The New Meat Label that Could Save Your Life | Rodale News

Keep your eyes peeled for beef with this new label to keep E. coli out of your kitchen.
BY EMILY MAIN

The flame will sear off any bacteria on the outside of your steak, but it won't kill bugs that were driven in by tenderization.

The meat industry has a lot of dirty little secrets. Chicken producers add the carcinogenic heavy metal arsenic to chicken feed to speed growth. Poultry producers "enhance" their meats with brines that keep the meat moist when cooking but expose you to so much potassium that doctors are worried it could be raising rates of kidney failure. And beef producers routinely use a process called mechanical tenderization that increases the likelihood that you'll be exposed to dangerous E. coli bacteria.

But the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has just proposed a new rule that could eliminate some of the risk of that last one. The agency has decided that any cuts of beef that have been mechanically tenderized need to be labeled so consumers can treat them carefully. The rule would also require beef producers to provide instructions on how to cook such beef so that any and all bacteria would be killed. 9 Appalling Facts about Meat

Mechanical tenderization is a risky process, born out of a dirty, unsustainable beef production system. The heavy use of antibiotics and the reliance on corn and other grains as feed produce tough meat, Sarah Klein, a senior attorney in the food-safety program at Centers for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), told Rodale News earlier this year. So before that meat is sold, it's pierced with needles or blades that help cut tough muscle fibers. However, in doing so, she says, those needles or blades drive any bacteria that may be living on the exterior of a piece of meat farther into the flesh. So when that filet or T-bone reaches the restaurant and you order it medium-rare, the bacteria on the outside—usually E. coli—will be killed when the steak is seared, but any E. coli that was driven into the flesh of the meat by needles or blades will continue to thrive.

The new labeling requirements will, at the very least, alert you to cuts of beef that have been tenderized so you (or the chef at your favorite restaurant) will know that those cuts need special handling. According to CSPI, you should cook mechanically tenderized beef until the internal temperature is at least 145ºF (160ºF is safest) and then let it rest for 3 minutes to let the heat destroy any lingering bacteria.How Dirty is the Meat You Eat?

That simple difference in handling could save your life. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has tracked five separate E. coli outbreaks back to mechanically tenderized beef in the last 10 years, and in its own independent evaluations, CSPI has determined that half of the 82 outbreaks attributable to steak were caused by E. coli, the bacteria most likely to worm its way inside a mechanically tenderized cut of beef.

The new labels are currently undergoing a 60-day comment period, after which the USDA will determine when they should go into effect.

Until that happens, stick with grass-fed beef, which is raised with neither antibiotics nor corn and therefore, doesn't need to be mechanically tenderized. Buy from farmers certified by the American Grassfed Association.

Source Link:
The New Meat Label that Could Save Your Life | Rodale News

The Case for No GMO Patents

14 June 2013 11:49By Tony Pereira

(Photo: CT Senate Democrats / Flickr)The June 13, 2013 Supreme Court decision that human genes are not patentable should logically be the first step in reversing three decades of decisions that flouted the previously general understanding that Section 101 of Title 35 U.S.C. prohibited patenting of living organisms.

In the case of genetically modified seeds, strands of DNA from flowers, fish and animals and/or a virus are loaded into a gene gun - sort of a specialized pellet gun - and literally shot into the new seed to be modified in hopes that the inserted DNA will be incorporated by it without further intervention, mix with the seed and take hold, and the "new" plant that will grow from this new seed will replicate and reproduce the new DNA in the new seeds after harvesting.
Full article: The Case for No GMO Patents

Toby Hemenway Permaculture Research Institute - Permaculture Forums, Courses, Information & News

The Permaculture Flower, modified from David Holmgren. The petals represent
the basic human needs, and we work to meet them sustainably on the personal,
local, and regional levels.

Full Text Link: Toby Hemenway Permaculture Research Institute - Permaculture Forums, Courses, Information & News

Study questions feeding GM food to farm animals - ABC Rural - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Updated Thu Jun 13, 2013 4:03pm AEST

PHOTO: A study suggests feeding pigs genetically modified crops can lead to health problems. (Denis Balibouse, file photo: Reuters)

PHOTO: Stomach of Pig fed genetically modified corn and soy (Supplied)

PHOTO: Stomach of a pig fed on non-genetically modified corn and soy. (Supplied)

AUDIO: GM safety concerns (ABC Rural)
MAP: Melbourne 3000

A joint Australian-US study has raised concerns about the safety of genetically modified crops fed to farm animals.

The study, conducted by researchers in South Australia and Iowa, showed pigs fed GM soy and corn crops had more stomach inflammation and heavier uteri than those fed non-GM feed.

"We found there was an increase in severe stomach inflammation in the GM-fed pigs - 2.6 times higher overall," said Lead researcher, Associate Professor Judy Carman,

Dr Carman says the study shows a clear need for further research into the health impacts of GM crops.

"The thing about pigs is that they have a digestive system that's very similar to humans," she said.

"Since we've got these major findings, some significant health related findings here in these pigs, I think it's important to consider that this might be happening in humans as well.

"We need to do further follow up studies to see if it is happening in people as well."

But the methodology and statistical significance of the study has been questioned.

Professor Rick Roush, from the University of Melbourne, says the fact that the study examined multiple variables without a specific hypothesis makes it open to 'procedure wise error'.

"If you test 20-30 things you'll expect to find at least one or maybe two that do appear to be unusual, but that doesn't make them statistically significant," he said.

A specific hypothesis isn't mentioned in the study and Dr Carman admits the researchers weren't expecting to find any difference in the weights of the uteri.

But she says there was an objective of studying inflammation in the pigs' stomach.

"We actually went there with a specific purpose in mind and we tested those," she said.

When you do that approach it doesn't really matter what other sort of things you might be measured on the side."

The research has been peer-reviewed and published in the Journal of Organic Systems. But Professor Roush says that doesn't guarantee its scientific credibility.

"If Dr Carman and her colleagues wanted to make a strong case about this, they would have managed to get this published in a journal that was actually focussed on toxicology," he said.

Dr Carmen insists the study is scientifically rigorous. But other scientists have also raised concerns about its methodology.

The study classified stomach inflammation into 'moderate' and 'severe'. While 31 per cent of the GM-fed pigs demonstrated severe inflammation (as opposed to 12 per cent of the non-GM fed pigs) only 25 per cent of the GM-fed pigs were classified as having 'moderate' inflammation, as opposed to 29 per cent of the non-GM fed pigs.

Professor Frank Dunshae from Melbourne University says when both moderate and severe inflammation are considered, the GM-fed pigs don't show a statistically significant incidence of inflammation.

"One could argue about what the significance is between moderate and severe," he said.

"It's all qualitative [in terms of] how you separate out mild, moderate and severe."

Professor Dunshae said the study is interesting and worth repeating. But he said the lack of difference in overall mortality and growth rates of the pigs means there is little cause for alarm from the findings.

"The fact that the animals grew at a similar rate indicates to me that the animals were of similar health in both groups," he said.

Dr Carman insists the findings are relevant and scientifically sound.

"There are a lot of ill people who walk around that are not dead," she said.

"These pigs were obviously not very well, but they weren't unwell enough to actually die from it.

"The GM fed pigs have actually moved from the moderate inflammation to the more severe category."

You can follow Flint Duxfield on twitter @Flintdux

Study questions feeding GM food to farm animals - ABC Rural - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Why Is Corn That Color?

Photo by R.L. Croissant, Bugwood.org

Why Is Corn That Color?

by Emerson Nafziger June 13, 2013

The corn crop that was planted in May is up and growing in most fields, but there have been numerous reports of fields with uneven plant sizes and colors, including purple and yellow plants. Many are wondering if this will decrease potential yields.

Based on past experience many people expect to see purple corn when soils are cool and dry during early plant growth stages, or in that rare field with low soil test phosphorus levels. The purple color is from a pigment that forms when there is more sugar in the leaves than the plant can utilize. Low phosphorus inhibits sugar movement out of leaves, and cool, dry soils reduce root growth and sugar movement to the roots. Both of these increase sugars in the plant and can make the tissue turn purple.

Soils are not cool and dry in Illinois now, but surface soils are drying out in many fields, and it’s likely that roots growth up to now has been restricted some by having soils too wet and in some cases also compacted by tillage and planting operations. In fields where the plants have taken up enough nitrogen and water to grow well but roots remain constricted, purpling might be common now, especially in those hybrids that have a tendency to form the purple pigment.

We expect the problem of purple corn to correct itself as root growth continues. It will help if wet soils continue to dry out, but in fields with dry surface soils, root growth might benefit from some rainfall. The high sugar content that leads to purpling means that the plant is producing sugars through photosynthesis, which is a good sign. There is no evidence that temporary purpling affects yield of the crop, though factors such as soil compaction that can lead to purpling might also reduce yields if the weather is dry later in the season.

Other fields are showing the yellow color that characterized nitrogen deficiency. In some cases this diagnosis is strengthened by our being able to see patterns such as N applicator knife tracks where the plants are greener. As is the case with purpling, we tend to see more yellow plants in the lower areas of the field. This is both where soils were wetter at planting time, so are more compacted, and where we would expect more N loss and poor root growth due to wet soils.

Some have already responded to yellow corn by applying a higher rate of sidedress N than had been planned, or by, or applying sidedress N on top of a full rate of N already there. Some may even have applied foliar N or broadcast urea by air to try to get N into plants quickly. If soils are still wet in such fields, plants are continuing to struggle with poor root growth and poor root function, so adding N might not have much immediate effect.

It is likely that the problem of yellow corn is, like that of purple corn, more related to poor root growth than to low level of soil nutrients. Student interns working at the Orr Center in Perry sampled soils the first week of June in a study where different N rates were applied as UAN in the first week of April. That site received some 17 inches of rain in April and May, and we expected that some of the N would have been moved to below the top two feet.

In fact, we found as much or more total N (nitrate plus ammonium) in the top two feet the first week of June than we applied as UAN the first week of April. We recovered about 90 lb. of N where we had applied 60 lb., and just over 240 lb. of N where we had applied 240 lb. So it’s likely that some of the N there now was produced by mineralization, and that some fertilizer N was moved down below two feet deep, but the net amount available to the crop after high-loss conditions certainly has not been drastically reduced.

As soils dry out in most areas of Illinois and temperatures stay warm, it’s likely that many fields with yellow corn plants will improve, in some cases rapidly. Late planting and warm temperatures do tend to favor top growth over root growth, but we expect that as leaves grow and start improve in color and as soil oxygen levels increase as soils dry, sugars will become more available to the roots as well as the tops, and this will further improve root uptake of nutrients.

If crop color remains poor even after a week of drying soils and good growing conditions, then it is possible that N movement to below the rooting depth is affecting the ability of the crop to grow out of this problem. Our soil measurements suggest that in most cases N is likely still present, but a small “booster” shot of N might help the crop revive and reach the N more quickly. The crop has roots extending to the middle of the rows by the time it have 4 or 5 leaves, so injecting N between the rows should work to get it into the plant. Broadcast urea will need some rainfall to reach the roots.

Giant Canadian Geese - Coal Creek and Mississippi River - Near Andalusia. IL. - YouTube

Jun 12, 2013
Mommies, Daddies, and Offspring enjoying the day. Feasting on greens and insects...

Class Action Suit Hits Monsanto Over Wheat GMO | the earthy report

By John Vlahakis


Farmers in Idaho have filed a potentially class action lawsuit against seed giant Monsanto after genetically engineered wheat was found in an eastern Oregon field. 

The farmers, represented by a Boise law firm, filed the federal lawsuit Friday contending that Monsanto’s development of Roundup Ready wheat resulted in increased production costs and lowered prices because the genetically engineered wheat is likely to infiltrate the non-genetically engineered wheat supply. No genetically engineered wheat has been approved for U.S. farming, and the discovery of the Roundup Ready wheat growing in Oregon in May prompted Japan to suspend some wheat imports. Already a handful of lawsuits have been filed in other courts around the country over the same issue. The lawsuit in Boise’s U.S. District Court was filed Friday by Behrend, Behrend & Knittel Farms and CoMa Farms, both in Aberdeen, and County Line Farms in American Falls. The Idaho farmers are asking for class-action status on behalf of thousands farmers of soft white wheat in Idaho, Oregon, Washington and other states. Monsanto began in 1997 to develop a strain of wheat that is resistant to the company’s popular pesticide, Roundup. The result, dubbed Roundup Ready wheat, was field tested in 16 states between 1998 and 2005, including fields owned by CoMa Farms in Aberdeen, according to the lawsuit. At the time Monsanto had applied to USDA for permission to develop the engineered wheat, but the company later pulled its application. The farmers contend that Monsanto failed to take steps to make sure the genetically engineered plants didn’t contaminate regular wheat through cross-pollination, mixing of seeds or other means. Because the wheat industry uses a system that gathers and commingles wheat from thousands of farms for sales and shipping, the farmers contend Monsanto should have known that it would be virtually impossible to prevent the Roundup Ready wheat from infiltrating the non-genetically engineered wheat supply. The farmers say the discovery of the genetically engineered wheat growing in Oregon has diminished prices for all soft white wheat because of the loss of export and domestic markets, and that it has also increased costs for growers who must go through extensive testing to prove the wheat from their fields isn’t contaminated with genetically engineered wheat before they can sell to some buyers. They are asking for compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial, and they want a judge to order Monsanto to decontaminate the farmland and transportation and harvesting equipment of all affected farmers.

Class Action Suit Hits Monsanto Over Wheat GMO | the earthy report

Why America's Shale Oil Boom Could End Sooner Than You Think - Forbes

Eras come and go. Oil derricks at Burkburnett, Texas (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

America’s oil producers are nervous. They’ve had a great run the past few years. Domestic oil production is up 43% since 2008 to 6.5 million barrels per day, the highest level in decades. The majority of that 2 million bpd jump comes out of the two most successful new oil fields, the Bakken and the Eagle Ford. To develop these and all the other fields nationwide, the top 50 operators invested $186 billion in 2012, according to Ernst & Young. That was a record level of spending, up 20% over 2011.

You’d think that with drillers getting better, honing techniques and driving down costs, that a 20% increase in investment would bring about a more than commensurate increase in oil and gas production volumes, right? And yet according to Ernst & Young, total U.S. oil and gas production was up “just” 13% on the year.

Full Story: Why America's Shale Oil Boom Could End Sooner Than You Think - Forbes

Satellite Data Shows U.S. Water ‘Hotspots’ | Circle of Blue WaterNews

THURSDAY, 13 JUNE 2013

Scientists who use the GRACE satellite say they need more resources to maximize its usefulness – for predicting floods and droughts.

Graphic © J. S. Famiglietti and M. Rodell, Water in the Balance, Science, 340, 1300 (2013). Figure appears as Figure S1 in Supplementary Online Materials. Prepared by Caroline de Linage, UC Irvine and Preston Huey, Science Magazine.

Drought and agriculture have depleted water reserves across the southern United States in the last decade, as measured by the GRACE satellite mission. Meanwhile, water storage has increased in the flood-prone Upper Missouri River basin. The six regions are ‘hotspots’ where water losses or gains are more pronounced. Click to see an enlarged image.

By Brett Walton
Circle of Blue

New data from a pair of satellites that have changed the practice of water measurement show significant fluctuations since 2003 in the water reserves of six areas of the United States.

These “hotspots” include some of the fastest growing regions of the U.S., some of its most important farmland, and some areas not typically considered water-scarce.

Water reserves declined in the metropolitan areas of East Texas and the farm-dense plains of the Texas Panhandle. Alabama, the mid-Atlantic states, and California’s Central Valley also showed notable drops in water storage.

“I don’t think there’s a realization in the Southeast that it’s this bad,” lead author Jay Famiglietti told Circle of Blue. Famiglietti is a professor director of the University of California Center for Hydrologic Modeling.

The Upper Missouri River Basin, by contrast, swelled. The region has seen severe flooding in two of the last three years.
“These results are fitting right into the climate change picture.”

–Jay Famiglietti,
Director, University of California Center for Hydrologic Modeling

Though only 10 years of GRACE data are available, the pattern of a drier southern U.S. and a wetter northern tier reflects the rule of thumb for climate change: that dry regions will get drier and wet regions wetter.

“These results are fitting right into the climate change picture,” Famiglietti said.

Famiglietti and co-author Matthew Rodell, chief of the Hydrological Sciences Laboratory at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, included the hotspot map in an opinion piece to be published Friday, June 14 in Science. They argue that the U.S. government should consider a national water policy and should spend more money on the satellite program, in order to maximize its potential for flood and drought prediction.

“Money has to be made available,” Famiglietti said. “Ultimately it has to come from Congress. We need to devote more resources to getting this data out quickly so that we can use it for seasonal prediction.”

The GRACE satellites detect changes in the Earth’s gravity field caused by shifts in water storage. By extrapolating from other data sets, scientists can pinpoint changes in water volumes between snowpack, lakes and rivers, soils, and aquifers for the entire globe. The satellites do not measure absolute volumes, just the relative change.

Right now GRACE data are available to researchers between two and six months after collection, Famiglietti said. The raw numbers need to be downloaded, corrected for errors, and processed.

Famiglietti estimated that tens of millions of dollars would be needed to accelerate the data-processing.

“It’s a manpower issue,” he said.

Coupled with short-term climate forecasts, quicker access to GRACE data could improve drought and flood prediction.

“GRACE tells you how full the bucket is,” Famiglietti said.

The twin satellites were launched in 2002. Since then they have provided hydrologists an eye in the sky to track monthly changes to water reserves around the globe. The satellites have revealed massive groundwater declines in the Middle East, in the breadbaskets of India and China, as well as in essential aquifer systems in the U.S., such as the Ogallala, which spreads across eight states in the Great Plains.

“What makes GRACE so important is its ability to sense changes in water below the land surface, including groundwater, which previously could only be measured by digging a well and monitoring the water level,” Rodell wrote in an email to Circle of Blue. “In most of the world, GRACE provides the only information we have on groundwater depletion.”

A new pair of satellites that can zoom in for a closer look, called GRACE Follow On, will be launched in 2017 to replace the current duo.

Satellite Data Shows U.S. Water ‘Hotspots’ | Circle of Blue WaterNews

"The general population doesn't know what's happening, and it doesn't even know that it doesn't know." — Noam Chomsky

Must watch! http://bit.ly/113NDWU

BBC Interview with Prof Noam Chomsky from 2003
Noam Chomsky's biography
"The general population doesn't know what's happening, and it doesn't even know that it doesn't know." —Noam Chomsky

Verified quote: book- 'How the World Works' Author: Noam Chomsky, Publisher: Soft Skull Press, source: http://bit.ly/PHAf5z

"As long as the general population is passive, apathetic, diverted to consumerism or hatred of the vulnerable, then the powerful can do as they please, and those who survive will be left to contemplate the outcome." —Noam Chomsky -->source: http://bit.ly/gim3so

Artist credit/thanks to: Nurmi Hussein Husa -D

Sunset from on Hines Farm Overlooking Mississippi River, near Andalusia, IL. - Wednesday, 8:30 PM, 6-12-2013

Larger Photo
Sunset from on Hines Farm 
Overlooking Mississippi River, near Andalusia, IL.
Wednesday, 8:30 PM, 6-12-2013

Monsanto Named 2013's 'Most Evil Corporation' In New Poll

By Connor Adams Sheets | June 10 2013
It's official: Monsanto Company (NYSE:MON) has been deemed the "most evil corporation" of 2013 in a new poll that has the biotech giant beating out rivals like McDonald's and the Federal Reserve by a wide margin.

Photo: ReutersA protester holds up a poster during a March Against Monsanto -- and genetically modified organisms, or GMOs -- in New York last month.

The company, which has weathered a seemingly endless litany of bad publicity over the past year, got a whopping 51 percent of the vote in the nonscientific poll by the website NaturalNews, which asked participants to identify what they believed was the "most evil corporation" in the world this year.

The Federal Reserve -- which is a unique public/private entity, not really a corporation but also not a government agency -- came in second place in the survey, garnering 20 percent of the vote.

Here's the vote breakdown:
Monsanto 51%
Federal Reserve 20%
British Petroleum 9%
Halliburton 5%
McDonald's 3%
Pfizer 2%
Merck 2%
Wal-Mart 2%
Nestle 1%
Other 7%

It's a collection of corporate behemoths, a number of which have been widely hated for years. But Monsanto, headquartered in Creve Coeur, Mo., has them all beat.

The survey, which saw 16,000 readers cast their votes for the worst of the worst in the corporate world, represents a group of self-selected participants, many of whom are already militantly opposed to companies like Monsanto that are producing genetically modified organisms and other controversial endeavors.

But it is striking to note the singular, if not surprising, extent to which Monsanto is held to account for its GMO activities, as many other companies like DuPont, Syngeta AG andthe Dow Chemical Company also create and sell genetically modified and genetically engineered products, some of which end up in the food supply.

The difference is that Monsanto has become the hated public face of the GMO industry. Ever since the 2008 documentary "Food Inc." chose to focus on Monsanto as the central antagonist in a war on food, there has been little love for Monsanto from educated eaters, health-conscious citizens, environmentalists and food advocates.

As NaturalNews editor Mike Adams wrote, Monsanto's high showing in the poll, released Monday, is largely a reflection of its bad image among the populace.

"The answer, I suspect, is that Monsanto behaves like an evil corporation that pretends to be angelic," Adams wrote. "The Monsanto website is an orgy of touchy-feely corporate spin that tries to position the company as the savior of life on planet Earth."

The past few months have been particularly traumatic for the brand. March brought the massive backlash over the so-called "Monsanto Protection Act," a measure written in cooperation with Monsanto lobbyists and slipped into a continuing resolution passed byCongress in order to keep the government funded that limits the options of federal regulators if new health concerns about GMOs come to light.

Then came an amendment to the 2013 Farm Bill that many food advocates and other observers believe was inserted last month for the express purpose of blocking states' abilities to pass their own GMO-labeling laws. Monsanto vehemently opposes GMO labeling and has spent millions of dollars to stop such bills from being passed in states including California, where the company lobbied successfully to defeat such a proposal.

In what may have been the biggest public shame in the company's recent history, in late May as many as 2 million people around the world took to the streets in the "March Against Monsanto," in an attempt to discredit the company and draw attention to some of its most controversial practices.

And at the end of May, Japan and South Korea stopped importing American wheat after unapproved Monsanto GMO wheat was found growing on an Oregon farm, adding more fuel to the anti-Monsanto campaign.

That brings us to Monday, when Monsanto was named the "most evil corporation" in the world in a NaturalNews poll. It's no wonder the company earned that dubious distinction given the year it's had so far.


Monsanto Named 2013's 'Most Evil Corporation' In New Poll

Six Reasons Why Every American Should Hate the House Farm Bill – EcoWatch: Cutting Edge Environmental News Service

By Scott Faber

Photo courtesy of Shutterstock

The budget-busting farm bill headed to the House floor next week is bad news for taxpayers. Here’s why this bill, officiallyH.R. 1947, shouldn’t pass.

This bill would:

Send crop insurance subsidies soaring to nearly $100 billion over the next decade. Right now, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) covers, on average, two-thirds of a farmer’s premium. The bill proposes to increase revenue guarantees to 90 percent of a farm’s income, provide 80 percent of a cotton farmer’s premium subsidy and create a new peanut insurance program tied to the price of peanuts in Rotterdam.

Fail to limit insurance subsidies so the largest farm businesses would continue to collect the lion’s share. Under current law, some farmers reap more than $1 million in premium support, and roughly 10,000 farmers receive more than $100,000 in premium support. While the top one percent of farmers annually receives, on average, more than $200,000, the bottom 80 percent collects just $5,000.

Increases price guarantees so close to market prices that even a small decline in crop prices would trigger billions of dollars in government spending, erasing any savings from eliminating long-discredited “direct payments” for corn, soybeans, wheat and rice. This so-called “price loss” program would boost already sky-high price guarantees for cotton and peanuts by 30 and 80 percent, respectively. The bill would even create a new price guarantee for sushi rice.

Extend direct payments for cotton farmers for two more years at a cost of nearly $1 billion. Direct payments would continue to be paid to cotton farmers regardless of need—or even whether a farmer harvested a crop. Other farmers would have to limp by unlimited insurance subsidies and eye-popping price guarantees.

Conceal names of subsidy recipients, among them, members of Congress. Recipients of direct payments, conservation payments and other farm programs are made public but the House Agriculture Committee has refused to divulge the identities of those who receive crop insurance subsidies that now comprise two-thirds of the farm safety net.

Weaken the conservation compact. Since 1985, farmers have agreed to adopt basic environmental protections in exchange for nearly $300 billion in farm subsidies. But, unlike the Senate farm bill, H.R. 1947 would not require that farmers receiving generous insurance premium subsidies protect wetlandsor reduce soil erosion.

Reasonable reforms would provide farmers a robust safety net but at far less cost to the taxpayer than H.R. 1947. A bipartisan group of House members hopes to improve the bill via amendments to limit crop insurance subsidies to $50,000 per farmer, subject crop insurance subsidies to means testing, end windfall profits and require USDA to disclose the names of subsidy recipients. When combined with other reforms, these amendments could save the taxpayers more than enough to spare conservation and nutrition programs from proposed cuts and meet deficit reduction targets.

Visit EcoWatch’s FOOD and FARM BILL pages for more related news on this topic.

Six Reasons Why Every American Should Hate the House Farm Bill – EcoWatch: Cutting Edge Environmental News Service

One of The Best Arguments For Sustainable Agriculture Evere Given! -->Dan Barber: A surprising parable of foie gras - YouTube

At the Taste3 conference, chef Dan Barber tells the story of a small farm in Spain that has found a humane way to produce foie gras. Raising his geese in a natural environment, farmer Eduardo Sousa embodies the kind of food production Barber believes in.

One of The Best Arguments For Sustainable Agriculture Evere Given!  Wonderful Story...  Monte

Blue Hill Restaurant website - http://www.bluehillfarm.com/food/overview/team/dan-barber

Dan Barber: A surprising parable of foie gras - YouTube