Obama Administration to Insert Global Warming Activism into Dietary Guidelines Mandated by Congress

Cloudbuster says:
March 10, 2014 at 12:27 pm
………….. Eat that extra donut, folks — it’s for the planet!
====================================
I always knew I was one of the good guys!!!

@Gail Combs –
Before the advent of agriculture 12 or 13 thousand years ago, man’s diet was at least 85 percent meat.
Man has the digestive system of a carnivore, virtually identical to that of a dog or cat, with one minor exception – the vermiform appendix, the last relict of herbivorous ancestors.
LOVE THAT CARBON FOOTPRINT!! LONG LIVE HIGHER CROP YIELDS!! LONG LIVE MORE DROUGHT RESISTANCE!!

Also in re eating meat – it seems that almost every day one hears of some other essential nutrient that can be obtained only from meat.

Another Obamanable turd sandwich from the Bush blossom!

What a ridiculous proposition! Carbon dioxide isn’t even the cause of global warming/climate change. The burning of fossil fuel is to supply HEAT, and the HEAT emitted from our energy use is four times that which can be accounted for by the rise in atmospheric temperature. Where did the rest of the HEAT go? And what does that leave for CO2 to be blamed for?

It occurs to me that many here at WUWT are not aware of the behind the scenes stuff going on in food. Over the last couple decades there has been a major consolidation in the control of food not only in the USA but world wide. These ten corporations have a lot of power in Washington DC as the World Trade Organization Agreement on Agriculture and the Food Safety Modernization Act show.
Ann Veneman is a classic example. She went from a lawyer at Patton Boggs, a Washington law/lobby firm involved in the Chevron suit, to USDA foreign trade negotiator (for WTO) She was a board member of a Monsanto subsidiary company before she became US Secretary of Agriculture for George W. Bush in 2001 then worked as a United Nations Executive Director and is now a board member of Nestlé. That revolving door sure does spin doesn’t it?
Over the last half century agricultural business has become horizontally integrated over different commodity sectors, and more recently vertical integration has come into play. Many livestock producers purchase their feed from the same firms to which they sell their animals or in the case of chickens, the farmer doesn’t even own the birds or equipment and even his mortgage is owned by the corporation he is contracted to. Once hooked, the farmer is a slave to the corporation, never able to get out of debt because the equipment becomes obsolete thanks to new USDA regulations before the debt is paid. Many I know personally have not seen a raise since 1982.
The undercutting of grain crop prices has also allowed the control of hogs by the four largest firms to increase from 37 percent in 1987 to 60 percent by 1998.

…six multinational corporations — BASF, Bayer, Dow, DuPont, Monsanto and Syngenta — control 75 per cent of all private-sector plant breeding research, 60 per cent of the commercial seed market and 76 per cent of global pesticide and fertiliser sales.
And in livestock genetics, it says, four firms control 97 per cent of research on poultry and two thirds of swine and cattle research….
http://www.scidev.net/global/food-security/news/world-agribusiness-r-d-controlled-by-cosy-cartel.html

Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 36 (Tuesday, March 28, 2000)
[Senate]
[Pages S1807-S1809]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office
….And finally, unless we address the current trend of consolidation and vertical integration in corporate agriculture, nothing else we do to maintain the family size farms will succeed. The farm share of profit in the food system has been declining for over 20 years. From 1994 to 1998, consumer prices have increased 3 percent while the prices paid to farmers for their products has plunged 36 percent. Likewise, the impact of price disparity is reinforced by reports of record profits among agribusinesses at the same time producers are suffering an economic depression.
In the past decade and a half, an explosion of mergers, acquisitions, and anti-competitive practices has raised concentration in American agriculture to record levels.
The top four pork packers have increased their market share from 36 percent to 57 percent. In fact, the world’s largest pork producer and processor is getting bigger. Smithfield Foods is buying the Farmland Industries plant in Dubuque, Iowa. This deal should be complete by mid-May.
The top four beef packers have expanded their market share from 32 percent to 80 percent.
The top four flour millers have increased their market share from 40 percent to 62 percent.
The market share of the top four soybean crushers has jumped from 54 percent to 80 percent.
The top four turkey processors now control 42 percent of production. Forty-nine percent of all chicken broilers are now slaughtered by the four largest firms. The top four firms control 67 percent of ethanol production.
The top four sheep, poultry, wet corn, and dry corn processors now control 73 percent, 55 percent, 74 percent, and 57 percent of the market, respectively.
The four largest grain buyers control nearly 40 percent of elevator facilities.
By conventional measures, none of these markets are really competitive. According to the economic literature, markets are no longer competitive if the top four firms control over 40 percent. In all the markets I just listed, the market share of the top four firms is 40 percent or more. So there really is no effective competition in these processing markets.
But now, with this explosion of mergers, acquisitions, joint ventures, marketing agreements, and anticompetitive behavior by the largest firms, these and other commodity markets are becoming more and more concentrated by the day….
(wwwDOT)gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2000-03-28/html/CREC-2000-03-28-pt1-PgS1807-2.htm

New Farm Bill and U.S. Trade Policy: Implications for Family Farms and Rural Communities
John Ikerd, Professor Emeritus, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO – USA.
Presented at “Grain Place” Farm Tour and Seminar, Aurora, Nebraska, July 27, 2002
…Not surprisingly, the same forces that have shaped U.S. farm policy have shaped U.S. agricultural trade policy. The Agricultural Establishment encouraged U.S. farmers to support the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), with the promise of free access to growing markets of agricultural products in Mexico and Canada. The Agricultural Establishment told U.S. farmers that agriculture should be brought under the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade (GATT), with the promise of greater access to growing markets worldwide. The NAFTA became law on January 1, 1994 and the World Trade Organization (WTO), with greatly expanded authority over agricultural trade, replaced the GATT on January 1, 1995. Most American farmers embraced these new trade agreements, along with “Freedom to Farm” bill of 1996, because the Agricultural Establishment convinced them that “global free trade” was their key to prosperity.
So far, corporate agribusiness has been the only major benefactor of the new global agricultural economy. Agribusiness has prospered while American farmers have been made unwilling “wards of the government.” The only industry more profitable than food processing and distribution during the decade of the 1990s was pharmaceuticals. The farm commodity organizations and the Farm Bureau have come under increasing criticism from the rank and file of their farmer members, as their true allegiances have become more widely known. The USDA and the Land Grant Universities have become viewed with increasing skepticism by many farmers because of their close financial and professional alliances with corporate agribusiness. American farmers are beginning to understand that the “future of farming” and the “future of the agricultural industry” are two distinctively different concepts.
Increasingly, the Agricultural Establishment is becoming dominated by the agribusiness corporations, which increasingly are multinational in scope of operation and ownership. Not surprisingly then, Americans increasingly are losing control of American agriculture. Increasingly, decisions concerning what to produce, how much to produce, where to produce, how to produce, and who will produce, are being made, not by American citizens, but by a handful of multinational corporations.[3] The people who own the land and do the work may still be Americans, but the decisions are being made by someone else, somewhere else. For the most part, contractual arrangements dictate the important decisions, leaving “producers” as little more than landlords, tractor drivers, or hog house janitors, but certainly not with the traditional role of “farmer.”…
[Includes links to summaries of global food consolidation studies]
web(DOT)missouri.edu/ikerdj/papers/FarmBill.html

I hesitate to link to this site since the guy has a bad reputation but it does have a decent listing of the eleven corporations (now ten due to a merger) link so it makes a starting place for further investigation.

Seriously. Russia will just have to stand back and watch. They don’t need their own Reagan. We are running ourselves into the ground.

I feel so sorry for the school children nowadays. I remember having mystery meat, a cooked veggie, a fresh-baked dinner roll, and whole milk in elementary school. These days they call it a lunch when they offer them a tiny cup of raw broccoli, a tiny cup of grapes, and skim milk. Who can keep their mind on their studies if that’s all they had for lunch?

Jaakko Kateenkorva says:
March 10, 2014 at 1:07 pm
What? There is no known carbonless life. Inorganic meals ahead?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
New bumper stickers:
Let them eat ROCKS.
Greens should EAT ROCKS,
they don’t contain CARBON