st_ouennais

Having just released the figures for last year showing milk production locally is down 11%, I thought you might like to have a glimpse at what's going on with milk in the USA.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Cancer Expert Counters Reckless Claims That Hormonal Milk Is Safe

CHICAGO, IL, October 14, 2009 --/WORLD-WIRE/-- The Cancer Prevention Coalition is criticizing a widely publicized recent report, "Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin" (rBST) which claims that milk from cows injected with this genetically engineered hormone is safe. The report was authored by eight paid consultants to rBST companies, including Elanco and Monsanto, points out Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition. "All of these consultants were paid for their so-called 'safety assessments,'" he says. The hormone rBST is injected in about 20% of U.S. dairy cows to increase milk production. While the industry claims that the hormone is safe for cows, and that the milk is safe for consumers, this is "blatantly false," says Dr Epstein, who authored the 2006 book, "What's In Your Milk?" (Trafford Publishing). Dr. Epstein warns: rBST makes cows sick. Monsanto has been forced to admit to about 20 toxic effects, including mastitis, on the label of Posilac, the rBST product that when administered to cows makes them produce more milk. Monsanto's Posilac product was acquired by Eli Lilly in 2008. rBST milk is contaminated by pus, due to mastitis, an infection of the udder commonly induced by the hormone, and also by antibiotics used to treat the mastitis. rBST milk is chemically and nutritionally different than natural milk. Milk from cows injected with rBST is contaminated with the hormone, traces of which are absorbed through the gut into the blood of people who consume this milk or products made from it. rBST milk is supercharged with high levels of the natural growth factor (IGF-1), which is readily absorbed through the gut. Excess levels of IGF-1 have been incriminated in well-documented scientific publications as causes of breast, colon, and prostate cancers. Additionally, IGF-1 blocks natural defense mechanisms against early submicroscopic cancers. Cancer Prevention Coalition warnings of these risks in 1990 were endorsed by the National Family Farm Coalition, representing 30 organizations, and also by the Campaign Against rBST, representing 10 organizations. A 2007 Cancer Prevention Coalition petition to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), "Seeking Withdrawal of the New Animal Drug application for rBST," was endorsed by the Organic Consumers Association, Farm Defenders, and the Institute for Responsible Technology. Nevertheless, the FDA has remained indifferent to these risks, in spite of longstanding Congressional concerns. Illustrative is the 1986 Congressional report, "Human Food Safety and Regulation of Animal Drugs," by the House Committee on Government Operations. This report concluded that the "FDA has consistently disregarded its responsibility... has repeatedly put what it perceives are interests of veterinarians and the livestock industry ahead of its legal obligations to protect consumers - jeopardizing the health and safety of consumers of meat and milk." Of particular concern are risks to infants and children in view of their high susceptibility to cancer-causing ingredients in consumer products, warns Dr. Epstein. Dr. Epstein says these risks are readily avoidable by consuming organic milk. According to The Hartman Group, a prominent Seattle consulting firm, organic milk is now among the first organic product that consumers buy. Organic milk is also becoming increasingly available, with an annual growth rate of about 20%, while overall milk consumption is dropping by 10%. "Nevertheless," Dr. Epstein emphasizes, "only a few schools make organic milk available, nor do most state governments, under low-income food programs, particularly by the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children." Wal-Mart is now the biggest seller of certified organic milk, followed by Horizon Organic, owned by Dean Foods, the nation's largest dairy producer, and by Groupe Danone, the leading French dairy company. While growth in this market is still held back by the higher price of organic milk, this problem is likely to be resolved by Wal-Mart's competitive pricing. In sharp contrast to the United States, the European Union nations as well as Norway, Switzerland, New Zealand, Japan, and Canada all have banned the use and imports of hormonal milk and dairy products. This news release has been sent to state governors and senior officials in all 50 state health departments as well as to senior federal officials in all relevant agencies, and also staff members of relevant Congressional committees. It is anticipated that Dr. Margaret Hamburg, the highly respected new Commissioner of the FDA, will take prompt action to protect the unsuspecting public from the dangers of rBST milk.

FROM HANSARD

SMUGGLING PREVENTION BILL.
HC Deb 28 June 1805 vol 5 cc646-8 646

§ The order of the day being read for resuming the debate on the smuggling prevention bill, so far as concerned the islands of Guernsey and Jersey,

§ The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed an amendment, which he hoped would do away the principal objection offered to the bill last night, by recognizing the internal jurisdiction of those islands, and clearly enacting, that crimes against this bill, committed within that jurisdiction, should be tried there; referring, however, any decision with respect to seizures of contraband goods, to the tribunal in England, where all such questions must be referred, namely, the court of exchequer. Still, however, he apprehended there were many precedents to uphold the right of trying persons in England for crimes committed in those countries. But without at all pressing that right now, he wished to consult the feelings of the inhabitants of both islands, and to urge nothing unnecessarily; but as to the right of legislation for those islands, the precedents he named last night placed the question beyond all doubt. The right hon. gent. concluded by moving his clause.

§ Mr. Grey said, that counsel had been heard at considerable length against this bill, and that they had produced a number of charters, by which the island of Guernsey was allowed to legislate for itself; he therefore thought it necessary that matters should be examined into, before the bill would become a law. He allowed that it could not be disputed, that smuggling was a very great evil; but then it was carried on from many other parts besides Guernsey and Jersey, so that, even though this bill was passed, the smuggling trade would be as extensive as it was before, and these people would he dissatisfied and discontented, conceiving that their rights had been encroached upon.

§ Mr. Sturges Bourne was confident, that when hon. members talked of a trivial or partial evil, they could not be aware of the enormous extent to which the revenues of 647 this country were injured by the smuggling trade from those islands. He was almost afraid to state it with any hope of credibility. It was a loss to he stated rather in millions than in thousands; estimating it at the duties payable on foreign spirits, it was at least from five to six millions; and at the rate paid on British spirits, from three to four millions annually. Surely, then, this was an object of importance, as well with respect to revenue, as to the protection of the fair trader.

§ Mr. Windham said, that from the arguments of counsel, it certainly was a doubtful question, whether this country had a right to legislate for Guernsey and Jersey, or not; he therefore thought it was most important, that an investigation should take place. There were also many reasons could be urged, which placed the bill in a very questionable point of view: one of which was, that it was to last only during the war. He hoped, therefore, for these reasons, that the measure would be well considered.

§ Dr. Laurence expressed his apprehensions of the mischiefs to which this country would be exposed under the operations of this act, in the latitude it gave to our commanders to visit all vessels found cruizing out at sea, within two leagues of those islands, and seizing such as they should think fit to denominate hovering smugglers. Was it not obvious that, in time of peace, numberless vessels, under neutral colours, would, in the course of their voyages to other ports, pass inadvertently within the limited distance of those islands? Might they not he driven there inevitably by stress of weather? And would it be reasonable that every ship in such circumstances, freighted in a manner not conformable to this act, with which they had nothing to do, should be seized as a lawful prize, and carried to the next port, and their owners involved in tedious law-suits, loss, inconvenience, and vexation? Would it not amount to a declaration of war upon all nations whose vessels might thus fall within the grasp of our cruizers for an extent of three hundred leagues of coast? If for no other reason, then, than the risk to which it would expose this country in quarrels with other nations, he should deprecate the bill as it now stood.

§ The Attorney General answered, that the designation of ships so seizable was not left so loose in the bill, as to give an opportunity for such consequences as those stated by the hon. and learned gent. The principle of the bill was nothing more than that of the hovering acts, as old almost as the revenue itself: 648 vessels having liquors on board in contraband packages, and found hovering or sailing to and fro, and not proceeding on their voyages, wind and weather permitting. But with respect to the argument of the independence of those islands upon the realm of England, upon the ground that they were annexed to the crown of England by the Norman conquest, as an inheritance of the duke of Normandy, he begged to remind gentlemen how that fact stood: Robert, duke of Normandy, quarrelled with his brother Henry the First; they went to war; Robert was conquered; and his dominions, by right of this new conquest, annexed to the British crown: so that there was an end to any claim of independence on that ground.—The clause was then brought up, read, committed, agreed to, reported, and added, by way of rider to the bill, which was read the third time, passed, and ordered to the lords.

Ends.

The Guardian has been prevented from reporting parliamentary proceedings on legal grounds which appear to call into question privileges guaranteeing free speech established under the 1688 Bill of Rights.
Today's published Commons order papers contains a question to be answered by a minister later this week. The Guardian is prevented from identifying the MP who has asked the question, what the question is, which minister might answer it, or where the question is to be found. The Guardian is also forbidden from telling its readers why the paper is prevented – for the first time in memory – from reporting parliament. Legal obstacles, which cannot be identified, involve proceedings, which cannot be mentioned, on behalf of a client who must remain secret.

It is thought there is a question on the order paper about Trafigura, the dumping of toxic waste in the Ivory coast, and the involvement of a British bank in arranging tax efficient schemes.

None of that appears to be in any way related to genuine national security. My guess is the secrecy relates to a 'high placed' prominent person or two with deep connections into the above affairs.