How the Death of Whitney Houston, and Countless Others, Could Have Been Prevented
My first reaction to the news of Houston’s death was to wonder if anyone ever taught her the basics of how-to-use-drugs-and-not-die. Essentially, we’re willing to let people die because we’re so fearful that teaching people how to use drugs in a less risky way “enables” them to keep using drugs. But shouldn’t we do whatever is necessary just to keep people alive? Alive long enough to help get them into drug treatment. Alive long enough to work through their troubles. Alive long enough to help them find some measure of peace in their lives.
Read the full editorial at:
AlterNet
NPR's This American Life Takes On The Police
Stories about people who have the right to remain silent... but choose not to exercise that right—including police officer Adrian Schoolcraft, who secretly recorded his supervisors telling officers to manipulate crime statistics and make illegal arrests.
MORE
"Attractive Undercover Cop Poses As Student And Entraps Teens To 'Sell' Her Marijuana"
Last year in three high schools in Florida, several undercover police officers posed as students. The undercover cops went to classes, became Facebook friends and flirted with the other students. One 18-year-old honor student named Justin fell in love with an attractive 25-year-old undercover cop after spending weeks sharing stories about their lives, texting and flirting with each other. One day she asked Justin if he smoked pot. Even though he didn't smoke marijuana, the love-struck teen promised to help find some for her. Every couple of days she would text him asking if he had the marijuana. Finally, Justin was able to get it to her. She tried to give him $25 for the marijuana and he said he didn't want the money -- he got it for her as a present. A short while later, the police did a big sweep and arrested 31 students -- including Justin. Almost all were charged with selling a small amount of marijuana to the undercover cops. Now Justin has a felony hanging over his head.
Tony Bennett is Right: Legalizing Drugs Would Save Lives
It doesn't matter if you're hooked on alcohol, Xanax or illegal drugs like heroin and cocaine -- prohibition for some drugs stigmatizes all people struggling with addiction. Period. Addicts are not defined simply by their drug of choice nor the drug that is or is not their ultimate cause of death. Their entire lives are tragically plagued by the stigma that criminalization heaps upon them, and the marginalized underworld prohibition thrusts them into.
That is a painful and deadly component of the experience of anyone unlucky enough to live with a disease that, unlike cancer, our government tries to battle with handcuffs.
Read the full editorial at:
Huffington Post
North America
In a shocking about-face, the administration has launched a government-wide crackdown on medical marijuana
"Over the past year, the Obama administration has quietly unleashed a multiagency crackdown on medical cannabis that goes far beyond anything undertaken by George W. Bush. The feds are busting growers who operate in full compliance with state laws, vowing to seize the property of anyone who dares to even rent to legal pot dispensaries, and threatening to imprison state employees responsible for regulating medical marijuana. With more than 100 raids on pot dispensaries during his first three years, Obama is now on pace to exceed Bush's record for medical-marijuana busts. "There's no question that Obama's the worst president on medical marijuana," says Rob Kampia, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project. "He's gone from first to worst.""
Read more at
RollingStone.com.
Push To Privatize US Prisons Lurks in Corporate Investment Scheme
Firm will purchase facilities from states in exchange for guaranteed 90% occupancy rate.
The privatization of US prisons is in the news today after a close vote in the Florida state senate on Tuesday defeated an attempt to privatize a huge swath of correctional facilities in the southern state. Also, a report in the Huffington Post on Tuesday highlighted how Corrections Corporation of America (CCA , the nation's largest operator of private prisons, has a plan in place to purchase public prisons from 48 states.
Marijuana Law Reform at the Statehouse 2012
"Each year, these bills are easier to introduce, there is less controversy, and the media reaction is generally neutral to positive," said Allen St. Pierre, executive director of
NORML. "Baby boomers, medical marijuana, the Internet, and the state of the economy have all had an impact, even, finally, on legislators and their staffs," he explained.
"Before 1996, nobody invited NORML; now our staff is regularly going to meetings requested by legislators around the country," St. Pierre recalled. "First, we couldn't get them to return our phone calls; now they're calling us. Everything is in play because of activists around the country doing years of work."
Read the full article at:
Stop the Drug War
New Definition of Addiction Stirs Up a Scientific Storm
Indeed, the new neurologically focused definition debunks, in whole or in part, a host of common conceptions about addiction. Addiction, the statement declares, is a “bio-psycho-socio-spiritual” illness characterized by (a damaged decision-making (affecting learning, perception, and judgment and by (b persistent risk and/or recurrence of relapse; the unambiguous implications are that (a addicts have no control over their addictive behaviors and (b total abstinence is, for some addicts, an unrealistic goal of effective treatment.
The bad behaviors themselves are all symptoms of addiction, not the disease itself. "The state of addiction is not the same as the state of intoxication," the ASAM takes pains to point out. Far from being evidence of a failure of will or morality, the behaviors are the addict's attempt to resolve the general "dysfunctional emotional state" that develops in tandem with the disease. In other words, conscious choice plays little or no role in the actual state of addiction; as a result,
a person cannot choose not to be addicted.
Read the full article at:
The Fix
Should Officials Be Allowed to Search Students' Bras for Drugs?
A divided state Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 in favor of the student, finding the search was “degrading, demeaning and highly intrusive.” The state appealed that decision. The state Supreme Court decision is expected to affect 1.5 million public school students.
Powell said the search was not unreasonable because there was “a compelling governmental need” that outweighed the rights of individual privacy, she said. The school’s primary responsibility “was to promote the health and safety of students,” she said.
Read the full article at:
The Washington Post
Europe/UK
Health Alert Over Drug Sold as “Safe Ketamine”
Methoxetamine, known as MXE or "mexxy", mimics the effects of the banned anaesthetic ketamine, and its use has grown over the last six months in Britain as well as northern Europe, say charity workers.
A survey of drug trends published in November showed that the use of both ketamine, which is a class C drug, and methoxetamine, its "legal doppelganger", is on the rise in several areas of the UK.
Read the full article at:
The Independent
Mobsters Without Borders [documentary]
This documentary film investigates the European leader’s cocaine importing network stretching from Calabria to Milan, Italy and from Costa del Sol, Spain to Ruhr Valley, Germany. Infiltrating sectors such as real estate and healthcare to government contracting and marketing to laundering illegal drug trafficking and weapons smuggling profits, Calabrian mobs permeate economies across the European Union.
Latin America
Mexico Seizes 15 Tons of Methamphetamine
“The big thing it shows is the sheer capacity that these superlabs have in Mexico,” said Rusty Payne, a spokesman for the
Drug Enforcement Administration. “When we see one lab with the capability to produce such a mass tonnage of meth, it begs a question: What else is out there?”
Read the full article at:
New York Times
Off the Beaten Path, Chile Still Caught in Drug Supply Chain
Sharing a border with two of the world's top cocaine producers -- Bolivia and Peru -- makes Chile's involvement in the narcotics trade a virtual inevitability. However, unlike its northern neighbors, Chile is strictly a drug-consuming nation. With Brazil and Argentina, it accounts for two thirds of cocaine consumption in Latin America and the
UN's 2011 World Drug Report.
Read the full article at:
InSight
Middle East
No Help for Kashmir's Female Drug Addicts
"Keeping in view the social stigma which female drug addicts face, it is important to set up a de-addiction centre for them," said Sameena (name changed , a 22-year-old college student and former drug addict.
Sameena said she began with glue sniffing "for fun" during her school days and then moved on to opiates. Fear of social stigma and lack of facilities forced her parents to take her outside Kashmir for treatment. Sameena has been under medication for 11 months now.
Read the full article at:
IPS News
Other News
New Exile Nation Video: Lynette Shaw
Lynette Shaw was the owner of the very first legal cannabis dispensary in the State of California, which she opened in Fairfax in the early 1990s. A key figure in the fight to legalize medical cannabis, Shaw's life as an activist began when her home was raided by police, after a dealer turned her in. But that's only one small aspect of her extraordinary life story, recounted here, which at one point saw her living underground while authorities scoured the world for her, after she became a suspect in the 1980 overdose death of actor John Belushi.
Lynette Shaw from
Charles B Shaw on
Vimeo.
View the entire extended interview archive for The Exile Nation Project.
Newsletters and Weekly Features
President Obama greets supporters at a fundraising event in San Francisco. Photo by C. Flanigan/FilmMagic.
President Obama's poll numbers
have been looking up, and Friday morning brought a fresh reminder of his campaign's financial strength.
The Obama re-election team, along with a joint Democratic Party fundraising committee, hauled in more than $29 million in January.
The announcement was made
using the president's Twitter account, where the campaign also shared that 98 percent of the donations were for $250 or less.
The $29 million figure is
less than the $36 million Mr. Obama raised as a presidential candidate in January 2008, a staggering sum boosted by his historic Iowa caucus victory that demonstrated his fundraising prowess against then-Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.
At a fundraiser in San Francisco Thursday night, President Obama told a raucous crowd of supporters that he's had setbacks and made mistakes, but urged them to keep giving their time and money to help him secure four more years. "Remember what we used to say during the campaign, that real change, big change is hard and it takes time," the president said. "And it takes more than a single term."
He said the GOP candidates want to roll back the progress that his White House has accomplished thus far. Expect to hear this message again and again in the coming months:
That's what we're fighting for. That's the choice in this election. This is not just another political debate. This is the defining issue of our time, a make-or-break moment for middle-class Americans and all those who are trying to get into it. And we can go back to an economy that's based on outsourcing and bad debt or phony financial profits, or we can fight for an economy that is built to last -- an economy built on American manufacturing and American-made energy, and skills and education for American workers, and the values that have made America great -- hard work and fair play and shared responsibility. That is what we're fighting for. That is what's at stake in this election.
The presidential campaigns will report totals monthly this election year. It's not clear yet how much the Republican hopefuls (and their respective super PACs have brought in, but the totals are unlikely to come close to the president's.
For now, the battle is mostly between Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney.
SETTING EXPECTATIONS
Asked Wednesday by MLive.com about a series of polls showing him losing his native state of Michigan, Romney said flatly,
"That won't happen."
"As you understand with the polling process, you have seen just how mercurial the sentiments of voters are until they get to know the candidates better," Romney added.
"I was asked the other day ... 'Has this come down to a two-person race?' And the answer is it has always been a two-person race," Romney said, before highlighting the tumultuous campaign to this point. "First it was me against Donald Trump. Then it was me against Michele Bachmann. Then it was me against Herman Cain. Then it was me against Rick Perry. Then me against Newt Gingrich. And now it seems to be me against Rick Santorum. And in each case I have been able to make my case and garner sufficient delegates to still be in this race and to have good prospects to become the nominee."
CAR TALK
Democrats have made no secret of the fact they plan to make Romney's opposition to the auto bailouts a central campaign plank, should he ultimately become the nominee. The Democratic National Committee produced a web video titled: "Here's the lesson Mr. Romney: Don't bet against America." It features President Obama, testimonials from Michigan auto workers and Romney saying, "Let Detroit go bankrupt." You can watch it
here.
Santorum is going to the heart of the matter, as well, as the two leading GOP contenders campaign in Michigan.
Romney proclaimed his love for the auto industry at a Chamber of Commerce event Thursday in Farmingston Hills, Mich., telling supporters, "I'm glad it went through a managed bankruptcy process, which I recommended from the very beginning to shed unnecessary costs and get its footing again. I'm delighted it's profitable."
Santorum told the Detroit Economic Club on Thursday that his is a more "consistent" position that the government "should not be involved in bailouts -- period."
"Gov. Romney supported the bailout of Wall Street and decided not to support the bailout of Detroit," Santorum said.
He added an unusual caveat:
"By the way, it's not the Obama administration. I know Gov. Romney focuses on the Obama administration, and the reason he does is because he supported what the Bush administration did. Well I didn't. I opposed what the Bush administration did and have been a consistent critic of it," Santorum said.
"I actually blame President Bush more than I do President Obama," he added. "President Obama is just following suit. President Bush set the precedent. It was the wrong precedent. And I think that while there may be companies today that are doing well, obviously you have a couple companies here that are, the long-term consequences to this country, having set the precedent of the role of government in the economy is not going to be a good one."
FRIESS' FAUX PAS
Santorum super PAC financier Foster Friess waded into the debate over contraception Thursday, but his apparent attempt at humor fell flat and created a controversy for the former Pennsylvania senator's campaign that looks to stretch into a second day.
In an interview with MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell, Friess was asked about Santorum's views on social issues, including contraception, and whether they could be liabilities in a general election campaign.
"People seem to be so preoccupied with sex. I think it says something about our culture. We maybe need a massive therapy session so we can concentrate on what the real issues are," Friess said. "And this contraceptive thing, my gosh, it's such inexpensive. Back in my day, they used Bayer aspirin for contraceptives. The gals put it between their knees and it wasn't that costly," Friess added, with a stunned Mitchell pausing for a moment before continuing.
Santorum
defended the super PAC donor during an appearance Thursday night on Fox News, after host Greta Van Susteren referred to Friess as his "creepy supporter."
"He's not creepy. He's a good man. He's a great philanthropist. He's a very successful businessman," Santorum said.
"He told a bad, off-color joke and he should not have done it. That's his business," Santorum said. "It certainly doesn't, in my opinion, reflect on the campaign or me because he wasn't doing it as part of our campaign."
NEWSHOUR NOTES
Judy Woodruff sat down with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Thursday afternoon. They talked about the payroll tax cut, the Democrats' legislative agenda and the campaign ahead.
Judy asked Rep. Pelosi if Democrats should use House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, on the campaign trail just as the Republicans demonized her. Pelosi said no.
"I think the Democrats are running about the future. The Republicans have always got to attack sombody else because they're frankly bankrupt in terms of ideas for the future. We are talking about reigniting the American dream. The president will go out there and talk about what is at stake for the future," Pelosi said. "It isn't about attacking an individual because if you don't have the issues you attack the person. He has the issues. He has the values. Reignite the American dream, build ladders of opportunity for all who want to work hard, play by the rules, take responsibility. But we have work to do to do that, and we would hope to do it in a bipartisan way. I think that's what you'll see on the Democratic side."
Judy also asked about health care reform landing in the Supreme Court. Pelosi said: "I think we're in pretty good shape constitutionally. I mean we wrote a bill understanding our responsibilities to the Constitution of the United States. You never know what happens in a court, but in terms of the substance and the constitutionality of it, we believe that we're on solid ground."
Watch the entire interview
here and Judy's interview with Rep. Boehner
here.
We asked for your questions via Twitter. Here's a sample of some of the submissions.
@DaleDreyer What can Democrats do to better showcase their accomplishments? Much good is done, but no "splash."
@jgreenSTPA can dems win back the house-if so will u run for majority ldr again?
NewsHour politics desk assistant Alex Bruns notes that House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., also said the election should be less focused on personalities and more focused on the issues at hand. The Ryan budget proposal, which makes dramatic changes to Medicare, has been a central target for Democrats who have hoped to make it a national issue.
"This time is different because of the country and we just can't have an ordinary election where it's a personality contest. We need to have an election with a mandate," Paul said at a Thursday breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. "The voters going to the polls need to know what they are voting for. The way I look at it is we owe the country a very clear choice of two futures."
On Thursday, the NewsHour launched a new segment from journalists Howard Kurtz and Lauren Ashburn as they debuted
The Daily Download. The first discussion focused on Romney's use of Twitter.
Watch.
We also featured a story from Miles O'Brien about the security and logistical
challenges of Internet voting.
2012 LINE ITEMS
NBC's First Read
rounds up the spending in Michigan,: The pro-Romney super PAC Restore Our Future has made an overall buy of about $2 million; Romney has bought about $1.2 million in ads; the pro-Santorum Red White and Blue Fund has spent $655,000; and Santorum has spent $480,000. Restore our Future "shelled out another $2 million for the week after next on broadcast in Arizona, Ohio, Georgia, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Alabama," NBC reported.
Joe Hallett of the Columbus Dispatch looks at
Santorum's delegate troubles in the Buckeye State.
CNN scrubbed its pre-Super Tuesday debate
scheduled for March 1 in Georgia after Romney declined to participate.
Politico's Kenneth Vogel writes that Texas Gov. Rick Perry is asking permission to use the cash he has left in his presidential campaign committee
to start a PAC or super PAC.
Politico's Tim Mak reports that the chairman of the Maine GOP admitted the party made "numerous clerical errors
in counting the state's caucus results, even omitting some votes because emails reporting tallies 'went to spam' in an email account."
The Washington Post's Aaron Blake writes that Gingrich has hired some staff in Washington and is
now pledging to visit Michigan after initially sitting back to focus on Super Tuesday.
The DNC is out with a web video Friday morning that hits Romney
for the federal funds he secured for the 2002 Winter Olympic games in Salt Lake City. The video stars Romney backer Sen. John McCain calling the games a pork-barrel project. It's worth noting the DNC is putting almost no money behind such videos, which are serving as a test case for messages the president and the party could use against Romney on the airwaves in a general election.
TOP TWEETS
Imagine how Anthony would tell THIS story. Anthony Shadid, a New York Times Reporter, Dies in Syria:
nyti.ms/zMjCPZ
February 17, 2012
OUTSIDE THE LINES
A new Suffolk University poll released Thursday showed Republican Sen. Scott Brown
with a nine-point lead, 49 percent to 40 percent, over Democrat Elizabeth Warren in the Massachusetts Senate race. A recent WBUR survey had Warren with a three-point lead over Brown.
An all-male panel of witnesses at a House oversight hearing Thursday looking at the Obama administration's revised contraceptives rule
drew criticism from Rep. Pelosi.
The Hill's Kevin Bogardus and Rachel Leven crunch the numbers and find that more than 20 members of federal advisory committees
canceled their registrations as lobbyists after the Obama administration banned K Street from the panels in 2009.
The New York Times' Kate Zernike reports the New Jersey Assembly
approved a bill legalizing same-sex marriage on Thursday, setting up a showdown with Gov. Chris Christie, who has pledged to veto the measure.
Roll Call's Joshua Miller writes that Florida Gov. Rick Scott
signed new congressional lines that look to strengthen the GOP's advantage in the delegation.
Half of your Morning Line dynamic duo is moderating a panel at South by Southwest in Austin next month.
Here are the details, tell all your friends.
ON THE TRAIL
All events are listed in Eastern Time.
Rick Santorum attends a Michigan Faith & Freedom Coalition rally in Shelby Township at 11:15 a.m., addresses the Warren County Lincoln Day Dinner in Mason, Ohio, at 6 p.m. and speaks at the Brown County Lincoln Day Dinner in Georgetown, Ohio, at 8 p.m.
Ron Paul holds a rally in Richland, Wash., at 3 p.m., another rally in Moscow, Idaho, at 7 p.m., then returns to the Evergreen State for a third rally in Spokane at 10:30 p.m.
Mitt Romney holds a campaign event in Boise, Idaho, at 3:45 p.m.
Newt Gingrich holds a rally in Peachtree City, Georgia, at 7:30 p.m.
All future events can be found on our
Political Calendar:
For more political coverage, visit our
politics page.
Sign up here to receive the Morning Line in your inbox every morning.
Questions or comments? Email Christina Bellantoni at cbellantoni-at-newshour-dot-org.
Follow the politics team
on Twitter:
@cbellantoni,
@burlij,
@elizsummers.
In 2006, 205 people in the U.S were sickened and 3 died in an E. coli O157:H7 outbreak linked to baby spinach grown in California. In the aftermath, both the Food and Drug Administration (FDA and California's Department of Health Services conducted extensive
investigations into the outbreak to determine how leafy green produce could become contaminated with a microorganism normally found in the stomach of animals.
While investigators were able to successfully track the contaminated spinach to one specific field in California, and identify potential health risks such as the presence of cattle feces and wild pigs, the investigators had less success identifying the exact method by which E. coli contamination had occurred.
In response, California, the largest producer of leafy green vegetables in the nation with roughly a 75 percent market share, created its own statewide
Leafy Green Marketing Agreement. Arizona, the second largest producer of leafy green vegetables with roughly a 15 percent market share, followed suite creating its own
statewide program in September of 2007.
Unfortunately, despite the widespread adoption of these voluntary programs at the state level, foodborne illnesses linked to leafy green vegetables continue to be a problem across the country. In 2010,
E. coli-tainted romaine lettuce was recalled in 23 states after 19 people became seriously ill in Ohio, New York and Michigan.
Just this last October, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA discovered
Listeria bacteria during a random sample of romaine lettuce grown in California. And as recently at this past New Year's Eve, "a
Texas company recalled 228,360 lbs. -- 114 tons -- of spinach because it tested positive for E. coli O157:H7."
In response to industry interest, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agriculture Marketing Service (AMS
published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR on Oct. 4, 2007 to explore the idea of implementing a national marketing agreement focused on reducing microbial contamination in leafy green vegetables.
AMS received more than 3,500 public comments on the ANPR. On June 10, 2009, the agency received a petition for rulemaking and a request for a public hearing on a proposed National Leafy Green Marketing Agreement (NLGMA . The
proposed marketing agreement was submitted to AMS "by a group of producers, handlers, and interested persons representing a cross-section of the national fresh and fresh-cut produce industry."
This initial proposal was designed to operate in a similar manner to voluntary marketing agreements previously implemented in California and Arizona following the 2006 outbreak.
While many in the leafy green industry praised the proposal as a huge leap forward for product safety, the proposal was also met with stiff resistance from many farmers,
especially small-scale producers. The new rules also came under attack by
consumer food safety advocates who were upset that the proposed rules would essentially allow the industry to police itself.
After taking comments and holding public hearings on the issue, the AMS proposed a revised NLGMA in the spring of 2011. This report provides an overview of how marketing agreements function in general, provides a detailed examination of the latest proposed NLGMA rules, and examines whether criticism for the latest proposed rule is legally and/or factually justified. Marketing Orders and Agreements
The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (codified at 7 U.S.C. Chapter 26A provides authority for federal marketing orders administered by the USDA. Under the supervision of the AMS, marketing orders have currently been established for milk as well as numerous fruits, vegetables, and other specialty crops. Not counting milk and the latest NLGMA proposal, there are
currently 32 active marketing orders and agreements.
Marketing orders and agreements provide legal tools for agricultural producers, aggregators, processors, manufacturers, and retailers to work together to mitigate financial turmoil in the supply chain. A new marketing order or agreement must be developed by industry representatives, and then proposed to the AMS. The agency will then hold a public hearing and take public comments prior to making a final decision on whether to proceed with a rulemaking.
Prior to a proposed program being implemented, the regulation must be approved in a referendum by a two-thirds or larger majority of producers. Once a marketing order or agreement is approved, local committees appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture provide administration of the program. Marketing orders and agreements are binding on all "handlers" in the geographic area covered by the order. In general, a handler is anyone who receives the commodity from producers, and is responsible for grading, packing, transporting, or placing the farm products into commercial channels.
Marketing orders are distinguished from marketing agreements, in that marketing agreements are binding only on handlers who are signatories of the agreement. Handlers must comply with the grade, size, quality, volume, and other requirements established under the specific program.
Proposed National Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement (NLGMA
Like all marketing agreements, the proposed NLGMA is intended to be a voluntary program so handlers can choose whether or not they wish to participate in it. Unlike other marketing agreements, the NLGMA has little to do with balancing financial interests in the supply chain, but is focused entirely on providing a legal structure for farmers and handlers to efficiently comply with a new system of national food safety requirements impacting all leafy green vegetables.
While no specifics are given in the proposal, such food safety requirements would be based on the FDA's
Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs ,
Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs , and the USDA's
Good Handling Practices (GHPs .
Under the current proposal, the marketing agreement would be governed by a 26-member Board of Directors appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture. The Board would be responsible for making policy recommendations to the Secretary for final review and approval. Any major changes to the agreement, including the Board's recommended food safety requirements and exemptions, would be sent out for public comment prior to its adoption.
Board members would be apportioned from eight administrative zones, with state's divided into groups based on geographic and climate differences. Each administrative zone would be assigned representation on the Board relative to the amount of leafy green vegetables produced within that zone. For example, administrative zone 1 -- which includes Hawaii and California -- would receive 4 representatives as California produces roughly 75 percent of all leafy green vegetables grown in the country.
In addition, the Board would include 10 designated grower representatives, with two of the 10 grower positions designated for small farmers. No company would be allowed to have more than one representative on the board, even if its operations included multiple farms in different administrative zones.
A Technical Review Committee (TRC would assist the Board in developing guidelines and procedures. The TRC would consist of members who represent production, handling and food safety experts from each zone (including organic and small business interests , experts from the USDA's agencies, and other federal agencies such as the FDA and EPA. The TRC also would have the authority to work collaboratively with industry stakeholder groups, local and state authorities, and others interested parties whose expertise the TRC might require.
The
proposed NLGMA would cover a wide range of fresh leafy green vegetables and their varieties, including: arugula, cabbage, chard, cilantro, endive, escarole, kale, lettuce, parsley, radicchio, spinach, and "spring mix" -- an industry term that describes mixtures of baby lettuces, mustards, chards, spinach, and chicories that vary based on availabilities. These vegetables could be whole or fresh-cut, or in bulk or packaged form. Under the proposed NLGMA, the Board could recommend, subject to USDA approval, the addition or removal of any leafy green vegetable from this definition. Handlers of fresh leafy green vegetables in the 50 states and the District of Columbia, also known as the production area, would be eligible to become signatories. Once becoming a signatory, participants would only handle leafy green vegetables from producers or other handlers that are also in compliance with the NLGMA.
Signatories who handle product imported from outside the United States would be required to demonstrate that those products also meet the requirements of the NLGMA. Compliance by signatories with the terms of the agreement would be mandatory. A signatory would be obligated to participate for no less than one crop year in the program. After the initial year, participants would have the opportunity to withdraw or opt out of the program.
While the program is voluntary for handlers of all sizes, any producer who sells to a handler that is a signatory to the NLGMA would be required to adhere to the marketing agreement. Small farmers participating in farmers markets, CSAs, or other direct sales to consumers may choose not to participate in the marketing agreements, provided they don't sell any of their leafy green vegetables to a signatory handler. Once adopted, all signatory handlers and their growers would be subject to an audit by the AMS Inspection Service. AMS Inspection Service would have the authority to accredit other entities and license their auditors to audit on its behalf, including National Organic Program (NOP certified agents, FDA inspectors, and third-party auditing services accredited by FDA.
This presents the potential to streamline the audit process facing many producers in today's market, thus improving operations and reducing costs. For example, the proposal would permit the program to evolve whereby an organic producer could include the NLGMA food safety standards as a component of the overall organic system plan and receive a single audit. The proposed NLGMA "would provide the Board authority to establish marketing research and development projects, and or promotional activities, including paid advertising, to assist or promote the efficient adoption, implementation, and marketplace acceptance of the agreement and leafy green vegetables." A Research and Development Committee would assist the Board in carrying out these actions.
The costs of these programs and the audit verification fees would be paid for through assessments of the signatory handlers. The price of these assessments would be recommended by the Board and must be approved by the USDA. These assessments would not be allowed to exceed $0.05 per 24-pound carton equivalent of leafy green vegetables. As assessments are based on the volume of a handler's transactions, large handlers would pay more assessments than small handlers participating in the program.
The AMS believes the proposed NLGMA will have a number of important benefits for producers, handlers, and consumers. "A primary benefit of the proposed agreement is the reduced likelihood of food contamination outbreaks in leafy green vegetables... in the United States."
This would not only benefit consumer health, but also the economic viability of the industry since it is estimated "that a food contamination outbreak could lead to a 10 percent long-term reduction in demand for leafy green vegetables." The 2006 E. coli outbreak alone was estimated to have cost leafy green producers $12 million dollars, and U.S. retailers as much as $63 million in lost profits.
Criticism of the Latest NLGMA Proposal
Both proponents and opponents of the latest NLGMA agree that food safety is a priority that needs to be better addressed by regulation. There is also no question that the most recent NLGMA is a more well thought out and balanced version of the regulation that what was initially proposed in 2009.
Yet, critics of the latest proposal -- including the
National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC and the
National Organic Coalition (NOC -- contend that the AMS failed to adequately address at least four main concerns:
- whether the AMS is the proper agency to handle food safety regulation governing leafy green vegetables
- whether a marketing agreement is the proper regulatory tool to carry out national food safety regulations
- whether Congress has already addressed this particular food safety issue with the Food Safety and Modernization Act passed in December of 2010
- whether the NLGMA still unfairly burdens small to medium sized producers who wish to participate in the program
Is AMS the Proper Agency to Oversee Leafy Greens?
Three federal agencies are traditionally involved in U.S. food regulations. In general terms, the
USDA is responsible for all issues involving meat, poultry, dairy and eggs. In contrast, the
FDA is responsible for all other food and food additives. Finally, the
Federal Trade Commission (FTC is involved in the regulation of food advertising.
The proposed NLGMA even recognizes the FDA's expertise in food safety regulations involving leafy green vegetables as the
AMS intends the Board's final food safety regulations to reflect the FDA's published GAPs and GMPs, in addition to the USDA's GHPs. It also makes clear that the AMS intends to follow any existing or new FDA regulations that would impact food safety regulation or audits carried out by the agency.
In contrast, AMS has not traditionally been involved in food safety regulations or their enforcement, even within the USDA. Instead the AMS is involved mainly in assisting producers to market their products. This includes providing standardization, grading and new services for its five commodity programs -- dairy, fruit and vegetable, livestock and seed, poultry, and cotton and tobacco. It also includes overseeing the
National Organic Program (NOP and facilitating both domestic and international marketing efforts for U.S. agriculture. Which is not to say that either USDA as a whole, or AMS in particular, lack expertise when it comes to developing or enforcing new production standards. After all, in addition to developing marketing orders and agreements, AMS is also responsible for helping to create international quality standards for agricultural products.
Its role in overseeing NOP has also provided it the opportunity to implement a farm-based audit program designed to facilitate the needs of both small and large producers. In addition, the USDA as a whole has been heavily involved in the implementation of the
Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point system (HACCP currently utilized in meat, seafood, dairy, and juice production. This flexible system of scientifically based production standards -- designed to reduce microbial contamination during processing -- has been widely adopted by the food industry in
Europe and much of the United States.
Thus, while AMS may not be the foremost expert in food safety regulation involving leafy green vegetables, the agency certainly has both the scientific expertise and experienced personnel to carry forth all the provisions proposed under the NLGMA.
Are Marketing Agreements the Proper Regulatory Tool for Food Safety Regulations?
When considering whether it is appropriate to use a marketing agreement to address food safety, it is important to examine how Congress has historically created food safety legislation. Over the past hundred years,
Congress has passed many acts to improve food safety in this country, including the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the Public Health Service Act, the Egg Products Inspection Act, the Federal Meat Inspection Act of 1906, the Poultry Products Inspection Act of 1957, and most recently, the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2010.
In almost all cases, these acts did not set forth specific food safety laws, but delegated the responsibility to the FDA or the USDA. This was not an ethical consideration, but a practical consideration as Congress has generally relied on agency expertise to formulate science based standards for the safety of the public. Proponents of using a marketing agreement to enact food safety regulation thus contend that it is simply another example of how an agency can use its scientific expertise to carry out the intent of Congress under the Agricultural Marketing Agreements Act of 1937.
Critics of the recently proposed NLGMA provide two separate reasons why a marketing agreement is the wrong regulatory tool for food safety: (1 it is unethical to make food safety a marketing issue, and (2 Congress never intended marketing agreements to address food safety issues as just another quality issue.
The first question is challenging, as there is neither one set of ethical standards that society adheres to under all circumstances, nor one type of regulatory tool that Congress always uses to address food safety issues. However, in its
public comment to proposed NLGMA, NSAC stated the problem as thus: "The members of the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition have issued a statement containing 16 core principles about food safety. The very first of those principles states: Food safety is noncompetitive and transparent. Everyone who lifts a fork has a right to safe and healthy food, just as they have a right to choose foods based on the qualities most important to them. "Food safety" should not be a competitive marketing food-trait, lest the most vulnerable people end up with access to only the least safe food, or simply fewer choices. Every person has a right to expect the safest possible food, and a right to absolute transparency about its production processes, no matter what they can afford to pay for it. Completely open, public information about what makes a food 'safe' is not negotiable."
While this argument is compelling, it does seem to suggest that the secret goal of the NLGMA is to create a more expensive, less microbial contaminated food, which will then be marketed to consumers as a superior product compared with those leafy green vegetables not produced under the program.
Given that marketing agreements are generally only targeted toward producers and handlers, not consumers, this is more than a little incongruous. The proponents of the NLGMA stated at the public hearing that the promotion and advertising to be conducted under the program would be targeted at those within the leafy green vegetable industry, and not consumers.
There is also nothing in the record that would suggest that the general public would be any more aware of the NLGMA than they are aware of other marketing orders and agreements regulating the sale of milk and other agricultural products. Moreover, even if consumers did believe there were tangible health benefits to eating NLGMA-certified leafy green produce, it would certainly not be any more of a competitive advantage than what is already enjoyed by organic and local food producers who often advertise that their product is healthier and safer than conventionally produced foods. Yet even if it is not unethical, there is still the question of whether Congress ever intended AMS to utilize marketing agreements to address food safety as just another quality issue.
In its public comment to the proposed NLGMA, NSAC stated the problem as thus:
"The House version of what became the 2008 Farm Bill (Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 authorized the implementation of specialty crop marketing agreements for food safety. Industry sought this amendment precisely because they believed, correctly, that current law did not provide for comprehensive food safety controls via marketing agreements.
After heated debate, the Conference Committee rejected the House provision, precisely based on the argument that marketing agreements are not the right instrument to address food safety concerns and that the Agricultural Marketing Service is not a food safety agency.
Put simply, the leafy green and other specialty crop industry associations lost in their legislative campaign to change the law to provide authority for food safety marketing agreements such as the pending NLGMA. In order to save face, the industry scrambled to get language added to the Conference Report indicating that some marketing orders already issued by USDA have included "quality related provisions intended to enhance the safety of commodities" and that therefore the proposed statutory change was unnecessary.
This "cover your losses" report language flies in the face of the industry's arguments in pursuing the amendment to begin with, and is at any rate irrelevant to the current consideration of the NLGMA. The NLGMA is not a broad marketing agreement that happens to touch on a few quality-related provisions that have some effect on food safety. It is through and through a food safety agreement, period."
While this legislative history may be 100 percent accurate, it does not change the wording of the Act, or the broad delegation Congress originally gave to USDA and AMS to create marketing agreements. In 1937,
Congress created the Act to protect farmers from price fluctuations created by market disruptions that impacted interstate commerce.
To accomplish this goal, Congress delegated to the Secretary of Agriculture several important duties, including the powers to: (1 "establish and maintain such orderly marketing conditions for agricultural commodities in interstate commerce as will establish, as the price to farmers, parity prices", and (2 protect producers and consumers from "unreasonable fluctuations in supplies and prices."
Given the detrimental impact of food safety outbreaks on agricultural markets, it is a problem that clearly falls within scope of the Act, regardless of later Congressional hearings and discussions. There is also no language in the Act that would exempt food safety issues from the wide range of other qualities issues covered under the Act. Therefore, the AMS is well within its delegated duties to utilize marketing agreements to address purely food safety related issues. Not because they are a quality issue, but because they directly impact the price of leafy green vegetables in interstate commerce.
Did Congress Already Address This Issue in the FSMA?
There is no question that the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2010 (FSMA was the most important food safety legislation passed by Congress in decades. The real question is whether Congress fully addressed the food safety issue the NLGMA intended to regulate, thus making the proposed NLGMA conflict with the governing law.
In brief, the
FSMA directs the FDA to: (1 develop preventative science based food safety standards for covered facilities, (2 conduct regular inspections of covered facilities to hold them accountable, and (3 require importers to perform supplier verification activities. It also provides FDA with mandatory recall authority and requires enhanced collaboration activities with other state and federal agencies involved in food safety.
Looking at the plain language of both the NLGMA and FSMA, there is some clear overlap when it comes to regulating leafy green vegetable producers and handlers. Under the FSMA, FDA is directed to develop preventative science based food safety standards for these groups and conduct regular inspections. Under the NLGMA, the AMS will be developing preventative science based food safety standards and conducting annual audits. In a best-case scenario, the two sets of rules would be identical and no conflict of law would be created.
Moreover, if the rules drafted under the NLGMA are more stringent than those drafted by FDA, then both systems could mutually exist and complement each other. After all, the NLGMA is a voluntary system so if its handlers and growers want to hold themselves to higher standards than the FDA then who is to complain.
On the other hand, if any of the food safety standards promulgated under the NLGMA are lower than those produced by FDA, than the rules promulgated by FDA would clearly take precedence. This is for two reasons: (1 the FSMA was passed by Congress more than 70 years after the Agricultural Marketing Adjustment Act of 1937, and (2 FSMA is a more clear delegation of Congressional power when it comes to developing science based food safety standards.
FDA also has mandatory recall authority if food produced under the NLGMA is not sufficient to meet FDA standards. Yet, such an outcome will only occur if the two agencies completely ignore each other's rule making processes, and this seems unlikely since the FSMA clearly directs agencies to work more closely on issues regarding food safety. In response, critics of the NLGMA point out that the FSMA also included the Tester Amendment which exempted qualified facilities--either a very small businesses or those making less than $500,000/yr.--from much of the new regulation. In its public comments, NSAC framed the issue as thus:
"We have sought repeated unqualified assurances from USDA that all of the protections carefully built into the FSMA by Congress to protect the interests of small and mid-sized farms, diversified farming operations, direct market operations, and local food producers would be fully recognized and scrupulously respected under the NLGMA. No such unqualified assurances were forthcoming. In fact, to the contrary, we were told by the Administrator that the ultimate decisions on issues like this would rest with the Review Committee and that while it is assumed that FDA regulations and implementation process will be adopted by the NLGMA, there is a chance these particular issues would be among those that the NLGMA might amend through the process established in the proposed Agreement."
The problem with this line of argument is that the NLGMA is a voluntary system, whereas the FSMA is a mandatory system. As such, the two systems of regulation are not really in conflict as no qualified facilities exempted under the FSMA have to participate in the NLGMA, and those facilities who choose to participate under the NLGMA essentially consent to be bound to USDA-AMS rulemaking.
This will be an important consideration to many small to medium sized operations who will need to balance the economic benefits of participating in the NLGMA, with the increased financial costs associated with annual audits and bringing their operations into compliance.
An Unfair Burden to Small- and Medium-Sized Operations?
As the NLGMA does not contain any specific production standards to date, it is difficult to know with any certainty what its financial costs will be for producers and handlers involved in the program.
In general terms, three financial costs are anticipated for those who wish to participate: (1 the initial costs of bringing one's operation into compliance with the program, (2 the cost of annual audits, and (3 the annual costs of maintaining compliance as the program evolves and changes. These additional costs could potentially be balanced out by increased market stability, and a greater ability for participants to sell product into both domestic and international markets.
Based on cost estimates from a University of California report, AMS estimates "the total one-time modification costs at the farm level" to be "between $1.2- and $3.0 million, and an estimated average range of $14-$34 per acre for modification costs." On top of this initial cost would be annual compliance costs estimated at $2.7- to $4.4 million, or $30-50 per acre.
Of course, these estimates do not include the costs for California and Arizona producers currently involved in state marketing agreements. The producers from these two states are estimated to have spent $6.1- $14.7 million to bring their operations into compliance with their current rules, and spend between $13- to $21.7 million in annual compliance costs.
Annual handler assessments for the program would range between $5.7- to $28.6 million depending upon the whether the assessment was the program minimum of $0.01 per carton, or the program maximum of $0.05 per carton.
Based on these estimates, a hundred acre leafy green vegetable operation in Arkansas would spend between $1,400 to $3,400 in one-time compliance costs and between $3-5000 annually to maintain compliance. Such costs are hardly insignificant for small to medium sized operations, especially for those who might otherwise be exempt from similar regulations under the Tester Amendment of the FSMA.
The only silver lining is that the proposed NLGMA is a voluntary program for handlers to participate in. As such, producers should definitely discuss their financial operations with their handlers to determine whether the economic benefits of participating in the NLGMA would offset their estimated costs.
Will Leafy Greens Producers Support the Agreement?
In drafting its proposed marketing agreement, the NLGMA has provided producers and handlers with one potential tool to help reduce foodborne contamination in their production systems.
Whether it becomes law will ultimately depend upon what changes the agency makes after the latest round of public comments, and whether the proposed marketing agreement will be supported by a 2/3 majority of all leafy green vegetable producers in the nation. The effectiveness of such an agreement is also difficult to estimate, as the Board will need to be appointed and make its recommendation to the Secretary of Agriculture.
This will lead to yet more rulemaking, and additional opportunities for public comment. As such, proponents and opponents of the NLGMA should not expect any final food safety production standards for at least another 18 to 24 months.
--------------------------
Judd Jensen is pursuing his LL.M. in Agricultural and Food Law at the University of of Arkansas. Prior to returning to law school, he worked in food safety and quality assurance for nearly a decade.
Whistleblower made complaint to IRS over climate science attack machine's tax-exempt status, Guardian learns
The Heartland Institute, the libertarian thinktank whose project to undermine science lessons for schoolchildren was exposed this week, faces new scrutiny of its finances – including its donors and tax status.
The Guardian has learned of a whistleblower complaint to the Internal Revenue Service about Heartland's 501(c (3 tax-exempt status.
There was also a call from a group of climate scientists who have personally been on the receiving end of attacks from Heartland and bloggers funded by the thinktank, and whose email was posted online after a notorious 2009 hack, for Heartland to "recognise how its attacks on science and scientists have poisoned the debate about climate change policy,"
in a letter made available exclusively to the Guardian.
The unauthorised release of internal documents indicated Heartland had received $14m over several years from a single anonymous donor as well as tobacco and liquor companies and corporations pledged to social responsibility, including the General Motors Foundation.
The release of the donors' list led a number of environmental organisations to demand GM, which gave $30,000, and Microsoft, which gave $59,908 in free software, to sever their ties with a thinktank that has a core mission of discrediting climate science.
An online petition on Friday criticised GM for taking the auto industry bailout and using taxpayer funds to a thinktank spreading what they say is climate misinformation. GM has admitted funding Heartland, pointing out that the money was for its work on health issues, not climate change.
"While General Motors has a mixed record on global warming, lately they've been doing all the right things, like investing heavily in the electric Chevy Volt. At the same time, they've been kept afloat by American taxpayers through a massive bailout. That means our tax dollars are ending up in the hands of the Heartland Institute," the petition said.
Others are focusing on Heartland's support from the tobacco industry as well as major health and pharmaceutical companies for a thinktank which has opposed smoking bans and healthcare reform.
John Mashey, a retired computer scientist and Silicon Valley executive, said he filed a complaint to the IRS this week that said Heartland's public relations and lobbying efforts violated its non-profit status.
Mashey said he sent off his audit, the product of three months' research, just a few hours before the unauthorised release of the Heartland documents.
Mashey said in a telephone interview that the complaint looked at the activities of Heartland and t
wo other organisations that have been prominent in misinforming the public about climate change, the Science and Environmental Policy Project, run by Fred Singer, and the Centre for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, run by Craig Idso. Both men were funded by Heartland, with Idso receiving $11,600 per month and Singer $5,500 a month, according to the 2012 budget.
Heartland is also funding contrarians in Canada and other countries, the documents show.
"I believe there was a massive abuse of 501c(3 ," Mashey said. "My extensive study of these think anks showed numerous specific actions that violated the rules – such as that their work is supposed to be factually based. Such as there was a whole lot of behaviour that sure looked like lobbying and sending money to foreign organisations that are not charities."
Mashey later published his audit of Heartland finances in Desmogblog, which was the first outlet to run the trove of Heartland documents.
Others were demanding more disclosure from Heartland about its donors and its activities.
In a letter that was published on Friday and then subsequently removed, more than 30 leading health professionals and scientists from the US, Britain, Australia and New Zealand called on Heartland to come clean. "What motivates the Heartland Institute? As climate scientists and health professionals, we view the systematic manipulation and suppression of climate science for private benefit as confusing at best, and inhumane at worst," the letter said.
"It is in the public, national, and global interest for all funding behind their activities to be revealed. This allows people to make up their own minds about the truth of the climate change threat, so that action can be planned in the light of reality rather than the murky shadows of secretly funded disinformation."
In a separate initiative, seven climate scientists wrote an open letter calling on Heartland to see the moment of exposure as an opportunity to change tack.
The scientists, who included Kevin Trenbeth at the National Centre for Atmospheric Research and Ben Santer at the Lawrence Livermore National Labs, also took Heartland to task for its response to the 2009 and 2011 hacks of climate scientists' emails. "The Heartland Institute has had no qualms about utilising and distorting emails stolen from scientists," the letter said.
"The Heartland Institute has chosen to undermine public understanding of basic scientific facts and personally attack climate researchers rather than engage in a civil debate about climate change policy options," the letter said.
"We hope the Heartland Institute will begin to play a more constructive role in the policy debate. Refraining from misleading attacks on climate science and climate researchers would be a welcome first step toward."
Terms & Conditions |
More Feeds
About 2 million children who are malnourished die each year worldwide, according to a United Nations estimate. Yet aid organizations say it's tough to attract attention to the issue of chronic malnutrition in a preventative way -- before it becomes severe and life-threatening.
Save the Children
issued a report this week hoping to sound the alarm and highlight behavioral changes and other known practices that can help.
"Oftentimes, we all tend to fixate a bit on the acute side of malnutrition and what we typically have in our mind's eye about a wasted emaciated child," said Karin Lapping, senior director for nutrition at Save the Children. "But actually what is more prevalent and contributes more to child deaths at the end is chronic malnutrition."
Globally, a quarter of all children are malnourished, but in some developing countries it can be as high as a third or even half, said Lapping. And being malnourished contributes to the life-threatening nature of other illnesses, such as childhood diarrhea and malaria, she said.
Cat Cora, a Greek-American professional chef and past winner in the "Iron Chef" television series, recently visited Ethiopia -- where more than 40 percent of children are chronically malnourished -- to learn about the problem and try to raise awareness in the United States.
"In the United States it's very hard to understand the word 'food insecurity,' because we have such abundance here," she said. But "I don't care whether you live in Los Angeles or Ethiopia, mothers have the same concerns for their children" -- they want them to grow and thrive.
Solutions exist right now to solve the problem, said Lapping. Save the Children's report points to several solutions also outlined in a
2008 Lancet medical journal series on malnutrition:
breastfeeding until the child is 6 months old;
providing Vitamin A and zinc supplements to children;
fortifying staple foods at the production site, such as adding iron to flour in mills; and
encouraging healthy behaviors including hand-washing.
Products such as nutritionally enhanced peanut paste work for curative purposes, and are undergoing studies to see how they would work for prevention, said Lapping.
Several years ago, the French company Nutriset
introduced Plumpy'nut, a product aimed at bringing severely malnourished children back to good health within weeks.
Many relief organizations have embraced the paste, in part because it's easy to produce, easy to store (no refrigeration required and -- at a cost of $60 for a two-month regimen -- relatively inexpensive to purchase.
Nutriset's general manager, Isabelle Lescanne, stopped by the NewsHour recently to talk with Ray Suarez about Plumpy'nut and other products in the works to help prevent malnutrition, along with
the controversy over Plumpy'nut's patent that restricts wide-scale production of the power-packed paste in North America and parts of Europe:
But even without products, behavioral changes and education in basic dietary needs can help combat malnutrition, Lapping continued. For example, teaching mothers to breastfeed their children exclusively until they are 6 months old will prevent the risk of introducing contaminated water into their young developing bodies and will help develop their own immune response.
Rather than just focusing on the mothers, aid organizations urge the inclusion of the whole community, including husbands, fathers, mothers-in-law and religious leaders -- anyone who can "really influence the ability of a mother to practice these good behaviors," said Lapping.
The issue of chronic malnutrition got a boost at the G-8 Summit in L'Aquila, Italy, where member nations issued a
Joint Statement on Global Food Security.
Of the $22 billion pledged for food security at the summit, 3 percent was earmarked for nutrition and of that 1 percent was delivered, said Lapping. Save the Children would like to see the L'Aquila pledge extended and the amount for malnutrition increased to 15 percent. The World Bank estimated that $10 billion per year is needed to address chronic malnutrition, she added.
"There is in fact this hidden crisis and there's a problem that if we don't act now, within 15 years we'll see another half-billion children affected by chronic malnutrition that can be prevented," she said.
Watch the NewsHour's latest report in the series "Food for 9 Billion," which explores the issue of food security and how some poor fishing families in the Philippines are embracing birth control to ease pressure on over-fished reefs:
View all of our
World coverage and follow us on
Twitter.
Influential group calls on regulators to ensure safe handling of toxic fluids used in controversial hydraulic fracturing
An influential group of scientists has urged US officials to step up their policing of shale gas operations and to consider stronger regulations to reduce environmental and health risks at the facilities.
The scientists called on regulators to revisit, and in many cases beef up, their guidelines to avoid surface spills at shale gas works, and to ensure the safe storage and disposal of toxic fluids used in
controversial hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, operations.
Though some US states have updated historic oil and gas regulations to encompass fracking and shale gas work more generally, many lag behind and lack enough qualified people to enforce regulations properly, the researchers said.
Writing in a major
report released yesterday, the scientists found "little or no evidence" to support claims that fracking had contaminated aquifers, but recommended that states do more to prevent accidents, such as spillages, underground leaks and gas explosions.
Rules should be in place to establish responsibility if groundwater supplies become contaminated by shale gas works, with clear guidelines set out for replacing water supplies when drinking wells are affected, the report adds.
More stringent rules and better surveillance of well construction could prevent future cases of houses exploding after methane from fracked wells seeped along underground fractures and collected beneath homes. A handful of high-profile blasts have been traced to shale gas wells in Ohio, Colorado and other states.
The independent review of fracking by senior academics at the University of Texas in Austin said that the development of shale gas was "essential to the energy security of the US and the world", but that the process had become mired in controversy after claims that fracking causes damage to health and the environment.
Fracking uses high pressure water mixed with particles and chemicals to break gas-rich shale rocks apart more than a kilometre underground. Critics have blamed the technique for a range of undesirable effects, from air pollution and contaminated water to minor earthquakes. In Britain, the protest group,
Frack Off, has staged demonstrations at fracking test sites, while Greenpeace has argued that exploitation of shale gas deposits draws momentum away from alternative green energy projects.
Charles Groat, associate director of the university's Energy Institute and lead author of the report, said: "The most important underlying scope of this study has been separating fact from fiction. The resource is so important to the US and the globe that if there are legitimate concerns about the impact on the environment of producing and transporting this resource, we need to understand that."
Shale gas production rose nearly fivefold in the US between 2006 and 2010, when it accounted for 23% of the nation's natural gas. By 2035, nearly half is expected to come from shale gas operations.
The authors focused on three major shale works in the US, namely Barnett shale in north Texas, Marcellus shale in Pennsylvania and Haynesville shale in western Louisiana and northeast Texas. They found that many problems blamed on fracking were common to all oil and gas drilling operations, and that reports of water contamination could often be traced to surface spills of waste water.
But the authors made clear that their environmental review of shale gas was hindered by the industry's limited disclosure of chemicals added to fracking fluids, and a widespread failure to sample and record baseline levels of water quality in aquifers before drilling began.
"In many, if not most places, what the water was like before oil and gas development took place is not recorded, so how do you know whether you have had an effect or not, or whether the effect that's happening is due to what you're involved in, or what someone else is involved in?" Groat said. Improving baseline records of water quality, better groundwater sampling, and reliable ways to confirm the causes of problems were crucial for policy makers to draw up, amend and enforce regulations, he added.
The authors identified more than 800 violations of environmental regulations involving most stages of shale gas operations, from drilling and fracturing to waste disposal and well plugging, at sites in four states dating back to 1999. Of these, 58% were procedural or had little or no impact, with 42% ranked as having a major, substantial or minor impact on the environment.
Groat said the industry needed to demonstrate that it could minimise violations through self-policing. "They know where the problems are and should show the public they are responsive, not defensive," he said. We are seeing signs of this in efforts to deal with flow back and produced water disposal issues, but need similar efforts in ensuring upper well bore integrity improvements," he added.
Drilling at shale gas sites has led to prominent claims that chemicals used in fracking are behind cases of discoloured, cloudy and bad-smelling water. But the report says many of these changes may be due to vibrations and shockwaves from shale gas works disturbing particles of iron, manganese and other materials that had settled in water wells.
Though chemicals make up less than 1% of the millions of gallons of fracturing fluid used at a single shale gas well, the authors raised concern that there was still no clear understanding of the key chemicals or the concentrations used, despite broader disclosure from companies.
Several chemicals that are known to be toxic and used in fracking are widely used in other products, the report states. They include 2BE, a surfactant that can destroy red blood cells, which is found in solvents, paints and household cleaners; benzene, a carcinogen that is already widespread in the environment; and naphthalene, a probable carcinogen used in mothballs and toilet deodorisers.
Though the release of more toxic chemicals into the environment was "not totally acceptable", people should take into account their uses in other products, and the great depths at which they are released in fracking, the report states. Details of the report were announced at the annual meeting of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science in Vancouver.
The report raises further concerns about the impact of shale gas on forests and ecological habitats. Studies of shale gas development in the Marcellus Shale area show that two-thirds of well pads will be built on cleared forest land, leading to a clearing of 34,000 to 83,000 acres for well pads, and a further 80,000 to 200,000 acres for roads. For shale gas operations near "sensitive areas", schools and public water supplies, the authors urge states to consider setting minimum distances for drill pad sites and other shale gas facilities.
The report says little about health concerns from benzene and other volatile organic compounds that are released from fracking plants, either as air emissions or in waste fluids,but adds that much more research was needed to investigate claims that the chemicals caused a wide range of health problems, including cancer, headaches and nosebleeds.
Follow up reports from the group will focus on atmospheric emissions and seismic activity triggered by shale gas extraction.
Terms & Conditions |
More Feeds
 |
You probably already know not to trust what the news media says about big corporations, which after all are their owners -- for example, Disney owns ABC, and General Electric holds stake in NBC. Now Harvard law professor and political activist Larry Lessig has released... |
The Labour leader told Royal Bolton hospital workers how the government's controversial Health and Social Care Bill should be scrapped.
Occupy veterans join movement to stop selloff of Forest of Dean centre and inspire sustainable communities
The notices the county council has pinned up demanding that Tom and his fellow squatters leave – and threatening legal action – do not dampen the mood.
Tom – who prefers to be known by his first name – has found a decent-sized mushroom in the forest that will liven up the evening's vegetable stew and is looking forward to getting on with building a cob "Celtic roundhouse" that will be either a henhouse or a sauna.
This is the
Wilderness Centre at Plump Hill in the Forest of Dean, formerly a council-run scheme that taught children and young people about the environment, nature and the woods. As part of the public spending cuts, Gloucestershire county council shut the centre and intended to sell it off – until Tom and others turned up and squatted.
It is a sort of rural
Occupy and some of the squatters at the Wilderness Centre are veterans of the movement. But they say they have more specific aims. Tom and his friends dream of maintaining the centre to inspire young and old to create communities that live in a more sustainable way.
"We're here to make sure this centre remains open and in use," Tom said. "The council looked likely to sell it off. It could be turned into houses, flats, a big hotel, a leisure complex. Having this place turned into a Center Parcs or a retreat for corporate team-building is wrong."
The squatters have invited specialists, from horticulturists and farmers to blacksmiths and basket-weavers to share and
exchange skills with anyone, young or old, who cares to come along to listen and learn.
Tom and the others believe that within a few years it will be impossible to guarantee food security in the UK. It will become important, they believe, for people to know how to grow their own food and to live in a more environmentally friendly way.
"It is clear that how we live now is not sustainable. We need to get the information out to people about how to grow things, how to get back to the land," he says. "Most people in the world know how to do things like light fires. Many people in this country have forgotten that."
James, who joined the
Occupy camp on College Green in Bristol this winter, said the Wilderness Centre bunch were "reluctant" to be associated with Occupy. "The
Occupy movement was very general. That was its strength to begin with, but its weakness in the long term. It opened up a discourse, which was great, but we want to be more specific about what we are doing. There is a danger this could be seen as some sort of retreat for Occupy activists and we don't want that."
James has been living in a replica Saxon house, a smoky, draughty building. "It's not just about inheriting wealth and resources. We're borrowing it from the future. We want to re-introduce this idea that we have to be good ancestors."
He understands that times are tough for the council and that cuts have to be made. "But if they are serious about investing in the community you don't do that by cutting off education resources. There will be a short-term gain, they might get ?4m for this property, but that would be quickly spent."
Rebecca arrived not from the Occupy movement but from the world of mental health care. She believes many people would be happier, less disturbed, if they were more connected with nature. "We don't understand how far we have been abstracted from the natural world," she said. "That causes a lot of psychological and emotional problems."
She dreams of creating a community more in tune with the natural world to help people through mental illness.
The squatters are pleased at the reaction from many local people. Farmers and residents have delivered supplies and good wishes. Even the police have been friendly, perhaps because they too have suffered cuts.
The chief constable, Tony Melville, made headlines when he said his
force was on a "cliff edge".
Gloucestershire council insists it has to make difficult decisions to make ends meet. Maintaining the centre was expensive and it saw the sale as a way of bringing in much-needed revenue. It put the centre up for sale – but had to take it off the market when the squatters moved in. It said it will now try to take back the centre through the courts.
Charlotte and Sam, from London, were among visitors when the Guardian was shown around. "It looks as if they are looking after the place," said Charlotte. "If there are people here willing to put the time and effort into making it work, why not just let them get on with it?"
Terms & Conditions |
More Feeds
Category: Health News
Created: 2/16/2012 6:06:00 PM
Last Editorial Review: 2/17/2012
Category: Health News
Created: 2/17/2012 11:00:00 AM
Last Editorial Review: 2/17/2012
Category: Health News
Created: 2/17/2012 11:00:00 AM
Last Editorial Review: 2/17/2012
Category: Health News
Created: 2/17/2012 10:05:00 AM
Last Editorial Review: 2/17/2012
The economic climate abroad has potentially severe ramifications to U.S. business travel as owners lose interest in European business opportunities.
According to a new report by the Global Business Travel Association Foundation (GBTA , if the European debt crisis deteriorates any further it could have a significantly damaging impact on U.S. business travel, which in turn could greatly impede the economic recovery in the States that’s just now seeing progress.
The U.S. business travel industry has seen considerable gains over the past three years, which Michael W. McCormick, executive director and COO of the GBTA, attributes to the growth of outbound international travel. Last year alone saw business travel spending up 7.6 percent to $251.9 billion.
However, the current economic condition in Europe could cause business travel from the U.S. to Europe to pull back, resulting in a possible slump for top-line growth that's been fueled by "putting people on the road to find new business opportunities." Not to mention the Euro slid to a one-month low earlier this week after Moody's Investors Service put several European financial firms up for review, spelling bad news for the European banking system, as well as outbound international travel.
“There’s a strong correlation between business travel growth as a leading indicator for the overall health of the economy and for employment figures here in the U.S.,” McCormick says. “If there’s not a speedy resolution to the European debt crisis, then what we could see is a domino effect that could reach across the waters and start to have a deep effect on the economy in the U.S.”
How deep of an effect? The GBTA’s report paints three possible scenarios:
- Baseline/Current Scenario: The situation in Europe reaches a point of moderate stability, with continued growth in U.S. business travel reaching $263.5 and $277.3 billion in 2012 and 2013, respectively.
- Moderate Scenario: A drawn-out crisis causes business travel to plateau and eventually decline by $40 billion or 7 percent between 2012 and 2013.
- Severe Scenario: Far-reaching defaults, bank failures, and possibly a dissolved European Union would cause a sharp plummet in business travel spending by as much as $88 billion or 16 percent between 2012 and 2013.
With the frangible European crisis far from being resolved, McCormick fears a “very concerning environment” is on the immediate horizon. “Right now we’re seeing a 25 percent chance of moving to a moderate scenario and a 10 percent chance of moving to a more severe scenario–those are, unfortunately, very significant odds,” he says.
Despite the ubiquitous headlines that depict a less than favorable view of the crisis abroad, not everyone in the business travel industry is worried just yet. “Clearly clients are concerned with what trends might exist and what might be happening with the European crisis, but we haven’t had anyone say they want to modify their travel program in any way,” says Brian Hace, vice president of client service for business travel management company Carlson Wagonlit Travel. “There are still enough unknowns about the European crisis that there isn’t an immediate need to react.”
Should the GBTA’s predictions become a reality, Hace goes on to cite previous setbacks in the business travel industry, such as the Sept. 11 attacks and the 2010 volcanic ash eruptions in Iceland, as prime examples of how the system has been able to calibrate itself even in moments of crisis. “I think as an industry we have an infrastructure of people and talent to address whatever the need might be on behalf our client, whether it’s an immediate security situation or a more long-term economic situation,” he says.
Although the GBTA’s findings do indeed portray quite the extreme worst-case scenario, McCormick’s urge for business owners and travel agents to err on the side of caution is justifiable given the volatile economic climate in Europe. He says, “We certainly don’t want to be the bearer of bad news, but it's one of the those situations now where we have to watch it very closely because it could have a very dramatic impact on business travel and business in general.”
I am a prisoner, serving life for killing a suspected paedophile. As a child I suffered repeated and horrific abuse by adults. I don't for one minute believe that excuses my crime. Since October 2011 my partner Lydia Smith has written three articles about my situation.
The first looked at the diagnosis of Dangerous and Severe Personality Disorder, which has been applied to me. Then Lydia wrote about
failings in mental health care in prison, based on my experience. After her latest article, which argued for
longer sentences for paedophiles that properly reflect the terrible damage they do, Lydia came in for some hostile comment from “cantloginas_Momo” who called the
sex offenders register “the modern equivalent for pillories” that should be killed off by the European Court of Human Rights. Here are some thoughts of my own.
The suggestion to do away with the sex offenders register is dangerous and scary. Are you actually saying that you want all sex offenders to be anonymous, that you don't want them monitored, and that you are OK with them being free to hunt the streets for victims, trawling the internet pretending to be children and grooming them, going underground and forming paedo rings?
Are you saying they should be allowed to melt into society undetected and continue their offending inside and outside the family?
If the sex offenders register was abolished how would you monitor these people? Do you not think that the authorities have a right to know where these people are? These people gave up their entitlement to human rights the moment they committed inhuman acts of evil on unsuspecting vulnerable children.
The notion that sex offenders may have had a traumatic childhood does not make sense to me. Why would someone who has been the victim of such evil and suffered so intensely then go on to make other children suffer in the same way?
During my period of incarceration I have had to engage in group therapy, I have had to sit and listen while sex offenders attempt to justify their actions. They do everything they can to deflect blame, even blaming their victims for being dressed in a provocative way or saying that they were willing. In what universe would a child be blamed for seducing an adult?
These people very rarely accept responsibility for their actions because they won't accept that they have done anything wrong. I wouldn't want them free to babysit my children, what about you?
Only the really high-profile cases ever get a ‘whole life tariff’, which means exactly what it says, ‘whole life’. In general the justice system takes pity on them and hands out relatively short sentences or just community sentences, if that. There really needs to be a change of sentence guidelines.
I killed someone and I am being punished according to the law with a mandatory life sentence. I can and do accept this. I have never appealed my sentence. Neither I nor my partner will ever try to justify what I have done. I was also given a life sentence from the evil demonic beasts who planned and executed the horrific sexual abuse upon me. I have lost count of the times I have self-harmed and tried to end my life, oh how I wish that they had killed me. In my mind to make a child endure thirty, forty, fifty years of suffering, isolation, depression, anger and hate is worse than the same child being murdered at the time of the abuse.
In the comments section my partner has been asked how she can sleep at night. She hasn’t committed any crime. I have. I killed a man who was a suspected paedophile, he became a manifestation of the abusers from my childhood and in a detached and delusional state I killed him. I could of course say how sorry I am or how guilty I feel but that would not be the truth. It is a trait of the disorder that I don't feel that it was me who did this. In my detached state I had no connection to reality, I was cold, emotionless and dangerous. All I saw was my abuser. Due to the sexual abuse I suffered I had developed a dissociative psychopathic personality disorder.
The point my partner is trying to raise is that I have not been given appropriate treatment. I have had numerous comprehensive psychiatric and psychological reports that all agree with the diagnosis and all agree that my disorder is treatable. And yet here I am, in a restrictive special unit just being contained.
"David" and "Lydia Smith" are pseudonyms
Category: Health News
Created: 2/15/2012 2:06:00 PM
Last Editorial Review: 2/16/2012
Category: Health News
Created: 2/16/2012 11:01:00 AM
Last Editorial Review: 2/16/2012
Category: Health News
Created: 2/15/2012 4:06:00 PM
Last Editorial Review: 2/16/2012
Category: Health News
Created: 2/16/2012 2:05:00 PM
Last Editorial Review: 2/17/2012
I've had a lot of discussions with various people -- readers, friends, Twitter followers, my spouse -- about "
Luck" in recent weeks. People who've struck up conversations about "Luck" don't know whether to stick with it, and I keep asking them to do so -- for just one more episode, at least.
I've developed a short pitch for the show that I feel bears repeating here: If you've liked David Milch's work in the past, give the first four episodes of the show a try. If, after Episode 4, you don't want to watch more, fair enough. But anyone who sticks with the show that long will likely stay with it until the end, and the end is really worth the ride.
Episode 4 airs Sunday (Feb. 19, 9 p.m. EST on HBO , and if you've watched any of "Luck" up till this point, you owe it to yourself to see if that episode changes your point of view. I think there's a good chance waverers might stay with the show after that fourth hour, which features a terrific racing sequence that embodies everything I enjoy about Milch's deeply felt immersion in the world of horse racing.
I also want to amend
my review of the show a little bit, in a positive way. Weeks before "Luck" debuted, HBO sent all nine episodes of Season 1 to critics, and when I wrote my positive review of the drama, I'd only seen the first seven hours. I got a chance to watch the last two hours recently, and I'm happy to report that the season finale of "Luck" is one of the most satisfying and beautifully shot hours of television I've seen in months.
Having said all that, everyone has their own Milch tolerance level. I could not get into "John From Cincinnati," despite repeated attempts. Perhaps the difference here is that, as I said in my
review, the track feels like a more accessible place. And even though I don't identify with the gamblers' longshot mentality (when my grandmother took me to the track, I would hang on to the $2 she gave me, rather than bet it on some nag
I'd never even met
, but the main draw of "Luck" is that it helps me understand what the denizens of Santa Anita see in that world. I feel their thrill when a race takes on an epic momentousness; I smile when they get a lucky break.
In any event, I expected to have to hang out in "Luck's" racetrack world for a while before I really understood what was going on; as a huge fan of "Deadwood," I know that the power of David Milch's work is cumulative. The last couple of episodes of "Deadwood's" first season are among the high points in
HBO's Three Davids trilogy of greatness. In those hours, you didn't just know about the complex relationships and inexpressible emotions that coursed through that camp, you felt them in your bones.A
As they trundle along, Milch's shows acquire layers of details that don't just end up creating singular atmospheres and worlds, they also lead to peaks and valleys of tragedy and exaltation. One of those moments comes in Sunday's episode, during that key race. It nearly brought me to tears for reasons I couldn't quite understand, and I think that's the point. Milch is trying to evoke primal emotions that most of us aren't really able to articulate. Hence the use of Sigur Ros here and there on the soundtrack; like a good Sigur Ros song, great Milchian moments indicate tectonic shifts going on inside a soul.A
As for plot, I wouldn't say that "Luck" doesn't have one; clearly Dustin Hoffman's Ace Bernstein character is up to something, though I would not want to have to give a detailed accounting of what that something is. As is the case with the Four Horsemen (the railbirds who hang around Santa Anita racetrack and own a promising horse of their own* , I understand the general shape of what Ace is trying to do -- he's trying to get back at those who wronged him.A The stakes for the railbirds are lower, but more interesting, strangely. They're trying to hang on to the jackpot they won in the pilot and keep their own racehorse happy and healthy, but Jerry's self-destructive streak and their hard-knock lives make their small-time aspirations anything but a sure bet.
(*In its press releases about "Luck" episodes, HBO refers to the foursome as the Degenerates, which I kind of love.
So, see how you like Episode 4, and if you stick with "Luck," there are some wonderful moments and stories that surface throughout the rest of the season. One example: I was as frustrated as anyone else by Turo Escalante's (John Ortiz thick accent in the first few episodes, but by the "Luck" season finale, I was shocked at how much I cared about the guy.A
That episode also features a fantastic race, one of the finest of the season; director Mimi Leder brings such poetry and immediacy to the season's climactic race that I'd happily watch it again and again. It's an epic moment that unites several of the first season's story lines, but it also feels intimate; we've become privy to these people's hopes and dreams. We feel the weight of their expectations and the itch of their fears. It's super-Milchian, and it's terrific.
If you do happen to catch Sunday's episode, or have thoughts on the show so far, please share your observations in the comments.
Category: Health News
Created: 2/16/2012 11:01:00 AM
Last Editorial Review: 2/16/2012
No comments:
Post a Comment