USDA Trickery on listening sessions - The offensive and defensive play book

Question: Does the USDA have the same legal trickery as the FDA?  

Vilsack is now announcing listening sessions on NAIS.   But the FDA hasn't heard anyone on GMO's.

This may be why:

Under Christine Lewis Taylor's supervision

[her husband, Michael Taylor is a Monsanto executive and lawyer waiting to run the entire US food supply from inside the White House], Albert's thesis defends the FDA's controversial labeling decision and its consultation processes with the public as being "conducted as intended by law."  

Albert claims that members of the public who are dissatisfied with the FDA's decision not to label GMO products just don't understand the all the factors that go into making decisions at the FDA.  She's probably correct on that point:  Most of the public is under the mistaken assumption that the FDA has a responsibility to protect it from the unsafe products of an untested technology.  Thanks to her explanation, at least we now know that certain employees of the FDA consider their only legal obligation is to offer the public an opportunity to voice its concerns, not act upon them.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-2009-Food-Safety-Bil-by-Nicole-Johnson-090418-680.html

http://farmwars.info/?p=594

Which leads to this Question:

 

Does the USDA use the same legal trickery as the FDA? 

[Answers below are all from independent cattlemen and farmers]: 

1.  "Yes"

"Listening sessions are a nice break from DC, maybe a chance to try a few new restaurants."

2.  This is the trick they use on the public to control debate---it is time we learned the same methods in their public meetings.

ES

HOW COLLECTIVISTS USE THE DIAMOND TACTIC TO SWAY PUBLIC MEETINGS AND HOW TO THWART THEM by G. Edward Griffin

In the 1960s, I came across a small training manual distributed by the Communist Party that showed how a small group of people – as few as four – could dominate a much larger group and sway the outcome of any action taken by that group. It was called the Diamond Technique. The principle is based on the fact that people in groups tend to be effected by mass psychology. They derive comfort and security from being aligned with the majority, especially if controversy or conflict is involved. Even if they do not like what the majority is doing, if they believe they are in the minority, they tend to remain silent and resigned to the fact that the majority should rule. This being the case, the Diamond Techniques is designed to convince the group that as few as four people represent the majority. 

Here is the strategy: 

1. Plan ahead of time what action you want the group to take: nominate or oppose a candidate, support or oppose an issue, heckle a speaker, or whatever. Everyone on your team must know exactly what they are going to do, including contingency plans. 

2. Team members should arrive at the meeting separately and never congregate together. 

3. Team players should arrive early enough to take seats around the outside of the assembly area, roughly in the shape of a diamond. They must not sit together. 

4. The object of the tactic is place your people around the perimeter of the audience so that, when they begin to take action, those in the center will have to do a lot of head turning to see them – to the right, then the left, then the rear of the room, then the front, etc. The more they turn their heads, the greater the illusion of being surrounded by people in agreement with each other, and the more they will be convinced that these people represent the majority opinion. 

I have seen this tactic used by collectivists at numerous public meetings over the years, and I have participated in it myself on several occasions when confronting collectivists in their own tightly held organizations. It works. 

The only way to thwart the Diamond Tactic is to always be prepared to match it with your own team. Never take a meeting for granted, especially if something important is scheduled to transpire, such as nomination of officers. Even a simple gathering to hear an important speaker can turn into a nightmare if opponents send in hecklers. So, always plan for the worst and be prepared to spring into action with comments from the floor such as: "I want to make it clear that these people do not speak for me. I am in total opposition to what they stand for. In fact, I would like to ask them to identify themselves. Who are you? Why did you come to this meeting? What is your agenda?" If comments such as this are heard from three or four people around the outside of the room, the meeting will be very exciting, but the tactic will be defused.

3. USDA Trickery - A good listening session or hearing requires preparation

The trick to listening sessions is to have a strategy in place prior to beginning any, and to structure the sessions in such a way that the predetermined outcome is reached. One way they do that is to have testifiers lined up beforehand so that no matter who else is there, the record shows that people supported the main agenda.

A few years back the Governor of Missouri called for a statewide conference on agriculture consisting of listening sessions all over the state. I went to one, and when I got there a large number of people were pre-registered and were called to the front of the room to testify first. They were all there to represent special interests, and they received 'special' recognition from the appointed panel of "experts". Everyone was limited to 3 minutes to make their opening statement plus an opportunity to answer questions from the panel.

 

They had an official timekeeper so that no one talked too long.

He was a 'special' appointee.

In his regular 9 to 5 job he was a vice-president for Monsanto.

They don't call us the great state of Monsanto for nothin'. RO

For example, see the following line up – Purely big agribusiness and their advocates and spokesmen [Not one farmer or rancher]:

Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Public Hearing To review Federal food safety systems at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Thursday, April 23, 2009

1:00 p.m.

1300 Longworth House Office Building

Panel I

Mr. Alfred V. Almanza, Administrator, Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

Panel II

Mr. J. Patrick Boyle, President and CEO, American Meat Institute, Washington, D.C.

Dr. James "Bo" Reagan, Senior Vice President, Research, Education and Innovation, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Washington, D.C.

Ms. Jill Appell, pork producer, Appell's Pork Farms, Inc., Past President, National Pork Producers Council, Altona, Illinois

Dr. Elizabeth A. Kushinskie, Director of Quality Assurance and Food Safety, Mountaire Farms, Inc., on behalf of the National Chicken Council, Millsboro, Deleware

Dr. Michael Rybolt, Director, Scientific and Regulatory Affairs, National Turkey Federation, Washington, D.C.

Mr. Elliot P. Gibber, President, Deb-El Foods, on behalf of United Egg Association Further Processors Division, Elizabeth, New Jersey

Mr. Barry L. Carpenter, Chief Executive Officer, National Meat Association, Oakland, California

For the other side of the story on inspections ...

And story from inspectors themselves ...  

  

And if you have had it, had it, had it, with this, and see how those "food safety" bills will make NAIS mandatory and do a whole lot more besides, you can reach congress with this message:

"We reject all forms of food dictatorship. We oppose all deceptive attempts

to industrialize the food supply under the guise of "food safety." Current bills

before Congress such as HR875, S425, HR759, etc., lack any producer protective

language patterned after Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 USCsec 203(s)(2)and DSHEA protective language of the 2007 FDA act, Section 1011.

They are therefore unacceptable to the members of a free society and must be

defeated.  Government or corporate entities shall not infringe on a citizen's land, their right to own, produce, sell, or use food, seeds or healing substances ... , nor shall any threat of war, emergency, or disease be used to abrogate or limit these rights.""

Urgent 3-Part Action Item:

 

Step 1: Click here to email the President NOW:

Step 2: Call the White House switchboard at 202-456-1414 and the comment center 202-456-1111. Let's keep those phones ringing!

Step 3: Click here to tell Congress "NO!" to all of the fake food "safety" bills. They provide neither real, wholesome food nor safety:

"Food safety" crimes and you

This section of HR 875 would apply to you.  Penalties would be "administered" by Monsanto.  

SEC. 405. CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES.

(a) Civil Sanctions-

(1) CIVIL PENALTY-

(A) IN GENERAL- Any person that commits an act that violates the food safety law (including a regulation promulgated or order issued under the food safety law) may be assessed a civil penalty by the Administrator of not more than $1,000,000 for each such act.

(B) SEPARATE OFFENSE- Each act described in subparagraph (A) and each day during which that act continues shall be considered a separate offense.

(2) OTHER REQUIREMENTS-

(A) WRITTEN ORDER- The civil penalty described in paragraph (1) shall be assessed by the Administrator by a written order, which shall specify the amount of the penalty and the basis for the penalty under subparagraph (B) considered by the Administrator.

(B) AMOUNT OF PENALTY- Subject to paragraph (1)(A), the amount of the civil penalty shall be determined by the Administrator, after considering--

(I) the gravity of the violation;

(ii) the degree of culpability of the person;

(iii) the size and type of the business of the person; and

(iv) any history of prior offenses by the person under the food safety law.

(C) REVIEW OF ORDER- The order may be reviewed only in accordance with subsection (c).

(b) Criminal Sanctions-

(1) OFFENSE RESULTING IN SERIOUS ILLNESS- Notwithstanding section 303(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 333(a)), if a violation of any provision of section 301 of such Act (21 U.S.C. 301) with respect to an adulterated or misbranded food results in serious illness, the person committing the violation shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, fined in accordance with title 18, United States Code, or both.

(2) OFFENSE RESULTING IN DEATH- Notwithstanding section 303(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 333(a)), if a violation of any provision of section 301 of such Act (21 U.S.C. 331) with respect to an adulterated or misbranded food results in death, the person committing the violation shall be imprisoned for not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with title 18, United States Code, or both.

(c) Judicial Review-

(1) IN GENERAL- An order assessing a civil penalty against a person under subsection (a) shall be a final order unless the person--

(A) not later than 30 days after the effective date of the order, files a petition for judicial review of the order in the United States court of appeals for the circuit in which that person resides or has its principal place of business or the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia; and

(B) simultaneously serves a copy of the petition by certified mail to the Administrator.

(2) FILING OF RECORD- Not later than 45 days after the service of a copy of the petition under paragraph (1)(B), the Administrator shall file in the court a certified copy of the administrative record upon which the order was issued.

(3) STANDARD OF REVIEW- The findings of the Administrator relating to the order shall be set aside only if found to be unsupported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.

(d) Collection Actions for Failure To Pay-

(1) IN GENERAL- If any person fails to pay a civil penalty assessed under subsection (a) after the order assessing the penalty has become a final order, or after the court of appeals described in subsection (b) has entered final judgment in favor of the Administrator, the Administrator shall refer the matter to the Attorney General, who shall institute in a United States district court of competent jurisdiction a civil action to recover the amount assessed.

(2) LIMITATION ON REVIEW- In a civil action under paragraph (1), the validity and appropriateness of the order of the Administrator assessing the civil penalty shall not be subject to judicial review.

(e) Penalties Paid Into Account- The Administrator--

(1) shall deposit penalties collected under this section in an account in the Treasury; and

(2) may use the funds in the account, without further appropriation or fiscal year limitation--

(A) to carry out enforcement activities under the food safety law; or

(B) to provide assistance to States to inspect retail commercial food establishments or other food or firms under the jurisdiction of State food safety programs.

(f) Discretion of the Administrator To Prosecute- Nothing in this Act requires the Administrator to report for prosecution, or for the commencement of an action, the violation of the food safety law in a case in which the Administrator finds that the public interest will be adequately served by the assessment of a civil penalty under this section.

(g) Remedies Not Exclusive- The remedies provided in this section are in addition to, and not exclusive of, other remedies that may be available.

Milk and the "not about food safety" bills

The "food safety" bills in congress are brought by industry.  The same industry is destroying dairy farmers while getting rich off them.  And "food safety" with million dollar penalties and years in prison for non-compliance are weapons to wipe out any dairy farmers who has found a way to survive outside that corrupt corporate system.

The whole story of the "food safety" bills - who wins, who loses, what is safe and what is lies - can be told through milk.

To begin to understand those "food safety" bills through milk, the public's context for "milk" needs to broadened to include these facts: 

• American corporate dairy farmers are committing suicide now, 
• Vilsack proudly announcing spending millions in humanitarian aid by sending milk overseas while he is not aiding dairy farmers here who produced it and are now killing themselves, 
  
• the likelihood that "aid" milk contains rBGH which we've rejected here as dangerous for small children (that is, are we really dumping trash on them), 
  
• fresh milk dairy farmers outside of the USDA and Dairy Farmers of America, are not taking government money and are growing, but the USDA is raiding them and trying to wipe them out ...
  

"... the raw dairy industry ... the only dairies that don't take government handouts, and even in this current economy many are growing, profitable businesses–or would be if the government would allow them to operate unimpeded ..."

http://hartkeisonline.com/2009/02/12/fda-response-to-raw-milk-symposium-in-toronto-a-symposium-of-their-own/

The argument used to destroy fresh milk dairy farmers?  "Food safety."   It is the same unconstitutional trick played on blacks who "could" vote but rigged literary tests were interposed between them and those rights and they were deemed too dumb to vote.  Now rigged lab or standards no one can meet are interposed between farmers and their constitutional right to sell food, and lo and behold, their food is deemed too dirty to sell.  

In California, industry was unable to pass a law banning farm fresh milk because Californians like it and have been drinking it for years, instead they changed the "food safety" standard for coliform bacteria (normal in milk) to such a low level a cow would have to produce pasteurized milk straight from the udder to pass.  Mother's milk would not pass.

What great dangers with milk are they going to protect us from, we who are increasingly seeking food straight from the farm?  

The FDA has been mounting a campaign against fresh milk, pointing to 1000 illnesses due to fresh milk (and cheese) between 1998 and 2006.   Sounds terrible until one looks more closely.  

To get that figure, they tabulate illnesses from fresh milk over an eight year period though other medical issues are broken down annually.  If one breaks down the illnesses from fresh milk on an annual basis, out of a population of 300,000,000+ people, 125 get sick each year from fresh milk.   

Meanwhile, a very conservative estimate is that 16,500 people die each year from non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) such as aspirin, tylenol, aleve, .... among just patients with arthritis or osteoarthritis.  This is similar to the number who die from AIDs and much more than die from cervical cancer, multiple myeloma, asthma or Hodgkin's disease.

If this is about protecting the public's health, and the FDA is so concerned about 125 illnesses a year from fresh milk that it conducts raids on horse and buggy Mennonite dairy farmers, why have they done nothing about those 16,500 deaths?  

They have actively done more than nothing. 

The FDA has blocked information from coming out that cherries are potentially ten times stronger than NSAIDs  for controlling pain.  And cherries are harmless.  No deaths at all.  The FDA appears to prefer that more than 16,5000 Americans die each year rather than the public find out about a safe non-pharmaceutical means of treating pain.  Food could bring safety and actually save lives but farmers are threatened by the FDA if they say so.

The FDA is the same agency attacking fresh milk as dangerous but protecting sale of milk from cows injected with genetically engineered rBGH, and typically fed GMO grains grown using pesticides and with antibiotics in it.   The milk the FDA favors with its protection is associated with a seven times increased risk of breast cancer, and an increased risk of prostate and colon cancer.  Surely those diseases amount to more then 125 illnesses a year.

Here is another category of deaths which does not have six or more FDA-related bills in congress to "protect" the public health.  Not even one bill - deaths from medical errors:

By the FDA's own estimate, between 44,000 to 98,000 die from medical error.  

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2000/500_err.html  

By others's estimate somewhere around 195,000 die.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/11856.php.  

And some put the number of deaths from medical error at near 800,000.

 http://www.bottomlinesecrets.com/article.html?article_id=43440

If one calculates these deaths over the same eight year period as was done with fresh milk, assuming approximately the same number died each year, between 352,000 to 6,400,000 people died from medical error.

On an annual basis, in a population of 300,000,000 million, fresh milk accounted for (if the basic math is right) .00013% or less than two ten thousandths of one percent of one percent of all food born illnesses (NOT deaths), or 125 people.

Medical error accounted for between .014%  and .26% deaths.

Choosing what we eat is a democratic right and the government's idea of  "food safety" is unconstitutional when it impinges on that.  In fact, it is so serious a threat, it becomes a fundamental human rights issue of survival.

For those who want to reach congress about the sickening "food safety" bills:

"Government or corporate entities shall not imfringe on a citizen's right to own (hold, store, transport), produce, sell, or use food, seeds or healing substances ... , nor shall any threat of war, emergency, or disease be used to abrogate or limit these rights."

"We reject all forms of food dictatorship. We oppose all deceptive attempts to industrialize the food supply under the guise of "food safety." Current bills before Congress such as HR875, S425, HR759, etc., lack any producer protective language patterned after Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 USCsec 203(s)(2)and DSHEA 
protective language of the 2007 FDA act, Section 1011.  They are therefore unacceptable to the members of a free society and must be defeated."

Urgent 3-Part Action Item:
 
Step 1: Click here to email the President NOW
Step 2: Call the White House switchboard at 202-456-1414 and the comment center 202-456-1111.
Step 3: Click here to tell Congress "NO!" to all of the fake food "safety" bills. They provide neither real, wholesome food nor safety.

For dairy farmers, damned if you do, damned if you don't

Below is an article on the plight of most American dairy farmers - a  near instruction manuel on how corporations get rid of farmers.  Flood the market with cheaper imports, raise the price of all inputs, and there you have it.  

Some dairy farmers escape this.  They stay outside the system, taking nothing from the USDA, selling nothing to middlemen.  Who are they?

Raw milk dairy farmers.  They raise their cows, milk them, and sell direct to customers.  They have no Dairy Farmers of America to contend with, no imports to compete with, little rising feed costs because their dairy cows often live mostly on grass.  It's a sane, clean, local system that is growing even in hard times, even with no advertising, even without obstacle after obstacle.  And it's a system that provides real food security for neighboring areas.

But they do have one problem - having mastered all the farming and economical ones - their own governnment is aggressively trying to destroy them.

The USDA and FDA have been attacking those independent dairy farmers mercilessly.  Those are the same agencies which the fake "food safety" bills would merge into new massive agency and invest with police state power over all food.  It is set to be run by Monsanto which gave us genetically engineered rBGH for milk cows, along with no controls over GMOs and non-labeling of them, including suing farmers who tried to label their milk honestly as rBGH-free.  

So, if the dairy farmers stay inside the system, they get cheated and crushed by corporate interests (and some dairy farmers are committing suicide).  But if dairy farmers try to exist outside the system, they are literally attacked by the government working for industry - and using "food safety" as the ugly, false weapon.

For Dairy Farmers, Crisis Looms By Lynda Waddington 4/16/09 1:03 PM

Holstein cows (Photo: Wikipedia)

Although their message may have gotten lost in the 'tea party' hype, Iowa dairy farmers spent time at the capitol this week to raise awareness of drastically low farm milk prices. During the past year, farmers have seen the price they are paid for milk drop by nearly half, even while retail prices have remained relatively high.

"This has reached a crisis point in rural Iowa," said Jerry Harvey, a dairy farm producer in the southern portion of the state.

Francis Thicke, an organic dairy farmer who is considering a run for Iowa Secretary of Agriculture as a Democrat, explained that as prices rose for producers, prices also rose in grocery stores. Now that producer prices have fallen, however, retail prices have remained steady.

John Bunting, a New York dairy producer and member of the National Family Farm Coalition commissioned to write a report on the dairy industry earlier this year, concluded that a few "elite players, with little or no governmental oversight, are running the dairy markets."...

"We are at a crossroads in agriculture," said Chris Petersen, president of the Iowa Farmers Union. "We need to decide who will produce our food — farmers or vertically integrated corporations."...

To read more ...

From those opposing the fake "food safety" bills, for use by any opposing them as well:

"We reject all forms of food dictatorship. We oppose all deceptive attempts to industrialize the food supply under the guise of "food safety." Current bills before Congress such as HR875, S425, HR759, etc., lack any producer protective language patterned after Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 USCsec 203(s)(2)and DSHEA protective language of the 2007 FDA act, Section 1011.

"They are therefore unacceptable to the members of a free society and must be defeated."

Urgent 3-Part Action Item:
 
Step 1: Click here to email the President NOW:


Step 2: Call the White House switchboard at 202-456-1414 and the comment center 202-456-1111. Let's keep those phones ringing!

Step 3: Click here to tell Congress "NO!" to all of the fake food "safety" bills. They provide neither real, wholesome food nor safety: