I and several others have spent years tracing where the sudden increase in food contamination comes from. It all traces back to a man named Dan Amstruz. Who is Dan Amstruz? Dan Amstutz, worked for 25 years as a grain trader and VP at Cargill before he became Under Secretary of Agriculture during the first Bush administration. He was responsible for the much hated Freedom to Farm Act. “..As a result, thousands of American farmers lost their farms and monopolists like Cargill reaped the benefits....” http://www.theava.com/03/05-21-rat.html
The Grain Traders say this about Amstutz: “Throughout his very successful career Dan Amstutz represented and championed the ideas and goals of NAEGA membership “ (North American Export Grain Association) Dan Amstutz certainly did not represent the interests of farmers or consumers, he represented the interests of the Transnational Grain Traders when he worked for the USDA. Do the Grain traders care about farmers or consumers or do they care about money. I will let them speak for themselves.
These quotes show the grain traders greed and the level of concern for other humans. Keep in mind that four privately owned grain traders control 90% of the worlds grain. They are Cargill, Louis Dreyfus, Andre, and Bunge. The family members earn about ½ billion a year each.
“In summary, we have record low grain inventories globally as we move into a new crop year. We have demand growing strongly. Which means that going forward even small crop failures are going to drive grain prices to record levels. As an investor, we continue to find these long term trends...very attractive.” Food shortfalls predicted: 2008 http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/dancy/2008/0104.html
“Recently there have been increased calls for the development of a U.S. or international grain reserve to provide priority access to food supplies for Humanitarian needs. The National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA) and the North American Export Grain Association (NAEGA) strongly advise against this concept..Stock reserves have a documented depressing effect on prices... and resulted in less aggressive market bidding for the grains.” July 22, 2008 letter to President Bush http://www.naega.org/images/pdf/grain_reserves_for_food_aid.pdf
So what does Dan Amstrutz and the grain traders have to do with the present food contamination crisis? Amstrutz wrote the draft for the World Trade Agreement on Agriculture. (WTO AoA). The critical paragraph is:
"Measures to trace animals...to provide assurances on...safety ...have been incorporated into international standards... The Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures...Aims to ensure THAT GOVERNMENTS DO NOT USE QUARANTINE AND FOOD SAFETY REQUIREMENTS as UNJUSTIFIED TRADE BARRIERS... It provides Member countries with a right to implement traceability {NAIS} as an SPS measure." http://www.cspinet.org/reports/codex/spsnassp.html
In simple terms The WTO “free trade agreement” allows cheap imports to cross borders without quarantine or other food safety testing. Only Traceability, Risk Assessment, and the SPS measure, that is ISO/OIE “Guide to Good Farming Practices” are allowed. The “new food safety policy” is about opening borders to trade without bothering with little things like food poisoning.
The public will become the major “testing ground” for disease as lab testing is minimized in favor of “Traceability” “Risk Assessment” and “Good Farming Practices” as mandated by WTO, ISO and OIE. Instead of catching food safety problems BEFORE they get to the consumer, the new focus is to track back the problem AFTER it has sickened and killed consumers. Transnational corporations will also try to transfer liability to the farmer so they do not lose their reputations or have to pay for lawsuits. There is even a conference scheduled in 2009 addressing how to pass the blame to farmers.
Conference to address food-borne illness litigation
http://www.meatingplace.com/MembersOnly/webNews/details.aspx?item=10369
“The conference will cover topics such as aligning damage assessments/expectations with the outcomes from recent resolved litigation; managing an outbreak effectively to minimize shareholder and reputational risk afterwards as quickly as possible; and how to measure and prove actual control of various players in the movement of contaminated food to accurately assess apportionment of liability.
Risk Assessment
“There is a small chance that mad cow disease.. (BSE), is already in this country, according to a risk assessment released today by Harvard University. The risk assessment concluded that even if BSE had entered this country, it wouldn’t become a major public health problem, although human illnesses could occur”.Harvard Risk Assessment 12/3/2001
This is the “scientific basis” behind the USDA ban on 100% BSE testing at Creekstone Farms and mandating “less than 1 percent [40000 per year] of slaughtered cattle to be tested for BSE. The agency contends that more comprehensive testing doesn't guarantee food safety and may produce a false positive that alarms consumers.” ....Of course if you do not test you will not find the disease.
With tainted food in foreign imports, why is the USDA and FDA spending so much time and resources fixing a problem that does not exist while ignoring the flood of imports coming across our borders?
From International Organization OIE (Office International des Épizooties) we have:
“It is urgent that scientists come forward with alternative methods of disease control that will not only avoid wastage of valuable animal proteins but that will also promote the international trade of animals and animal products by removing technically unjustified trade barriers caused by animal diseases”, http://www.oie.int/eng/press/en_040422.htm
“Furthermore, it can help to eliminate unjustified trade barriers, since a sound traceability system provides trading partners with assurances on the safety of the products they import. Traceability techniques can provide additional guarantees as to the origin, type or organoleptic quality of food products.” http://www.oie.int/eng/edito/en_edito_apr08.htm
Yet it is obvious that traceability does nothing to prevent disease, it only allows blame to be placed after the fact. So why is the idea being promoted?
In the USA
“..early 2002, when the National Institute for Animal Agriculture (NIAA) organized a national identification task force to provide leadership for the preparation of the initial report, the National Identification Work Plan....The US Animal Identification Plan (USAIP) is needed to maintain the economic viability of American animal agriculture... This is essential to preserve the domestic and international marketability of our nation's animals and animal products.” (NOTE: this is about trade not safety they even admit it) www.usaip.info. (YET Sec of Ag Schafer alleges the idea came in 2003, AFTER BSE was found.)
For examples of the levels of corruption in the USDA checkout
Meatpacking Maverick: John Munsell's against-the-odds struggle for improved food safety
Mother Jones Magazine, December 2003 Issue By Michael Scherer Dec 29, 2003
“..Despite Munsell's continued whistleblowing -- to Senator Conrad Burns (R-Mont.), national cattle associations, and his fellow meat processors -- the USDA failed to address the alleged contamination at ConAgra's Greely Plant. Then, in July 2002, Munsell's worst fears came true. E. coli-tainted burger from Greeley killed an Ohio woman and sickened at least 35 others. ConAgra then recalled 19 million pounds of beef, one of the largest recalls in history.”
Unfortunately this is just one of many “incidents” handle in such a way that transnational corporations are not “inconvenienced”. Stanley Painter, Chairman of the National Food Inspection Unions, stated in his testimony at the congressional hearing on the Hallmark Dower Cows:
“..when we see violations of FSIS regulations and we are instructed not to write non-compliance reports... Sometimes even if we write non-compliance reports, some of the larger companies use their political muscle to get those overturned...
.. I began to receive reports that the new SRM regulations were not being uniformly enforced. I wrote a letter to the Assistant FSIS Administrator for Field Operations at the time conveying to him what I had heard... the agency summoned me to come here to Washington, DC where agency officials subjected me to several hours of interrogation including wanting me to identify which of my members were blowing the whistle on the SRM removal violations. I refused to do so....I was then placed on disciplinary investigation status. The agency even contacted the USDA Office of Inspector General to explore criminal charges being filed against me...
I have many references supporting what I have written. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Unfortunately
Your best bet for stopping this is through the federal resister and your Congressman.
The USDA is pushing through more changes to further the implementation of the WTO agenda of traceability (NAIS). We have the opportunity to stop these changes by commenting on the proposed rule change. Your comments can be made at
http://www.regulati ons.gov/fdmspubl ic/component/ main?main= DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2007- 0096
The procedure is simple and painless. You can read the comments of everyone who has participated. All you need to do to comment is to click on the yellow comment tag at the right of the side under the add comments column then follow the directions.
