I don't care about most of Bush's appointees, Ashcroft included. However, one area does concern me and should concern everyone here. Every person (every one) appointed to the agriculture commission by Bush is in agri-business. NO ONE represents the environment. NO ONE represents farmers. NO ONE represents health and medical concerns. NO ONE represents organic growers. Most importantly... NO ONE represents consumers. This has NEVER happened before and no one has notices because it is a small committee that doesn't get the attention of things like cutting taxes, the budget, faith-based programs, etc. There is a great deal of concern that, because this group also oversees some of the FDA and EPA, that they will begin to allow uncontrolled genetic growing of plants and animals, force irradiation of vegetables and meat onto growers, allow a wider use of pesticides in farming, give ranchers more flexibility in using growth hormones in dairy and beef cattle and MOST IMPORTANTLY, scale back labeling of foods. One of the biggest victories claimed during Clinton's presidency was the consumers victory over agri-business interests by forcing more extensive and detailed labeling of food. I don't know about you guys, but I want to know what the hell I'm eating, where it has been, what they did to it, etc. Up until about 1992, labels had only limited information on them. When labels first happened in the 80's, it was for fat content and quality control. Things like Grades for meat and dairy were upgraded. By 1992, they had included ingredients, percentage of daily vitamins, etc. Even things as simple as telling you what water source spring water came from was the result of these changes. Why the big deal? Well, because routinely agri-business would put things in food without really telling people what it was. Yellow Dye #2 sounds harmless but it is actually cow urine. Mmmmmm. They also would irradiate food, leave meat and diary out of refrigerated containers, etc. Even recently, a manufacturer of taco shells was forced to pull its stock off the shelves because it used genetically mutated corn but didn't reveal it on the label. One of the biggest fights has been with organic standards. Some agri-business interests are allowed to label their foods organic even if their famers use pesticides, irraditae their foods, feed their cattle hormones or use "industrial sludge" as fertilizer. That sludge is sewer waste. Mmmmmm. Consumer groups have been fighting for higher organic standards for years and finally won a significant victory just a couple of years ago. All of that could be overturned now. Agri-business interests would love to sell their foods as organic because they get more money for them. One example of how they sold non-organics as organic was to push to allow the use of pesticides on foods with peels that are not eaten - like oranges or lemons. The problem is that not only do people occassionally use orange and lemon rinds for recipes, but the pores on the outside are not small enough to preven some pesticides from seeping in. I mean, these are the same people who used DDT as pesticide on plants! We can all complain about Ashcroft or whoever as cabinet posts, but these are the people that really scare me not just because of the power they wield but because it gets virtually no press at all. ------------------ Me fail English? That's unpossible.
Jeff, Don't forget that those taco shells were labeled "unfit for human consumption" due to the corn...or the fact that Taco Bell continued to use them in their restaurants. This is not too surprising...even Gore was going to cater to agri-business. Maybe not this much, though. ------------------ Big A, little a bouncing B, The System might have got you, but it won't get me.
Marge: Homer, I think you need to use more fertilizer. Homer(pulling up pants): I'm only one man. ------------------ Don't come in Bullard's house!
It's sometimes hard to tell from people's backgrounds how they will do their jobs. Ann Veneman does have a background in the Agriculture Department, as well as having held the top Ag post in California. Is she any worse a choice than a Mike Espy, who was also a lawyer but who had limited exposure to the Ag industry at all (and who was accused of taking bribes from Tyson, though he was acquitted). Though she's been vague, Veneman seems to support the conservation bill that is working it's way through the Congress. That bill was supported by Dan Glickman, as well. To me, it's just too early to tell how she'll do her job. ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
I wasn't speaking of her, specifically. I was talking about her committee. They are the one's that recommend the choices she makes. I don't have a problem with her as much as the rest of them. ------------------ Me fail English? That's unpossible.
