses. However, the State of New York, through the Department of Agriculture and Markets, is challenging the new farming model.

Since the inception of the cow share, the New York Department of Agriculture and Markets has pressured the Smiths and Meadowsweet LLC. Citing their responsibility to protect public health, the regulatory arm of the agency is being used to harass the dairy. The state agency has conducted numerous inspections, seized products, ordered the destruction of 260 pounds of raw dairy products, attempted to search the Smith’s house, issued letters threatening fines and penalties. And now the Department of Agriculture and Markets has ordered the Smiths and Meadowsweet Dairy LLC to appear in Albany and show cause why the Department should not shut down the operation and levy fines.

Over the next two weeks, Meadowsweet will confront the Department of Agriculture and Markets in two separate hearings. The first hearing will be at the Department offices in Albany on JANUARY 17 at 11AM. This is an administrative hearing within Department of Agriculture and Markets. The Department will consider ordering the Smiths to CEASE AND DESIST from providing milk to its cow share members.

The second hearing is set for JANUARY 22 at 1:30PM in Seneca County Court in Waterloo, NY. At this hearing, the Court Judge will consider issuing a preliminary injunction against the Department of Agriculture and Markets to keep the agency from further harassing the Smiths until the dispute between the newly formed cow share program and the Department is resolved.

January 17, 11 AM
Department of Agriculture and Markets
10B Airline Drive
Albany, NY
(Right next to the airport)

January 22, 1:30 PM
Seneca County Court
48 West Williams Street
Waterloo, NY

For more information contact: Steve and Barbara Smith, 2054 Smith Rd., Lodi, NY (607-582-6954) email:dairy@meadowsweetfarm.com

A good news Friday! Part 1

Major British grocers to boycott meat from cloned animals

By Pete Hisey on 1/12/2007 for Meatingplace.com

Reacting to reports that a cloned cow from the United States has birthed a calf on a British farm, virtually all major British grocery chains have pledged to boycott meat from clones or their offspring. Tesco, Wal-Mart's Asda chain, Morrisons and Marks & Spencer were among the chains participating in the boycott, which would include meat, milk or "anything else from clones or their offspring," according to an Asda spokesperson. British law prohibits the sale of meat or milk from cloned animals, but makes no mention of the offspring of clones. According to The Daily Mail, the British Food Standards Agency is in emergency talks with European Union officials about the gap in regulations that allows products from clone offspring to be sold. The Food and Drug Administration is in the process of approving the sale of meat from clones and their offspring in the United States, and has received strong criticism from consumers' groups. On Thursday, a major dairy processor, Petaluma, Calif.-based Clover Stornetta, announced that it will not accept milk from cloned animals.

Will there be no more "natural" anything?

Why is it that MAN thinks he can outsmart God and nature? Not everything in nature lives because if everything lived the earth would become over populated.

Cattle engineered to lack BSE-causing proteins
By Tom Johnston on 1/2/2007 for Meatingplace.com

An international team of researchers from the United States and Japan has genetically engineered several cattle to be free from prions, the proteins associated with bovine spongiform encephalopathy. The findings, published in the online journal Nature Biotechnology, are leading to speculation that it may be possible to make animals immune to the disease.

In a post-mortem study, research results showed that after scientists "knocked out" the gene responsible for making prions, animals did not succumb to BSE when exposed to the bad prions associated with the disease. However, it may be a few years before other animals in the study demonstrate similar immunity to BSE.

"This could have some promising applications," Joe Schuele, spokesman for the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, told Meatingplace.com today. "However, the safeguards we have in place in the United States have eliminated BSE as a human health risk, and should have us on track to completely eradicate BSE well before this technology will be approved for any widespread practical use."

Paul Clayton, senior vice president of export services at the U.S. Meat Export Federation, told Meatingplace.com today that it's too early to tell how the study would affect access to foreign markets, since any commercial applications of the research presumably lie in the distant future.

"Also, since this is biotechnology, we may encounter other access concerns," he said.

"These cattle can help in the exploration and improved understanding of how prions function and cause disease, especially with relation to bovine spongiform encephalopathy," Edward B. Knipling, administrator of USDA's Agricultural Research Service, indicated in a press release. "In particular, cattle lacking the gene that produces prions can help scientists test the resistance to prion propagation, not only in the laboratory, but in live animals as well."

Cloned animals is a dead end to evolution

Here's something else to think about in regard to cloned animals. My friend wrote to me and said, " ...one other thing on the cloned food issue. The health is an unknown, and since it isn't necessary I simply would personally avoid it. But there is another issue. As a farmer and breeder I have no interest cloned animals. They are evolutionarily dead ends. They are not perfect and they will show no improvement. We are constantly looking to improve our livestock generation to generation. We want to adapt it to our local climate, improve the meat, improve the feed efficiency, temperment, play with the color, etc.

Cloned Cow Owner’s Fiscal Plight Unchanged By FDA Decision

HAGERSTOWN, Md. (AP)--The financially strapped owner of two cloned dairy cows said Thursday he’s still in a bind, despite the Food and Drug Administration’s decision Thursday that food from cloned animals is safe to eat.

Williamsport farmer Gregory C. Wiles said the slow pace of federal rule-making will prevent him from benefiting in a timely fashion from the policy change.

The FDA will take several months to gather public comments on its proposal to allow sales of milk and meat from cloned livestock without special labeling. Meanwhile, the food industry’s voluntary ban on such products remains in effect.

Wiles, who faces eviction in a family business dispute, said that if he can’t find a new home for his cloned cows and their offspring within weeks, he’ll probably sell them for use in the human food chain despite the informal ban. For nearly four years, Wiles has poured milk from his cloned cows, Genesis and Cyagra, down the drain in compliance with the voluntary ban.

“My goal is to hopefully find a facility where we can continue to milk the cows and keep these animals out of the food chain, but nobody’s found a solution yet other than to continue down the path whereby these animals will be put into the slaughterhouse,“ Wiles said.

He said he expects to get an eviction notice Jan. 9 that would give him 30 days to remove the animals from the 200-acre farm owned by his father, Charles. Wiles runs the farm but hasn’t paid rent in several months. Wiles has gotten offers to have the cows placed in an animal sanctuary, and his father has said they should be killed and buried.

But Wiles said the cows are part of the collateral for a farm loan and therefore have monetary value that should be realized -- as either milk or hamburger. Barb Glenn of the Biotechnology Industry Association, which favors using cloned livestock primarily for breeding instead of meat, said Wednesday that Wiles should respect the voluntary ban. “We support what he’s done up ’til now. He’ll have to continue to withhold food (made) from these animals,“ Glenn said.

Let Andy try it first

Andrew von Eschenbach, Commissioner of the FDA, that is. He should have to eat cloned meat for 10 years, at every meal and with GMO veggies on the side. He's got the job permanently, so he can be a captive cloned meat tester.

FDA: Cloned livestock is safe to eat
[My comments are added.]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The government declared Thursday that food from cloned animals is safe to eat.

After more than five years of study, the Food and Drug Administration concluded that cloned livestock is "virtually indistinguishable" from conventional livestock. [There's that word "virtually" which seems to mean something other than what it used to mean.]

FDA believes "that meat and milk from cattle, swine and goat clones is as safe to eat as the food we eat every day," said Stephen F. Sundlof, director of the FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine.

Officials said they don't think special labels are needed, although a decision on labeling is pending. [Well, that should come as no surprise. They aren't labeling GMOs or irradiated foods. Why should clones be any different?}

Because scientists concluded there is no difference between food from clones and food from other animals, "it would be unlikely that FDA would require labeling in those cases," Sundlof said. [Which scientists? I am going to research who they are. Can't believe they are scientists who have no financial arrangements with industry.]

Final approval is still months away; the agency will accept comments from the public for the next three months. [FDA is seeking comments from the public on the three documents for the next 90 days. To submit electronic comments on the three documents, visit http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/oc/dockets/comments/commentdocket.cfm?AGENCY=FDA. Written comments may be sent to: Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD, 20852. Comments must be received by Apr. 2, 2007 and should include the docket number 2003N-0573.]

Critics of cloning say the verdict is still out on the safety of food from cloned animals. [How about the ethics?]

"Consumers are going to be having a product that has potential safety issues and has a whole load of ethical issues tied to it, without any labeling," said Joseph Mendelson, legal director of the Center for Food Safety.

Carol Tucker Foreman, director of food policy at the Consumer Federation of America, said the FDA is ignoring research that shows cloning results in more deaths and deformed animals than other reproductive technologies. [Of course they are ignoring the results. They don't care about results, they only care about making more money for their corporate buddies. It is just the same in USDA/NIAA. Wake up!]

The consumer federation will ask food companies and supermarkets to refuse to sell food from clones, she said.

"Meat and milk from cloned animals have no benefit for consumers, and consumers don't want them in their foods," Foreman said.

However, FDA scientists said that by the time clones reached 6 to 18 months of age, they are virtually indistinguishable from conventionally bred animals. [Virtually again.]

Labels should only be used if the health characteristics of a food are significantly altered by how it is produced, said Barb Glenn of the Biotechnology Industry Organization. [So says a spokesperson for an industry organization. GMOs are proving to have altered health consquenses and yet no labeling is required for them.]

"The bottom line is, we don't want to misinform consumers with some sort of implied message of difference," Glenn said. "There is no difference. These foods are as safe as foods from animals that are raised conventionally." [Misinform consumers. It's being done all the time. FDA has a terrible track record of not informing the public with the truth. Look at the Zero grams of Transfats labeling lie. I don't trust the FDA.]

Those in favor of the technology say it would be used primarily for breeding and not for steak or pork tenderloin.

Cloning lets farmers and ranchers make copies of exceptional animals, such as pigs that fatten rapidly or cows that are superior milk producers.

"It's not a genetically engineered animal; no genes have been changed or moved or deleted," Glenn said. "It's simply a genetic twin that we can then use for future matings to improve the overall health and well-being of the herd." [From FDA: An animal clone is a genetic copy of a donor animal, similar to identical twins but born at different times. Cloning is not the same as genetic engineering, which involves altering, adding or deleting DNA; cloning does not change the gene sequence.]

Thus, consumers would mostly get food from their offspring and not the clones themselves, Glenn said.

Still, some clones would eventually end up in the food supply. As with conventional livestock, a cloned bull or cow that outlived its usefulness would probably wind up at a hamburger plant, and a cloned dairy cow would be milked during her breeding years. [I wonder if they have to be registered with NAIS tags.]

That's unlikely to happen soon, because FDA officials have asked farmers and cloning companies since 2001 to voluntarily keep clones and their offspring out of the food supply. The informal ban would remain in place for several months while FDA accepts comments from the public.

Approval of cloned livestock has taken five years because of pressure from big food companies nervous that consumers might reject milk and meat from cloned animals. [Who is going to consume anything from cloned animals? Only those forced to do so; prisoners, school children, WIC program families. Keep an eye on this one if your child eats a school lunch.]

To produce a clone, the nucleus of a donor egg is removed and replaced with the DNA of a cow, pig or other animal. [Wait a minute. What did FDA say cloning didn't involve? "Cloning is not the same as genetic engineering, which involves altering, adding or deleting DNA; cloning does not change the gene sequence." DNA is added or it isn't? ] A tiny electric shock coaxes the egg to grow into a copy of the original animal. Cloning companies say it's just another reproductive technology, such as artificial insemination, yet there can be differences between the two because of chance and environmental influences.

Some surveys have shown people to be uncomfortable with food from cloned animals; 64 percent said they were uncomfortable with such food in a September poll by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, a nonpartisan research group.

==============================
Here's the link for FDA's A Risk-Based Approach to Evaluate Animal Clones and Their Progeny - DRAFT