Tag Archives: Belinda Silva

Organics: Another Fine Government Mess

12 Tuesday Jan 2016

Posted by in Food Security and Safety, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

usda-organicThe Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), as part of the 1990 Farm Bill, established the National Organic Program (NOP). The program, as administered by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), oversees uniform standards governing the marketing of organically produced products. The NOP’s mission is to assure consumers of consistent organic standards of production and to facilitate the interstate commerce of organically produced food.

At the time of the NOP’s inception, the organic market for farm products had an estimated annual value of $1 billion.  By 2012, U.S. certified organic sales were at $28.4 billion and according to the USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS), the sales for 2014 are estimated at $35 billion. It is clear that organic sales are showing significant growth, but at what costs?

The current Chipotle E. coli outbreak offers an opportunity for shoppers to understand the true nature of the USDA’s organic certification program. Numerous studies and public opinion polls find consumers overwhelmingly believe the higher priced, organically certified food is a healthier, safer choice.  However, experts, consumer groups, and scientific research do not support that view.

In one example, a 14-page letter dated October 8, 2015, by the Consumer Reports National Research Center details many of the failings of the NOP. The letter criticizes the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) for approval of synthetic and non-organic nutrient additives and synthetic pesticide material, even in baby formulas. The letter states, “We support the proposal to remove nonylphenol ethoxylates (alkylphenol ethoxylates) or NPEs/APEs from the list of “inerts” allowed in organic production because of their toxic and endocrine-disrupting effects.”

The Consumer Reports letter demonstrates the discrepancy between what the NOP entails and what the public believes the program offers. The NOP outlines the rules and processes to create uniformity for organic labeling. Although there are restrictions and prohibitions of a variety of chemical applications, the program allows for many waivers and exemptions. Nowhere in the program does it suggest certification assures a safer or more nutritious food choice. In fact, Dr. Stuart Smyth, a food safety expert and agriculture biotechnology researcher, calls the National Organic Standards, “an illusion of food safety.” As Smyth explains, “These organic standards pertain to seed, fertilizer, and chemicals that are allowed to be used to produce a crop that will be certifiably organic when it is ready to be harvested. These production standards have absolutely nothing to do with increasing food safety.”

Still, the organic industry, as a marketing ploy, perpetuates the myth to consumers that organic certification implies safer foods. Moreover, with the ever-growing market share, one would assume conscientious shoppers increasingly prefer organic foods. Do they or is that another false assumption? What has changed in the past 15 years to drive the annual market value of organic food products from $1 billion to $35 billion if not consumer preference? How about the huge increase in consumer prices for the organic products, the increased volume of the labeled products, and the massive increase in program funding? To explain, let’s consider just some of the taxpayer dollars pumped into the NOP by means of the most recent farm bill, the 2014 Farm Act.

  • $20,000,000 for each fiscal year 2014 through 2018 for program operation
  • $5,000,000 to the Secretary of Agriculture for data collection and distribution to National Agriculture Statistics Service (NASS) and Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS).
  • $15,000,000 for each fiscal year 2014 through 2018 for modernization and technology upgrade
  • $5,000,000 upgrade collaboration with Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC).
  • $11,500,000 for each fiscal year 2014 through 2018 for cost-share programs with CCC.
  • $7,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2014 through 2018 for natural products research.

In the above-designated funding commitments alone, the federal government will spend $277.5 million through the term of the current agriculture authorization bill. An astonishing amount, considering the original 1990 Organic Foods Production Act stipulated the program costs will be covered entirely by fees gleaned from the program’s participants.

The growth of the organic market follows the growth in federal dollars pumped into the program. Food safety is not improved. Consumers have no assurance they are purchasing a more nutritious product. Third party certifiers charge upwards of $3,000 to farmers for label use creating an incentive for fraud. Foreign products are certified outside of the U.S. by foreign agents with no USDA oversite. Contemporary farmers are at a competitive disadvantage as a result of the marketing, promotion, and price difference of organically labeled product. Organic foods can potentially be less safe than their uncertified counterpart. And, in the end, the taxpayers are again burdened with an unproductive, fraud-laden, market manipulating program that offers no demonstrative benefit.

– See more at: http://environmentblog.ncpa.org/organics-another-fine-government-mess/#sthash.SHfTXGlJ.dpuf

Another photograph to look at carefully.

29 Tuesday Dec 2015

Posted by in Islam, National Security, Terrorism, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

The woman is carrying a child on her back, a baby in front, a small child holding on to her coat, while also carrying a bag of supplies from what looks like the Red Cross. Oh yes…all while barefoot! Nice strapping, young, fighting-age men there walking with her. I say we accept ONLY women and children, and ONLY after we’ve fully vetted the women. Those young men need to stay in their country and fight the aggressors.

The Rugged Individualist

In the photograph below there are 11 people – all Syrian refugees. There are 7 young men. They look reasonably fit to me. There are, as well, one woman, two babies and one young girl. Note the following. First, look at the feet of these travelers. Who is the only person who has NO SHOES. Then determine who among the 8 fully grown persons is carrying the two babies (one in a papoose style carry). Again, note who is carrying the “supply” bag. Finally observe to whose coat the little girl clings. These observations bother me significantly. Do they bother you?

image001

Roy Filly

View original post

Image

Broad Perspective: I Ain’t Buying It

06 Sunday Dec 2015

Tags

, , , , , ,

Let’s see here.  The recently arrived “bride” is the one that is being held up as the real radical, anti-American terrorist. The “groom” was just a quiet introvert with no friends, until recently no woman, and often picked on by his co-workers.
Do you see what’s happening here? Clearly the narrative is being well spun.
We are being told that the person who has no family in this country was the real instigator, and she influenced this poor, simple man.
Think about this. If we believe it was HER, then it will be easier for us to believe the threat was neutralized with her death.
Why does it matter? Because, the man has family here. He attended the local mosque every day. He was well engrained in the large, wealthy, educated, and politically active muslim community.
If we believe him to be radicalized, then we have to assume his family and friends are a continuing threat. They are!
There is no way these two pulled together that weapons cache without local assistance.
What is happening is a social influence tactical maneuver called, “framing.” And I’m going to go ahead and call BULL CRAP.

Taqiyya

Lying to an infidel to advance Islam is an integral part of the ideology and promoted in the Quran.

Posted by | Filed under Islam, National Security, Terrorism, Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

OIG Announces Probe of EPA’s Reporting Practices on Biofuel Impact

26 Monday Oct 2015

Posted by in Agency, EPA, Government, Office of Inspector General (OIG), Renewable Fuels Mandates, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) has announced a probe into the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) adherence to reporting requirements regarding biofuel’s impact on air quality. Under the Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS), the EPA is to submit to Congress a science-based triennial report on the effect of the controversial program.

As a result of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), changes were made to the Renewable Fuel Standard program (RFS), the program that mandates the blending of ethanol with petroleum-based fuels for domestic use. The law directs the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to analyze lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the increased use of renewable fuels in comparison with petroleum-based fuels.

The Clean Air Act (CAA), defines the term “lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions” as the GHG impact from all emissions including land use changes and other activities. The law requires EPA’s report to include,

“…all stages of production of fuel and feedstock and distribution, from feedstock generation or extraction through the distribution and delivery and use of the finished fuel to the ultimate consumer, where the mass values for all greenhouse gases are adjusted to account for their relative global warming potential.”

According to the OIG’s announcement, the goal of the review is to determine the following;

  1. Whether the EPA has complied with the law on reporting requirements of the Clean Air Act.
  2. If the EPA followed a mandate to amend its previous biofuel’s environmental impact reports to reflect the findings of a 2011 study by the National Academy of Sciences.
  3. If the EPA used the National Academy of Sciences data in subsequent reports.

In preparation for the review the OIG has asked EPA to provide:

  • Triennial Reports to Congress issued after the EPA’s first report in 2011, and any other reports to Congress on the environmental and resource conservation impacts of the RFS program.
  • RFS Antibacksliding Analysis required under Section 211(v) of the Clean Air Act.
  • Documentation of the EPA’s response to the 2011 National Academy of Sciences study and its recommendations.
  • Documented changes or planned future modifications to the RFS regulatory impact analysis or lifecycle analysis based on findings/recommendations from the 2011 National Academy of Sciences study, Triennial Reports to Congress and/or Antibacksliding Analysis (or documentation explaining why no changes were necessary).

The OIG’s investigation comes at a time when the call to cut corn-based ethanol is growing louder. Interestingly, the announcement came one day after the University of Tennessee released results of a comprehensive 10-year review which calls for a restructuring of the RFS program. The Tennessee study concludes, “We have had 10 years under the RFS and a commercially viable, next-generation biofuels technology has not emerged.”

– See more at: http://environmentblog.ncpa.org/oig-announces-probe-of-epas-reporting-practices-on-biofuels-impact/#sthash.TRDihzn8.dpuf

Congressional Request leads to Scathing Review of the EPA

22 Thursday Oct 2015

Posted by in Agency, Energy & Environment, EPA, Government Accountability Office (GAO), Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

by: Belinda Silva

Businesses, landowners, and farmers know the feeling of dread that comes with hearing the words “not in compliance” from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA has earned the reputation of delivering heavy-handed enforcement actions and exorbitant punitive penalties. The agency’s authoritarian over-reach is near legendary, earning them the moniker “rogue agency”. Even the U.S. Supreme Court gave the EPA a dressing-down stating they commonly strong-arm regulated parties into “voluntary compliance” without the opportunity for judicial review. The EPA has taken a firm stance that the rules are published, and therefore, noncompliance is not excusable.

Yet, a congressionally requested federal review of the EPA found the agency regularly ignores rules that pertain to its own operating procedures as dictated by law. In fact, a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report says the EPA disregards the law in its reporting to congressional inquiries. According to the GAO, the EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) is not in compliance with the long-standing Environmental Research, Development and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 (ERDDAA). As well, the agency’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) fails to follow legal requirements of the Clean Air Act.

The GAO investigation revealed agency staffers routinely judge whether a congressional request is a policy driven question or requires a science-based response. As a result, answers to lawmaker’s queries often have no scientific basis in fact. Also, the agency failed to perform regular five-year impact reviews of national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Under the Clean Air Act, CASAC is to review and report “any adverse public health, welfare, social, economic, or energy effects” resulting from regulations and strategies of NAAQS. According to the GAO, the EPA “has never” instructed CASAC to comply with the federal requirement to review and report.

Members of Congress and the GAO have voiced similar concerns regarding EPA conduct and manner of operational performance.

  • Regularly ignores epidemiological evidence that dispels, counters, or invalidates their decisions.
  • Ignores their own scientific panels to format or propel false alarms.
  • Uses federal law, such as the Clean Water Act, to regulate private lands through regulatory “takings” of rights.
  • Consistently exceeds its legislative authority forcing businesses, municipalities, and citizens to challenge regulations through the court system.
  • Abuses authority in “policing” of private property activity through notoriously heavy fines.
  • Habitually practices “moving the goal” tactics to hamper businesses and industries efforts to remain operationally compliant.

The agency’s standard operating procedures often are in defiance of the law. Also, the arbitrary use of selected and contrived science to establish environmental regulation is a serious threat to our national wellbeing and jeopardizes public health, general welfare, socio-economic conditions and our environment.

– See more at: http://environmentblog.ncpa.org/congressional-request-leads-to-scathing-review-of-the-epa/#sthash.eyxYrxSY.dpuf

The Failure of the U.S. Biofuels Program

15 Tuesday Sep 2015

Posted by in Energy & Environment, EPA, Ethanol, Renewable Fuels Mandates, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Ending a relationship is never easy, even one with a proven history of broken promises, twisted logic, weak justifications and financial exploitation. Such is the bond between the American taxpayer and the domestic ethanol industry. In the beginning, statements of common goals sparked hopeful enthusiasm. Many eagerly supported the romantic notion of growing our way to energy independence and an American-led green-based movement towards world prosperity. But, alas, the thrill is gone, and the truth exposed. The once proud, almost pompous, biofuels sector is struggling for justification.

The affair began in 2007 with the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA). Contained within the act is the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) provisions that sets forth incentives for the development of biofuels such as plant-based ethanol and biodiesel. At the time, Bush had committed to the goal of ending American’s addiction to fossil fuel. The original promise was a reduced dependency on Middle Eastern oil, cleaner air, a boon to agriculture and reduced fuel costs for consumers.

Unfortunately, ethanol has failed to live up to its promised benefits. Recent low prices at the pump have exposed its life-support dependency on the government. Although direct subsidies have expired, ethanol producers continue to benefit from other financial incentives and federal mandates. A study by the NARC Consulting Group calls the program an economic death-spiral and discloses its many flaws. Yet, industry groups rally for maintaining, even increasing, RFS percentages in the face of mounting evidence of the program’s failure. Still, in a recent rule change proposal, the EPA published a plan to amend the mandates.

The statutory requirement to blend government-supported biofuels with free-market fuels is market manipulation. If the value of ethanol and other biofuels were legitimate, forced consumption, through the RFS, would not be necessary. Congress should end this failed relationship and costly experiment. Let the free market drive innovation and job development. Below, are but a few of the adverse effects of the RFS:

  • disruptive to agriculture markets
  • increases food costs
  • rife with fraud
  • lacks self-sustainability
  • burdens Taxpayers
  • environmental damage
  • violates free-market principles

– See more at: http://environmentblog.ncpa.org/the-failure-of-u-s-biofuels-program/#sthash.DcCdlOEx.dpuf

California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard

31 Monday Aug 2015

Posted by in California, Energy & Environment, Government, Renewable Fuels Mandates, State, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

California’s 2002 Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS), Senate Bill No. 1078 mandated that electric providers procure renewable power from eligible sources at 17% of customer sales by 2017. The bill also required the Public Utility Commission (PUC), being the regulatory agency for electricity providers, establish a certification and monitoring program through the state Energy Commission. Subsequently, Senate Bill No. 107, along with executive orders, accelerated the program to require a 20% renewable procurement by the end of 2010 and 33% by the end of 2020. Recently, Governor Jerry Brown announced his proposal to further increase the portfolio standard to 50% by 2030. According to the RPS Program Overview page, California’s goal is to be, “One of the most ambitious renewable energy standards in the country”. It appears the state may have succeeded in that effort.

Currently, federal funds nurse CA’s renewables mandate in the form of subsidies like the Production Tax Credits (PTC) and American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). However, revenue from these federal programs are not expected to continue, and pressure is mounting for the renewable fuel industry to stand on its own. In fact, several states are reconsidering their programs’ viability.

So, how will proponents peddle the program to consumers when the federal subsidies end? The full cost associated with RPS programs are difficult to evaluate. A 2015 study by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), and prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), estimates an expected 10% increase in electrical energy costs to consumers as a result of the state’s RPS. This, to a state with consistently the highest electricity cost in the nation. Still, the consumer impact aspect of continuing, even expanding the mandate, does not appear to be the primary consideration. The report suggests the methodologies used to discover the true costs are demonstrably inappropriate. As well, outlays for integration, transmission, and administrative expenditures are not included in the cost analysis.

CA RPS

Still, the consumer impact aspect of continuing, even expanding the mandate, does not appear to be the primary consideration. The report suggests the methodologies used to discover the true costs are demonstrably inappropriate. As well, outlays for integration, transmission, and administrative expenditures are not included in the cost analysis.

NREL suggests to policymakers that going forward, they should look beyond “simply a narrow consideration” of the costs of the program to ratepayers. Instead, the report promotes the development of a means to recognize program value based on “broader societal impacts”.

– See more at: http://environmentblog.ncpa.org/californias-renewable-portfolio-standard/#sthash.hn2mN53e.dpuf

Gold King Mine an EPA Superfund Site

18 Tuesday Aug 2015

Posted by in Energy & Environment, EPA, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

On Tuesday, August 11, 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released an Emergency Response Statement to a massive pollutant spill in Colorado. According to the agency, EPA contractors caused the accidental breach. As a result, contaminated water flushed from the long abandoned Gold King Mine into Cement Creek, a tributary of the Animas River. The following day, EPA released another statement to explain early reports of a much smaller spill. Following efforts by the U.S. Geological Survey to measure flow rate, the volume of lead, acidic toxins, and heavy metal-laden water was determined to be over three million gallons.

Additionally disturbing was the failure of the EPA to inform the state governors of the spill. “The EPA is not communicating openly with the state of New Mexico,” said Governor Susana Martinez to Fox News. “It took them about a little less than twenty-four hours before they even told us.” In fact, she goes on to explain that it was the Southern Ute Indians that notified her office and criticized the EPA for not revealing exactly what the toxins are.

To farmers, industry, and small business the EPA has the well-established reputation of intimidation and tyrannical authority. The enforcement section of their web page offers thousands of criminal prosecutions, a majority of them settled by a guilty plea. Comparable percentages in the criminal justice system are unattainable. Simply, the justice system requires the government to prove a person guilty while EPA’s system leaves little opportunity for one to even attempt to prove themselves innocent.

For example, Washington state dairyman Roger Bajema pled guilty to permitting wastewater discharge. His plea finally came three years after EPA inspectors took a sample of soil from a drainage ditch. Mr. Bajema acknowledges the ditch had a broken rain water pipe used to move run-off from barn roofs to a holding pond. Broken pipe aside, the family believes he was “targeted”. The farmer had attended an EPA informational forum the day before the inspection. Mr. Bajema spoke, voicing his displeasure with the heavy-handed presence of the agency in his community. The following day, while he worked to repair the cracked water pipe, EPA officials arrived at his farm and began inspecting and sampling. After three years of threats of fines for up to $37,000 a day, he finally learned of the results of the samples in a highly dramatized press release.

The EPA earned a $7,500 penalty for the three-year assault on the Bajema family dairy farm. A large sum of money for a small operator, but a mere pittance to EPA coffers. In 2014 alone, under Civil Enforcement Monetary Commitments, the agency raked in $9,738,000,000 (rounded up to the nearest hundred million) in court ordered Injunctive Relief. They received another $135,000,000 (give or take) in other penalties. In addition, under Superfund Cleanup Enforcement they realized $601,000,000 (thereabouts) and another $63,000,000 in Criminal Enforcement Fines (Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 2015). This to an agency with a 2015 enacted budget of over $8.1 billion and a workforce of over 15,000.

Still, the EPA is responsible for violating the 1972 Clean Water Act (CWA), the very law it is tasked with enforcing. According to 33 U.S.C §1251 et seq. (1972), the CWA makes it, “unlawful to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters” (EPA, 2015, para. 3). Mr. Bajema was penalized $7,500 and humiliated in his community for the charge of “potential” to pollute. As a result of the stress, he has sold the cows and closed his operation. Will the EPA suffer a similar punishment? It isn’t likely.

The superpower agency may have already begun working on a way to spin their failure. The EPA website shows the Upper Animas Mining District in Silverton, Co as a Region 8 Superfund site although not on the National Priority List (NPL). It is clear the EPA was aware of the issue for decades. However, a recent Associated Press (AP) news article blames the local community for standing in the way thus contributing to EPA’s failure to take action. This “it’s not our fault” approach to the disaster is not a defense Mr. Bajema offered.

Six days after the spill EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy stated, “It pains me to no end to see this happening”. As well, at an event in Washington D.C. she said the EPA is taking full responsibility and when pressed by a reporter said, “I am absolutely sorry this ever happened“. This may be the closest we get to an apology. It pains us all, but where is the accountability? Are we to believe the zero tolerance attitude of EPA enforcement will result in an equal penalty, punishment, and public humiliation as suffered by other offenders? Or, like the General Services Administration (GSA), Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and the Veteran’s Administration (VA) the EPA will go on and suffer no consequences.

– See more at: http://environmentblog.ncpa.org/gold-king-mine-an-epa-superfund-site/#sthash.CSOnq7xS.dpuf