Can you call today? It takes just a couple of minutes, and it truly does make a difference!
 

TAKE ACTION

 
Call your U.S. Representative. The Capitol Switchboard number is 202-224-3121, or you can find contact information (including links to online contact forms) at www.house.gov.

MESSAGE (you may add a few sentences at the beginning to personalize the message):

“My name is ___, and I am a constituent. I am calling to urge Representative ____ to:

1) Support Amendment #214 by Benishek to protect farmers from unnecessarily burdensome regulations. The FDA’s has proposed extensive, complicated regulations under the Food Safety Modernization Act that basically assume the worst of every situation and then force the farmers to find science on their own to prove that their farming methods are safe. Many traditional and sustainable methods of cultivation will be guilty until proven innocent.

The Benishek amendment would require FDA to do a scientific and economic analysis of the regulations before they go into effect, focusing on the impact on agricultural businesses of all sizes. This amendment is important to ensure that FDA doesn’t drive farmers, particularly small-scale and sustainable farmers, out of business with unfounded and unnecessary regulations.

2) Support Amendment #115 by Kaptur to prevent large companies from retaliating against livestock and poultry producers who speak out about unfairness in the marketplace. Farmers should not have to be afraid to tell the truth about the problems with corporate consolidation in our food system.

3) Support Amendment #136 by Lowey to address contamination by genetically engineered crops. The recent contamination of a wheat field in Oregon – and the resulting loss of consumer confidence both in the U.S. and internationally – has yet again shown that the existing provisions for testing unauthorized GMO crops are not sufficient to protect farmers and consumers.

4) Support Amendment #176 by Pingree. In addition to providing for various grant programs, this amendment directs USDA to establish a “local and regional farm and food system enterprise facilitation initiative to increase training and technical assistance” to help people working to establish local food businesses. The amendment also provides for critically needed technical assistance for small-scale meat processors, who are a vital piece of restoring our local food systems.

MORE INFORMATION

 
All of the Farm Bill amendments are posted online at http://rules.house.gov/bill/hr-1947. To read the text of any amendment, simply click on the sponsor’s name.

Local foods was a hot topic at the 83rd Texas Legislature!  FARFA worked on several bills to support local farmers and remove some of the barriers for local food systems.   These common-sense bills address the needs of the local foods movement, where local farmers and food producers sell their products directly to consumers in transparent transactions. Helping the local food movement helps small local businesses and our economy.
 

All three of these Texas local food bills were signed by Governor Rick Perry!

Click here for the official announcement.

➢ HB 970, the Cottage Foods Bill: Until last year, anyone making and selling any food at all (other than uncut fruits and vegetables) had to do so in a commercial, licensed facility that was subject to regulations designed for large-scale industrial food production. Last session, the Texas Legislature provided that “cottage food producers” could make specific low-risk foods in their homes and sell directly to consumers, up to $50,000 per year, without being regulated by the state and local health departments.

The bill has led to the establishment and growth of numerous small businesses in this state, with no reports of resulting foodborne illness. HB 970 would expand the law to include other foods designated as non-potentially hazardous by the FDA. The bill would also remove the restriction that the sale has to occur at the person’s home, allowing the seller and buyer to connect at farmers markets, farm stands, and nonprofit community events.

➢ HB 1382 – Making it easier to provide samples at farmers markets and farm stands: Letting potential customers sample food is a great way to increase sales and encourage people to try unusual fruits and vegetables. But current regulations that govern food samplings are based on the conditions in brick-and-mortar facilities and pose unnecessary challenges for farmers and food producers at local farmers’ markets. The Health & Safety Code provides standards for sampling produce at municipally owned farmers markets, and there have been no reports of problems resulting from such an approach. This bill simplifies the current provision in the Health & Safety Code and expands it to all farmers’ markets and farm stands.

➢ HB 1392 – Directing the DSHS to respond to inquiries about the law and its application to specific factual situations: Farmers and small-scale food producers have faced serious problems because of the inability to determine what is actually required under the regulations. When asked, the Department of State Health Services (DSHS) provides little guidance, leaving the producers to decide whether to invest anywhere from several hundred to tens of thousands of dollars and potentially still face fines depending on the department’s discretion.

Local foods bills that were approved by Committee, but died in Calendars:

➢ HB 46 – Improving access to raw milk: Texans can legally buy unpasteurized milk from cows and goats that are raised on pasture-based farms. But consumers’ choices are limited by regulations that limit sales to taking place on-farm and require individuals to drive out to the farm, which may be up to 2 or 3 hours away. This regulation burdens consumers and penalizes family farmers. The bill would allow licensed farmers to sell raw milk directly to consumers at farmers markets and consumers’ residences. This bill would continue the direct farmer-to-consumer relationship while ensuring that raw milk is both safe and accessible to rural and urban customers.

➢ HB 910 – Limiting fees for farmers selling directly to consumers: Many local health departments require farmers and other food producers selling directly to consumers to apply for permits to do so. The fees associated with such permits have created a financial burden on many producers who are small businesses with low profit margins. These high fees discourage farmers from participating in farmers’ markets, particularly smaller markets in less affluent areas. The bill proposes to cap health department fees at $50 per jurisdiction, making it feasible for small farmers and local food producers to provide food to local consumers without unnecessarily adding costs.

➢ HB 1306 – Establishing fair property tax treatment for urban farms, community gardens, and sustainable farmers: Current state law provides that land shall be appraised as qualified agricultural land if it is primarily used for agricultural use. But urban farms, vegetable farms, and community gardens have often been denied agricultural valuation, even when the primary purpose of the property is raising food for the community. This bill seeks to clarify the statute so that such farms and community gardens qualify for the agricultural valuation that they are entitled to.

➢ HB 1393 – Removing barriers to on-farm and in-home food production: Current regulations require that farmers and other food producers have a separate building from their residence in order to get any kind of a license. For small farmers and small-scale food producers, this means a choice between spending thousands of dollars building an entirely separate building or having to rent space –– at significant expense and inconvenience –– at a commercial facility. This bill would remove the requirement, allowing people the choice to license facilities within their own homes if they meet the applicable sanitary requirements.

Note that two more local foods bills were filed, but did not make it out of Committee:

 
➢ HB 254 – Removing unnecessary fees: This bill protects urban farmers from the imposition of wastewater fees for water used for agricultural purposes, since such water does not enter the wastewater system.

➢ HB 1652 – Improving access to land for community gardens: Many landowners have vacant lots that are not currently in use that could be a significant benefit to the community. This bill protects landowners from liability if they allow their land to be used for community gardens, absent willful, wanton or grossly negligent conduct by the landowner.

Bad bills: Animal ID

Please ask your legislators to oppose the Animal ID bill!  HB 2311 passed the House and is awaiting a vote in the Senate.  While HB 2311 sounds like it limits the Texas Animal Health Commission’s authority, but it actually does the opposite!  The bill gives  the agency renewed authority to adopt Animal ID rules.  This is bad for backyard poultry owners and small farmers, and it’s ultimately bad for the community they provide food for. The state’s animal ID programs should be tied to actual disease control measures, not simply tagging animals for the sake of tagging.

Click here for more detailed information on the Texas Animal ID bills.

For more information and to stay informed on what you can do to help, sign up for free email alerts!

Many people worked hard to make these bills a reality.  Every person who called, wrote, or visited their legislators deserves part of the credit, and we appreciate your activism!

Special thanks go to the bill authors: Representative Eddie Rodriguez, the author of the cottage foods bill; Susan King, the author of the DSHS Better Communications Act, and David Simpson, the author of the farmers’ market bill.  (The full list of co-authors is below, together with the descriptions of each bill).  These legislators stood up for local food producers and the interests of their constituents against some powerful special interests.

Special thanks also go to Representative Dan Flynn, who authored the raw milk bill; Representative Lois Kolkhorst, who authored the fees bill; and Representative Borris Miles, who authored the wastewater fees and community garden bills.  Even though those bills did not pass, we deeply appreciate these legislators’ support for local foods.  Special thanks also goes to the Texas House Farm to Table Caucus, which supported HB 970 and HB 1382, as well as several other important local foods bills.

A huge thank you goes to Kelley Masters of Texas Baker’s Bill for her tireless efforts on cottage foods over the last five years.  Thank you also to the  organizations and individuals who testified on these bills, often spending a very long day at the Capitol: Texas Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association, Sustainable Food Center,  Natural Grocers,  Amy Greer of Winters Family Beef, Bekki Callaway of Skinny Lane Farm, Germaine Swenson of Munkebo Farm, Erin Flynn of Green Gate Farms, Peggy Higgins, Amy Blea, Jennifer Webb, and the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

Together with the many people who came to the Capitol for our Citizens Lobbying Day, registered in support of the bills, and called their legislators, they served to put faces and stories to these bills — and to show the breadth and depth of the support from across the state for local foods.  This is a truly grassroots efforts, and our success is only possible because so many people made their voices heard!

You can click on the links for each bill to go to the legislative website, which includes the text of the bills.

HB 970 – Encouraging home-based food production, aka “cottage foods”: Until last year, anyone making and selling any food at all (other than uncut fruits and vegetables) had to do so in a commercial, licensed facility that was subject to regulations designed for large-scale industrial food production. Last session, the Texas Legislature provided that “cottage food producers” could make specific low-risk foods in their homes and sell directly to consumers, up to $50,000 per year, without being regulated by the state and local health departments.

The bill has led to the establishment and growth of numerous small businesses in this state, with no reports of resulting foodborne illness. HB 970 expands the law to include other foods designated as non-potentially hazardous by the FDA. The bill also removes the restriction that the sale has to occur at the person’s home, allowing the seller and buyer to connect at farmers markets, farm stands, and nonprofit community events.

Author: Eddie Rodriguez.  Joint Authors: Lois Kolkhorst, Jonathan Stickland, Sergio Muñoz, Jr., Jessica Farrar.  Co-authors: Bonnen, Dennis | Bonnen, Greg | Capriglione | Gonzales, Larry | González, Mary | Hernandez Luna | Howard | Hughes | Isaac | Kacal | King, Phil | King, Susan | Laubenberg | Lavender | Menéndez | Morrison | Murphy | Naishtat | Sanford | Sheffield, Ralph | Simmons | Turner, Scott | Walle | White | Zedler

HB 1382 – Making it easier to provide samples at farmers markets and farm stands: Letting potential customers sample food is a great way to increase sales and encourage people to try unusual fruits and vegetables. But current regulations that govern food samplings are based on the conditions in brick-and-mortar facilities and pose unnecessary challenges for farmers and food producers at local farmers’ markets.

HB 1382 provides clear, reasonable standards for sampling at farmers’ markets and farm stands. The bill also clarifies the standards for cooking demonstrations at farmers’ markets, and exempts educational cooking demonstrations from permit fees.

Author: David Simpson.  Joint Authors: Eddie Rodriguez, Lois Kolkhorst, Lon Burnam.  Co-authors: Anderson | Bonnen, Greg | Dutton | Farias | Flynn | Goldman | Guillen | Howard | Hughes | Kleinschmidt | Krause | Leach | Miles | Miller, Rick | Moody | Naishtat | Pickett | Raymond | Simmons | Stickland | Toth | White | Workman | Zedler

HB 1392 – Directing the DSHS to respond to inquiries about the law and its application to specific factual situations: Farmers and small-scale food producers have faced serious problems because of the inability to determine what is actually required under the regulations. When asked, the Department of State Health Services (DSHS) provides little guidance, leaving the producers to decide whether to invest anywhere from several hundred to tens of thousands of dollars and potentially still face fines depending on the department’s discretion. HB 1392 directs DSHS to respond to inquiries about how the law applies to a farmer’s or food producer’s specific facts within 30 days, so that they can comply with the law in good faith.

Author: Susan King.  Joint Author: Eddie Rodriguez.  Co-authors: Hughes| Lavender

 
Prominent pro-GM activist, Mark Lynas has, as expected, attacked the study by Dr. Judy Carman and her colleagues for their recent work titled, “A long-term toxicology study on pigs fed a combined genetically modified (GM) soy and GM maize diet.” Click here to read more about the study on our website.

Mark Lynas’ original article:  www.marklynas.org/2013/06/gmo-pigs-study-more-junk-science

 
Below is Dr. Carman’s specific reply to Lynas.

ML:  The authors are GM activists/campaigners and their results shouldn’t be trusted.

Summary:   The authors are not GM activists; they are highly credentialed experts.

Detailed Answer:    Two authors are Associate Professors in Health and the Environment, School of the Environment, Flinders University in South Australia.  Another is a Senior Lecturer at Adelaide University in South Australia.  Two are veterinarians, one is a medical doctor, and two are farm experts.  The authors have over 60 years of combined experience and expertise in medicine, animal husbandry, animal nutrition, animal health, veterinary science, biochemistry, toxicology, medical research, histology, risk assessment, epidemiology and statistics.

ML:  The paper’s acknowledgements are a veritable who’s who of anti-biotech activism, includin Jeffrey Smith, John Fagan and Arpad Pusztai.

Summary:  Two of these individuals are scientists with serious qualifications (qualifications Mr. Lynas does not possess). Mr. Smith’s acknowledgement derives from his role in fostering the international collaborations that were necessary part of the study’s completion.

Detailed Answer: There were 38 people in the acknowledgement section, including an ex government Minister, an ex Chief of Staff to the Govt Minister and an ex member of the Board of Australia’s food regulator, as well as numerous scientists with more qualifications than Mr. Lynas has (as author, advisor, and speaker) and numerous farmers who were involved in the research.

Mr. Lynas has picked out three people in that list of 38 and alleged that they are anti-GM activists. This is not the case. In fact two of them are scientists with serious qualifications, qualifications that he doesn’t have.

The only anti-GM activist, Jeffrey Smith, is acknowledged simply because he suggested that Howard, who was seeing these effects in pigs and wanted to determine if they were scientifically real, should contact Judy who had the scientific expertise to conduct the sudy. That simple and singular action resulted in discussions between Howard and Judy which resulted in this research. This starting point was rightfully acknowledged, but importantly, the research was conducted entirely independently of all three people Mr. Lynas mentions.

ML: Funding for the research was derived from anti-GM advocates and therefore biases the results.

Summary: Funding for the study was actually derived from a current supporter of GM technologies.

Detailed answer:   It is clearly stated in the paper that the major funder of IHER’s involvement in the study is the Government of Western Australia, and the current governmentt is a supporter of GM crops.

With regard to IHER’s previous work in opposing Bt brinjal in India and CSIRO’s GM wheat in Australia, IHER conducted a thorough review of the evidence presented and concluded that there were serious safety concerns about GM brinjal and CSIRO’s GM wheat. The organization opposed the release of these based on a review of the evidence, not on ideology.

ML:   All the animals were in very poor health. Weaner mortality rates indicate inadequate husbandry standards, and higher rates of abnormalities of the heart and liver in non-GM fed pigs were conveniently ignored.

Summary: Mr. Lynas does not appreciate the role of statistics in ascertaining scientific certainty.

Detailed answer:   Mr. Lynas is incorrect. These are not the mortality rates for weaners. The rates presented are for the entire lifespan of the animal. Furthermore, animal husbandry was the same for both the GM and non-GM fed groups. This effect has been randomised-out as an effect on the results. Therefore, animal husbandry is not a factor in the difference between GM and non-GM-fed pigs.

There are hundreds of numbers in the paper. Mr. Lynas has “cherry-picked” a few of these numbers that were not statistically significant and tried to allege that they are. Carman et al only discuss statistically significant findings because this is the scientifically credible approach.  GM-fed animals had smaller livers, more pneumonia and more abnormal lymph nodes, but the researchers did not make any statements about these findings because they were not statistically significantly different when compared to non-GM fed animals.

ML: The authors used “statistical fishing” in their interpretation of the results, clearly attempting to skew or exaggerate their findings.  What visual evidence is presented is done so to justify this statistical fishing experiment.

Summary:  The authors executed careful and comprehensive statistical analysis to answer two hypotheses that had been generated by previous observations by the researchers in the U.S. piggeries.

Detailed answer:   The authors performed statistical tests on all of the parameters that Mr. Lynas mentions, and none of them were found to be statistically significantly different. These analyses are clearly presented in the paper. Mr. Lynas either did not read the paper well enough or saw the analysis but did not understand them.

The counter argument from supporters of Mr. Lynas suggests that the study was not designed to test and statistically evaluate a sole hypothesis.  If the authors had measured just the variables associated with the hypotheses being specifically tested (stomach inflammation and reproductive problems) and nothing else, few statistical tests would have been done and little to no statistical adjustment would have been suggested.  The significant results that the authors found around the hypotheses that were tested should not be made invalid simply because the authors took some other measurements.

Furthermore, the level of inflammation in the non-GM fed group was concentrated in the mild to moderate range of inflammation. Feeding GM crops boosted that to severe inflammation, and this was a significant finding. Importantly, inflammation is a graded variable; the more inflammation, the more biologically impactful it can be to the animal. So, you cannot equalize the biological consequence of nil or mild inflammation to severe inflammation. Doing so goes against scientific knowledge on the effects of inflammation.

ML: This study subjects animals to inhumanely poor conditions.

Summary:  The pigs in both groups were treated equally, humanely and within commercial piggery standards. Any assumption otherwise would be contesting the standards of the U.S. government and should be directed as a complaint to U.S. legislators.

Detailed answer:   Pigs in commercial piggeries are not like laboratory animals that are raised and housed in specific-pathogen-free environments, sometimes only one animal to a cage.  On the contrary, pigs in commercial piggeries are part of an industrialised food chain.  Pigs are born in commercial farrowing facilities housing many sows at a time.  Once weaned, pigs are housed communally in large pens.  The result is a real-world experiment that is   closer to the interactive, infectious-disease-transmitting and messy school yard than than the more controlled environment of a laboratory animal house.  Commercial pigs can and do get infectious diseases and there are indeed a number of infectious diseases that tend to occur in US commercial piggeries.  Furthermore, pigs fight, bite and harass each other.   As a result, some pigs, particularly runts, can, and do, die.  Piggery owners expect some pigs to die and they factor this into their financial returns.  Indeed, if no pigs had died in this study, many US piggery owners would have found our results rather incredible.

The number of pigs that died was essentially the same between the GM-fed and non-GM-fed pigs. All pigs that died underwent autopsies.   In all cases, death was found to be due to things such as infectious diseases, ie things that were piggery-related.  At no time did any pig handler or veterinarian note, or autopsy indicate, that there was anything treatment-related associated with any pig’s death, including intestinal or stomach problems.  Moreover, the number of deaths were the same between groups, which adds weight to the evidence that there was no treatment-related aspect to these deaths.

All pigs, regardless of dietary group, were fed and treated the same way by experienced pig handlers that were blinded as to the dietary group of the pig so that any differences between the two dietary groups can only reasonably be due to the effect of the GM component of the diet.

Updated June 12, 2013

AUSTIN, Texas – June 12, 2013 – A ground-breaking study, “A long-term toxicology study on pigs fed a combined genetically modified (GM) soy and GM corn maize diet,” was published today by the peer-reviewed Journal of Organic Systems, Vol 8. No 1 (2013). The paper – co-authored by Dr. Judy Carman, Howard Vlieger, Dr. Larry Ver Steeg, Veryln Sneller, Dr. Garth Robinson, Dr. Kate Clinch-Jones, Dr. Julie Haynes, and Dr. John Edwards – shows that animals are harmed by the consumption of feed containing genetically modified (GM) crops.

“For as long as GM crops have been in the feed supply, we have seen increasing digestive and reproductive problems in animals,” explained Howard Vlieger, one of the initiators and coordinators of the study, a livestock farmer, and a Board member of the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance, which is a national non-profit organization based in Central Texas.

“Much of the previously anecdotal evidence from within the pig-farming industry is now scientifically documented and confirmed by this new study, linking the symptoms observed by farmers and veterinarians with obvious and statistically significant physiological damage in pigs. In my experience, farmers have experienced increased production costs and have seen escalating antibiotic use when feeding GM crops,” Vlieger added.

A group of Midwestern farmers collaborated with scientists from around the world to conduct a scientific study to see whether these stories were well founded. Pigs were chosen for the study because their digestive tracts are very similar to humans.

168 newly weaned pigs in a commercial piggery were fed either a typical diet incorporating GM soy and corn, or they were fed (in the control group) an equivalent non-GM diet. The pigs were reared under identical housing and feeding conditions. They were slaughtered over 5 months later, at their usual slaughter age, after eating the diets for their entire commercial lifespan. They were then autopsied by qualified veterinarians who worked “blind” – they were not informed which pigs were fed on the GM diet and which were from the control group.

The research results were striking, showing that the weight of the uterus in GM-fed pigs was on average 25% higher than in the control group of pigs. Also, the level of severe inflammation in stomachs was markedly higher in pigs fed on the GM diet. These animals were 2.6 times more likely to get severe stomach inflammation than control pigs. These findings are both biologically significant and statistically significant.

Farmers have been seeing a reduced ability to conceive and higher rates of miscarriage in piggeries where sows have been fed on a GM diet, along with a reduction in the number of piglets born if boars were used for conception rather than artificial insemination. There is also evidence of higher rates of intestinal problems in pigs fed a GM diet, including inflammation of the stomach and small intestine, stomach ulcers, a thinning of intestinal walls and an increase in haemorrhagic bowel disease, where a pig can rapidly “bleed-out” from its bowel and die.

This is the first independent long-term feeding trial of GM to livestock that we are aware of. The results are deeply concerning for people who suffer from digestive problems, food allergies, or fertility challenges.

“Our findings are of huge significance for several reasons,” explained Dr. Judy Carman, the lead researcher. “First, we have found these results using real-world conditions that don’t occur in a laboratory. Second, we have used pigs. Pigs with these health problems end up in our food supply. We eat them. Also, pigs have a very similar digestive system to people, so we need to investigate if people are getting similar digestive problems from eating GM crops.”

Dr. Carman added, “Third, we found these adverse effects when we fed the animals a mixture of crops containing three GM genes and the GM proteins that these genes produce. That is, we observed the combined effects of these GM proteins on health. These proteins may be acting synergistically to cause these effects. Yet no food regulator requires a safety assessment for synergistic effects.”

The full study is available at www.farmandranchfreedom.org/gmo-harms-reproductive-and-digestive-health. For more information contact Howard Vlieger at studentofthesoil@mtcnet.net or Dr. Judy Carman at judycarman@ozemail.com.au.

# # #

About Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance
Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance (FARFA) is a national organization that supports independent family farmers and protects a healthy and productive food supply for American consumers. FARFA promotes common sense policies for local, diversified agricultural systems.

The next step will be for the House of Representatives to take up its version of the Farm Bill.  This could happen as early as next week.  Stay tuned for news on what amendments are introduced and ways to get involved.

The results are deeply concerning for anyone who suffers from or has a loved one who suffers from digestive problems, food allergies, or fertility challenges.

An overview is provided below, and the full study, “A long-term toxicology study on pigs fed a combined genetically modified (GM) soy and GM maize diet,” is available online on our website.

Special thanks to Dr. Judy Carman, the lead researcher; Howard Vlieger, one of the initiators of the study and a Board member of the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance; and all of the farmers and scientists involved.
 
For a rebuttal to some of the critics of the study click here.
 

A long-term toxicology study on pigs fed a mixed GM diet:
Adverse effects of GM crops found.

By Dr. Judy Carman

This is a briefing about the contents of a new, peer-reviewed scientific paper titled: A long-term toxicology study on pigs fed a combined genetically modified (GM) soy and GM corn maize diet, by Dr. Judy Carman, Howard Vlieger, Dr. Larry Ver Steeg, Verlyn Sneller, Dr. Garth Robinson, Dr. Kate Clinch-Jones, Dr. Julie Haynes, and Dr. John Edwards.

At a commercial piggery in the U.S., we took 168 just-weaned pigs and fed them a typical diet for the piggery, containing soy and corn, for 22.7 weeks (over 5 months) until the pigs were slaughtered at their usual slaughter age. Half of the pigs were fed widely-used varieties of GM soy and GM corn (the GM-fed group) for this whole period, and the other half of the pigs were fed an equivalent non-GM diet (the control group). The GM diet contained three GM genes and therefore three GM proteins. One protein made the plant resistant to a herbicide, and two proteins were insecticides.

We chose a mixed diet instead of a single crop because this is usually what pigs and people eat. Regulators do not require animal feeding studies on mixtures of GM genes and their proteins, regardless of whether the genes are all “stacked” into the one plant or spread across several plants that are eaten in the same meal.

We chose pigs because they have a similar digestive system to humans, and because some of the investigators had been observing reproductive and digestive problems in pigs fed GM crops.

We took blood from the pigs a few days before they were slaughtered to do standard biochemistry tests. Autopsies were done by qualified veterinarians who didn’t know if a given pig was fed the GM diet or not, so their observations were completely unbiased.

Some of the investigators had previously seen a reduced ability to conceive and higher rates of miscarriage in piggeries where sows were fed a GM diet, and a reduction in the number of piglets born if boars were used for conception rather than artificial insemination. Artificial insemination guarantees the presence of a certain number of viable sperm. Because male pigs were neutered at 3 days of age in order to provide meat free of boar-taint, we were only able to look at the female reproductive system in these pigs. We found that, on average, the weight of the uterus of pigs fed the GM diet, as a proportion of the weight of the pig, was 25% higher than the control pigs. We found that this biologically significant finding was also statistically significant. We list some of the pathologies that could be occurring in these uteri in the paper.

Some of the investigators had also previously seen higher rates of intestinal problems in pigs fed a GM diet, including inflammation of the stomach and small intestine, stomach ulcers, a thinning of intestinal walls and an increase in haemorrhagic bowel disease, where a pig can rapidly “bleed-out” from their bowel and die. We weren’t able to look inside the intestines, due to the amount of food in them, but we were able to look inside the stomach.

We found that the level of severe inflammation in stomachs was markedly higher in pigs fed the GM diet. Pigs on the GM diet were 2.6 times more likely to get severe stomach inflammation than control pigs. Males were more strongly affected. While female pigs were 2.2 times more likely to get severe stomach inflammation when on the GM diet, males were 4 times more likely. These findings are both biologically significant and statistically significant.

We found that these key findings were not reflected in the standard biochemistry tests that are done in GM feeding studies, probably because standard biochemistry tests provide a poor measure of inflammation and matters associated with uterus size. We did however find a marginally significant change on a measure of liver health in the blood of GM-fed pigs.

A long-term toxicology study on pigs fed a combined genetically modified (GM) soy and GM maize diet – Carman, Vlieger, Steeg, Sneller, Robinson, Clinch-Jones, Haynes & Edwards

Contact:

Howard Vlieger, Maurice, Iowa
Email: studentofthesoil@mtcnet.net

Dr. Judy Carman, Adelaide, Australia
Email: judycarman@ozemail.com.au

The Texas Legislature passed three important local foods bills: the cottage foods bill (HB 970), the farmers’ market bill (HB 1382), and the DSHS Better Communications bill (HB 1392). These bills make it easier for local farmers and food producers to raise and sell healthy, local foods.

There is one last hurdle before these bills can become law: Governor Perry. The Governor has three options on each bill: (1) sign the bill, and it becomes law; (2) veto the bill, and it dies; (3) do nothing, and the bill will become law without his signature. He has until Sunday, June 16 to sign or veto the bills.

Please make one last call about the local foods bills. Call Governor Perry and urge him to sign all three local foods bills: HB 970, HB 1382, and HB 1392.

Your calls truly do make a difference. These bills faced opposition from some powerful players at the Legislature, including the Texas Retailers Association and the Texas Municipal League. Your voices outweighed their money and influence. Please help us in this final stretch!

A short description of the bills is at the end of this alert, and we will post additional information soon.

TAKE ACTION

Please make one last call about the local foods bills. Call Governor Perry at 512-463-2000 and urge him to sign all three local foods bills: HB 970, HB 1382, and HB 1392.

You can also send Governor Perry a message online at http://governor.state.tx.us/contact

MORE INFORMATION

You can click on the links for each bill to go to the legislative website, which includes information about the bill authors and the actual text of the bills.

HB 970 – Encouraging home-based food production, aka “cottage foods”: Until last year, anyone making and selling any food at all (other than uncut fruits and vegetables) had to do so in a commercial, licensed facility that was subject to regulations designed for large-scale industrial food production. Last session, the Texas Legislature provided that “cottage food producers” could make specific low-risk foods in their homes and sell directly to consumers, up to $50,000 per year, without being regulated by the state and local health departments.

The bill has led to the establishment and growth of numerous small businesses in this state, with no reports of resulting foodborne illness. HB 970 expands the law to include other foods designated as non-potentially hazardous by the FDA. The bill also removes the restriction that the sale has to occur at the person’s home, allowing the seller and buyer to connect at farmers markets, farm stands, and nonprofit community events.

HB 1382 – Making it easier to provide samples at farmers markets and farm stands: Letting potential customers sample food is a great way to increase sales and encourage people to try unusual fruits and vegetables. But current regulations that govern food samplings are based on the conditions in brick-and-mortar facilities and pose unnecessary challenges for farmers and food producers at local farmers’ markets.

HB 1382 provides clear, reasonable standards for sampling at farmers’ markets and farm stands. The bill also clarifies the standards for cooking demonstrations at farmers’ markets, and exempts educational cooking demonstrations from permit fees.

HB 1392 – Directing the DSHS to respond to inquiries about the law and its application to specific factual situations: Farmers and small-scale food producers have faced serious problems because of the inability to determine what is actually required under the regulations. When asked, the Department of State Health Services (DSHS) provides little guidance, leaving the producers to decide whether to invest anywhere from several hundred to tens of thousands of dollars and potentially still face fines depending on the department’s discretion. HB 1392 directs DSHS to respond to inquiries about how the law applies to a farmer’s or food producer’s specific facts within 30 days, so that they can comply with the law in good faith.

U.S. Senate continues debate on Farm Bill – now is the time to call your Senators to support amendments for small farmers, non-GMO agriculture, and food freedom!

The U.S. Senate is continuing to debate the Farm Bill, S.954. With over 200 amendments still on the table, the Senate plans to consider a motion to limit the remaining time for considering amendments.

There are several good amendments that have been filed, including ones to ban GMO salmon, protect small farmers from new federal regulations, and support research into non-GMO seeds. A description of the amendments is at the end of this alert.

It’s important to let your Senators know NOW that these amendments are important to you.

Can you call today? It takes just a couple of minutes, and it truly does make a difference!

Even if you called before, please call again. It’s important to let your Senators know that you’re continuing to pay attention to the Farm Bill!

TAKE ACTION

Call the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121, tell them your State, and ask to be connected to your Senators’ offices. Remember that you should call BOTH Senators from your State.

If it is after normal business hours or you prefer to use email, you can find the Senators’ online contact forms at www.senate.gov. First select your state, and then follow the links to the Senators’ individual pages.

Be sure to add a few sentences to personalize the message!

MESSAGE:

I am a constituent from ____ (state), and I urge Senator _______ to vote YES on all of the following amendments:

1. King’s Amendment #1042 to clarify the exemption for small farmers under the Food Safety Modernization Act;

2. King’s Amendment #1033 to require FDA to do an analysis of the science and costs imposed by its proposed regulations under the Food Safety Modernization Act;

3. Tester’s “Seeds & Breeds” Amendment #972 to dedicate a portion of USDA’s research to classical breeding;

4. Merkley’s Amendment #978 to repeal the biotech rider, aka “Monsanto Protection Act”

5. Begich’s Amendment #934 to ban GMO salmon

6. Boxer’s Amendment #1025 to support labeling of GMOs

7. Wyden’s Amendment #952 to remove the prohibition on planting hemp;

8. Boxer’s Amendment #1027 to protect honeybees and other pollinators;

9. Grassley’s Amendment #969 to improve enforcement of antitrust laws and address consolidation of our agricultural system;

10. Cruz’s Amendment #1083 to prohibit mandatory check-off programs.

More information about each amendment is provided below.

 

MORE INFORMATION on FARM BILL AMENDMENTS

 
I. YES on Senator King’s Amendment #1042 that helps protect more small-scale, direct-marketing farmers from burdensome new federal regulations. The FDA has undermined the original intent of the Tester-Hagan amendment to the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) by basing farmers’ qualifications on all the food they sell, rather than the food subject to FSMA. Senator King’s Amendment restores the original intent and brings more farmers within the protections of the Tester-Hagan provision, preventing them from being driven out of business by new federal regulations.
 
II. YES on Senator King’s Amendment #1033: The FDA’s proposed rules under FSMA are not based on sound science. Instead, they basically assume the worst of every situation and then force the farmers to find science on their own to prove that their farming methods are safe. Many traditional and sustainable methods of cultivation will be guilty until proven innocent. Senator King’s amendment would require the agency to do an analysis of the scientific information used to develop the proposed rules, as well as analysis of the rules’ economic impacts. The analysis would specifically include the impact on local food systems and the availability of local food.
 
III. YES on Senator Tester’s Classical Breeding Amendment #972 to provide alternatives to genetically engineered crops. Senator Tester’s amendment prioritizes public cultivar and breed development through classical breeding. The amendment does not call for any new expenditures by the government, nor does it stop all funding for GMO research. It is a modest approach that allocates some existing research money for non-GMO research.
 
IV. YES on Senator Merkley’s Amendment #978 to repeal the Monsanto Protection Act. In the last continuing budget resolution, pro-biotech forces inserted a provision that allows companies like Monsanto and DuPont to continue to sell genetically modified (GMO) seeds for planting even when a court of law has found they were approved illegally. The provision forces USDA to grant temporary permits and deregulate GMO crops even if a Federal court has ruled that USDA hadn’t adequately considered the environmental or economic risks to farmers. Senator Merkley’s amendment repeals the provision and restores judicial review of GMO crops.
 
V. YES on Senator Begich’s Amendment #934 to ban GMO salmon. The FDA continues to consider the application for AquaBounty’s genetically engineered salmon, and appears likely to approve it despite objections from hundreds of thousands of Americans and many scientists. Since it will not be labeled, people will have no way of choosing to avoid genetically engineered salmon in the stores if this fish is approved.

In addition, the GMO salmon poses a threat to those who wish to eat wild salmon or other seafood; scientists have predicted that escaped GMO salmon would likely wipe out wild salmon populations, which will destroy the livelihood of coastal communities that depend on fishing. Senator Begich’s amendment protects both consumers and our important wild fish populations.
 
VI. YES on Senator Boxer’s Amendment #1025 that expresses support for labeling of GMOs, although it does not directly mandate labeling. “It is the sense of the Senate that the United States should join the 64 other countries that have given consumers the right to know if the foods purchased to feed their families have been genetically engineered or contain genetically engineered ingredients.”
 
VII. YES on Senator Wyden’s Amendment #952 to allow American farmers to once again grow hemp to the extent that it is allowed under state laws. Industrial hemp is the non-psychoactive, low-THC, oilseed and fiber varieties of the Cannabis sativa plant. Hemp has absolutely no use as a recreational drug. Hemp is planted in many countries, and it is legal to use in the U.S. – but it is not legal to plant it in the U.S. The seed is known for its healthy protein and rich oil. The outer fiber from the stalk can be used for clothing, canvas and rope; the inner core fiber can be used for construction and paper production. This crop provides excellent opportunities for farmers for a sustainable, profitable crop.
 
VIII. YES on Senator Boxer’s Amendment #1027 to protect honeybees and other pollinators. Senator Boxer’s amendment would require the USDA, the Department of Interior, and the Environmental Protection Agency to protect the long-term viability of honeybees and other pollinators. Honeybees are disappearing at an alarming rate, and the federal agencies have been just sitting by and watching it happen. This poses a threat to all food production and we cannot afford to let it continue.
 
IX. YES on Grassley’s Amendment #969 to create a USDA special counsel on consolidation and fight back against the corporate takeover of our food system. A small handful of companies control the vast majority of our agricultural system. This unprecedented level of consolidation has gone almost entirely unchallenged, allowing these companies to squeeze out farmers. For consumers, this means lower quality food at higher prices. Senator Grassley has filed an amendment that would create a USDA special counsel to monitor consolidation in agriculture. The counsel would coordinate antitrust enforcement and efforts to improve competition in the industry.
 
X. YES on Cruz’s Amendment #1083 to prohibit mandatory check-offs. Under the current “check-off” programs, anytime a farmer sells a cow or a gallon of milk or any other covered commodity, the farmer is required to pay a fee to industry-run organizations. These funds are used to pay for things such as the “Got Milk?” and “Pork, the other white meat” advertising campaigns. The problem is that these advertising campaigns benefit primarily the retailers and grocery stores, not the farmers, but the farmers are stuck paying the bills.

When it comes to raw milk, the industry adds insult to injury by promoting only pasteurized milk products and running ads against raw milk — yet raw milk farmers are still required to pay into the check-off to support those ads. And now there is a proposal for an organic check-off, to tax even more farmers. The Cruz Amendment would bar any check-off program from being mandatory. If producers wish to fund a joint advertising campaign, they still could, but they would no longer be coerced to support advertising efforts that are not in their interest.

AUSTIN, Texas – May 23, 2013 – Yesterday, the Texas Senate voted to pass HB 970, the Cottage Foods Bill sponsored by Senator Robert Deuell (R-Greenville); HB 1382, the Farmers Market Bill (also sponsored by Senator Deuell); and HB 1392, the DSHS Better Communications Act sponsored Senator Jane Nelson (R-Grapevine). All three bills will now go to the Governor for signing.

HB 970 expands on last session’s cottage foods law, allowing cottage food producers to make low-risk foods – such as baked goods, jams and jellies, dried herbs, dried fruits and vegetables, granolas, dry mixes, pickles, and coffee/tea mixes – and sell at places such as farmers markets and community events, as well as from home.

“Patrons at farmers markets will soon be able to take advantage of a much wider selection of locally produced foods. It’s all part of preserving our local foods and local culture, while keeping our money in our local economy,” said Kelley Masters, owner of Home Sweet Home Bakery and founder of the grassroots cottage foods movement Texas Baker’s Bill.

HB 1382, known as the “Farmers Market” Bill, establishes clear, reasonable standards for sampling at farmers’ markets and farm stands, replacing the current overly burdensome and confusing regulations. The bill also clarifies the requirements for cooking demonstrations and exempts educational demonstrations from permit fees.

“How wonderful for a farmer to be able to slice a black Spanish radish or a kohlrabi for a shopper to taste just as they do at farmers’ markets across the country. This education is so important in our mission to encourage families to eat more fruits and vegetables while increasing farmers’ revenues,” said Carla Jenkins, manager of the Cedar Park and Mueller Farmers’ Markets.

The DSHS Better Communications Act, HB 1392, directs the DSHS to respond within 30 days to inquiries about how the law applies to a farmer’s or food producer’s specific circumstances, so they can comply in good faith. Farmers and small-scale food producers have faced serious problems in the past because of the inability to determine what is actually required under the regulations.

“DSHS often gives our direct-to-consumer businesses multiple answers to the question of what types of permits we need or, if questioned as to why we fit into specific categories of permits, simply won’t give an answer at all. Family ranches that are providing safe and healthy meats to consumers want to be in compliance – we just need clear direction, and this bill would make that a reality,” said Amy Greer, owner and operator of Winters Family Beef.

Both the cottage foods and farmers’ market bills have been supported by the Farm-to-Table Caucus, founded in the spring of 2012 by Representative Eddie Rodriguez (D-Austin) and Representative Lois Kolkhorst (R-Brenham), to educate members of the Texas House of Representatives on issues relating to the growing, harvesting and consumption of Texas foods.

The 83rd Texas Legislature marks significant progress in support for the local food movement at the Capitol. In 2011, only three local foods bills were even filed, and only one passed; this session, nine bills were filed and three of them passed. In a session remarkable for the number of bills that died without being voted on, this success rate reflects the legislators’ awareness of their constituents’ support for local foods.

For more information visit www.farmandranchfreedom.org/texas-local-food-bills-2013

# # #

About Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance
Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance (FARFA) is a national organization that supports independent family farmers and protects a healthy and productive food supply for American consumers. FARFA promotes common sense policies for local, diversified agricultural systems.