United Egg Producer Certified….. For Real?

Warning – Sit back in your chair and grab a beverage, this one is lengthy.

One would think that as many years as I have under my belt in industrial animal production that nothing would surprise me let alone faze me. In other words I’m somewhat jaded.

A friend sent me a link to a video clip on You Tube that left me shaking my head and asking “are you serious”. A slick campaign has been conjured up to convince the general public that The United Egg Producers (UEP) have the “premier animal welfare” for their laying hens with their very own seal of certification.

After watching, I set out to discover exactly what it meant to be UEP certified not realizing what a herculean task this would be or how confused I would become. Like most, I first searched the internet and found web addresses for uepcertified.com, unitedegg.com, and uepcertified.org. Having a suspicious mind when I find that there is a commercial web address (.com) and a non-profit web address (.org) for the same entity, red flags rise up, and it warrants further investigation. I found that all three are one and the same – promoting corporate ag and caged/non-caged egg production in confinement buildings.

Further confusion came when I read the UEP website, unitedegg.com, and I quote, “United Egg Producers (UEP) is a Capper-Volstead cooperative of egg farmers from all across the United States and representing the ownership of approximately 95% of all the nation’s egg-laying hens.” I didn’t realize that independent farmers were producing the majority of the eggs in this country I thought the eggs came from the vertically integrated system whereby a corporation owns everything except the mortgage on the farm they contract with and the manure their animals produce. I warrant that this needs further investigation, but that’s for another time!

Wading through all of the B.S., and I’m being polite here folks, I came out having to go back a second and third time to figure it all out. I printed out the freely available UEP Animal Husbandry Guidelines for U.S. Egg Laying Flocks which was found on both the .com and .org websites thinking that was the best place to start.

The 31 page document begins with a short history of egg laying chickens starting in the 1940’s and stimulates a not so wonderful picture of “small backyard flocks” producing the majority of eggs for our country at that time. It’s all in the wording folks that will lead you to think that industrial production and caged confined conditions that the corporate types now use are the best thing since sliced bread.

The first item that gave me a good chuckle is the claim that “the modern cage system has eliminated most diseases of the 1940’s, provided the hens with protection against the weather (environmental controlled housing) and predators, while also improving food safety, the environment (air and water), and animal welfare”. My perpetual habit of talking to myself left me wondering aloud “are these people for real”?

Most chicken diseases prevalent in the 1940’s have been eliminated, if not eradicated, due to development of vaccines, not cages. Secondly, “environmental controlled housing” is for the purpose of controlling every aspect of the chicken’s short life and wringing the most production out of the chickens. These people don’t give a hoot about protecting the hens the hens need to be protected from their way of thinking!

The insinuation that the modern cage system has improved food safety made me almost hysterical. Not so long ago a huge egg recall occurred because of salmonella and consumers becoming ill. The record speaks for itself. The companies involved are part of this confined housing caged system and UEP links to their website. I’d be willing to bet that the company is a member of UEP!

The claim of the modern caged system being an improvement for the environment “(air and water)” is more than hysterical. I had to stop reading and thinking for a while because I was simply flabbergasted. One of the talking points of federal legislation that UEP is promoting, H.R. 3798 that amends the Egg Products Inspection Act is – prohibition of “excessive ammonia levels in egg-laying henhouses”.

Highly acclaimed benefits of confined caged laying hens is that tens-of-thousands can be raised in a small amount of space (confinement building). Most often the building takes up less than one acre of land. Naturally, the hens excrete waste in the form of manure and an excessive amount of ammonia is produced. Where does everyone think that ammonia goes? For the benefit of those who don’t know – the excessive amounts of ammonia are released from the confinement houses into the air by way of huge exhaust fans. Not only is the ammonia released into the air, it comes back down onto the land and water as nitrogen making it available for excessive amounts of runoff into our waterways.

Secondly, how in the world does UEP think they are going to be able to stop the hens from excreting waste and producing ammonia inside of a confinement building, caged or not? If the theory of giving more space to the hens, which is included in the legislation I’ve mentioned, everyone better think again. This won’t reduce the number of hens inside buildings. Industry will only build the housing larger to accommodate the same number of hens, if not more.

The part about improving animal welfare gave me indigestion! No matter which way you spin it, a cage is a cage whether it is conventional, enriched, or cage free confinement buildings. The “enriched cage system” is the crux of the entire campaign and unbelievably “HSUS has embraced this which I wrote about in an earlier post. On the flip side evidently HSUS believes that this system will improve conditions for caged laying hens, making a trade-off that anything is better than nothing!

UEP’s Animal Husbandry Guidelines allow for beak trimming citing advantages that may include, and I underline the word “may”, reduced pecking, reduced feather pulling, reduced cannibalism, better feather condition, less fearfulness, less nervousness, less chronic stress, and decreased mortality. What this means is that beak trimming keeps the hens from picking on one another. If the hens weren’t bored to death being confined in a cage they wouldn’t peck on one another they would have other interests in pecking such as worms, bugs, grasses, or other items in the real natural environment.

The drawbacks of beak trimming cited by UEP guidelines are inability to feed, short term pain, perhaps chronic pain, and acute stress. Obviously and in the mind of UEP, these are all fair tradeoff’s in the welfare of the hens so that long term the hens don’t peck one another to death out of boredom from being caged. Never mind that inability to feed or chronic pain is at issue as well. I don’t suppose the thought that the entire method of raising confined caged hens is not in the best interest to the welfare of the animal.

UEP’s talking points for the proposed federal legislation says that it will provide egg laying hens with “nearly” double the space of current conventional cages and add “”enrichments”” such as perches, nesting boxes, and scratching areas that will allow birds to express natural behaviors.” Sounds good when one looks at the words however the hens will still be in cages!

As I’ve evidenced in my great egg adventure, our hens express natural behaviors by running, jumping, flying, perching, flapping their wings at will, dust bathing and digging holes until they are almost covered, foraging for worms, bugs, and grasses and many other antics they decide to participate in. They also have nesting boxes and are able to run freely inside and outdoors. That my friend’s is expressing “natural behaviors”!

Furthermore, and according to UEP, “Today there are approximately 235 egg farmers with flocks of 75,000 hens or more. These farms care for about 95% of the approximately 290,000,000 laying hens in the United States.” How can there be only 235 farms raising 290,000,000 laying hens in this country? I found it impossible to find the number of acres utilized however I think the numbers above are self-explanatory.

I noticed in the many video clips available from UEP that the hen houses and cages are immaculate and promote thoughts of a sterile environment. Anyone who’s ever raised livestock or has been inside of a barn knows that animals naturally defecate however from what UEP is showing their hens must not do it. Quite frankly the inside of the confinement caged hen houses is cleaner than most human populated houses according to the pictures shown. Maybe we should all go and live in hen houses!

In my wanderings through related info and websites I found that UEP had a contact person from GolinHarris for further info about the legislation I’ve mentioned. My first thought was “what’s a GolinHarris”? I took a peek and found a piece of interesting info and decided to look no further because it was enough to figure out what a GolinHarris is -“For our clients, Communicate to Win is a driving force for building, sustaining and protecting corporate brands and reputations around the world.” Of course there’s a lot more words on the website, enough to make my head spin.

UEP is spending big bucks to drive through legislation that will define labeling allowances for eggs – Require labeling on all egg cartons to inform consumers of the methods used to produce the eggs, such as: “”eggs from caged hens,” “eggs from hens in enriched cages,” eggs from cage-free hens,” and “eggs from free range hens.” Aha! Eggs from hens in enriched cages…….. A little too obvious for me! Why anyone in their right mind would think that defining the type of cage or confinement makes it better for the hen’s welfare is beyond me. Doesn’t congress have better things to do than protect those who would mislead consumers into thinking that eggs from “enriched cages” are somehow better?

The Makings of A Toxic Waste Dump

Arkansas rice growers don’t mess around! They’ve gone for the jugular asking the Circuit Court for the Southern District of Arkansas for a jury trial to decide the merits of their claim that chicken industry practices are responsible for high levels of arsenic being detected in their crops.

The lawsuit follows on the heels of Consumer Reports, November Issue, revealing data that white rice grown in Arkansas as well as Louisiana, Missouri, and Texas may contain arsenic levels that are too high. Named in the lawsuit are Tyson, Pilgrim’s Pride, George’s Farm, George’s Processing, George’s Inc., and Peterson Farms Inc. along with drug company czar, Pfizer.

The short version of the story is that Pfizer is the drug dealer, selling arsenic compounds such as 3-Nitro to the drug using poultry companies!
It’s a well-known fact that for decade’s arsenic has been fed to chickens raised in industrial poultry production.

Industry addiction to arsenic comes from the need to feed for rapid weight growth and control intestinal parasites, coccidiosis (cocci). Although both arsenic and cocci are naturally occurring in the environment in small amounts, the excessive levels in this case are said to be a result of heavily concentrated industrial chicken production.

Normally, cocci can be controlled through pasture management and rotational grazing of farm animals. When animals are raised in a totally confined space year after year cocci can’t be controlled through allowing that space to “rest”. As an intestinal parasite cocci becomes a problem. Chickens don’t convert feed to pounds of meat efficiently and that means slower growth and higher production costs. Enter arsenic.

The arsenical compounds added to chicken feed are consumed by the chicken and passes through the animal into its waste. That waste is then spread on farm fields as fertilizer for crops. Ironically, chicken manure has been touted as an asset by some industry leaders because of its value as a fertilizer. Arsenic is a heavy metal and doesn’t break down in the environment. Where is the value in a continual buildup of arsenic in farm fields and the environment?

Because chicken companies control every aspect of chicken production and retain title of the chickens, feed, and medications – the buck stops there. Known as “vertical integration”, chicken companies contract with farms to “raise” the chickens to a marketable age. Feed that those chickens eat is formulated, mixed, and delivered to contract farms by the companies. Under contract terms the farmers must use the feed formula delivered as dictated by the company.

The lawsuit should come as no surprise. Recent years have seen mounting evidence of residual arsenic at levels higher than normal from concentrated chicken production. http://oldfarmerlady.wordpress.com/2012/05/28/maryland-becomes-first-state-to-ban-arsenic-in-poultry-feed/ The state of Maryland went so far as to ban the use of one arsenical, Roxarsone, in chicken feed this past year. Roxarsone is a product acquired by Pfizer in its acquisition of Alpharma and was voluntarily withdrawn from the market by Pfizer. Good idea!

On the flip side – Tyson denies any wrong doing. According to Food Safety News, spokesperson for Tyson, Gary Mickelson, says that the company is still reviewing the lawsuit and that “it appears to be an example of creative lawyers trying to use frivolous litigation to extract money from companies that have done nothing wrong”…… Really, are you kidding me? One of my Facebook friends wondered if this was the best they (Tyson) could come up with.

In my last blog post, Food to Die For, I said that “I for one am sick and tired of continually hearing about evidence of arsenic in our food supply and it’s not because the evidence is uncovered and keeps mounting”. I’m also sick and tired of hearing industry denials of any wrong doing. It’s like a bunch of little kids who get into trouble and they all say “I didn’t do it”. I say “man up and own it”!

While poultry companies have reaped the benefits (dollars) of the use of arsenic they were also turning a blind eye to the consequences of their actions. They straight up just didn’t care. It brings to mind a discussion that I had with an industry trade union representative about contract growers having a right to know that arsenic was in the company feed and what they were being exposed to. The reply from this joker was “did you ask”. Another one of those creative and frivolous industry answers!

Some poultry companies are claiming that they don’t feed their chickens any additives containing arsenic. While that may be true at the present time, all of the arsenic that they used in the past hasn’t magically disappeared. My husband has often remarked that “we should put a chain link fence around the Delmarva Peninsula, and call it a toxic waste dump” because of all “the company toxic waste from their chickens that is dumped on our farm fields”. No one knows how much toxicity is in our soil and required government soil testing is only for nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium levels. It is not mentioned or recommended that soil testing should be done for heavy metals or toxic waste such as arsenic.

Chicken feed formulas are considered to be a “trade secret” and therefore companies don’t have to reveal what is in their feed. That being the case, secretive testing of feed would have to be done for anyone to get an idea of what is actually being fed to chickens, and of course that could be considered to be a “theft” because the chicken companies own the feed. Creative government regulations and laws make it impossible to verify any claims by chicken companies about what is or isn’t being fed to their chickens.

History will repeat its self! In the end I can imagine that the battery of defense lawyers will come up with some fancy foot work and legal maneuvering to either keep this lawsuit going for many years to come or go for a settlement which will be gag ordered! The arsenic will remain in our soil and we will more than likely read or hear about future discoveries of arsenic in our food supply.

Independent Contractor – to be or not to be?

My last post about Waterkeeper Alliance vs. Perdue and Allen and Kristin Hudson brought out many issues associated with the case. The saga continues………..

The lawsuit is about pollutants finding their way to drainage ditches surrounding a chicken CAFO owned by the Hudson’s into a tributary of the Pocomoke River and eventually the Chesapeake Bay. It also questions ownership and responsibility of the waste discharged from the farm naming Perdue as the legal owner of the chickens that produce the waste.

On November 17, 2011 both sides in the case filed a motion for summary judgment and in doing so many legal documents in the case were made available to the public. Public perusal of these court records brings to light many other issues.

It’s hard for me to decide which of the other issues to start with.

Independent contractor status is a good place to begin. Contract poultry growers (chicken farmers) are classified as independent contractors by the companies they contract with to raise company owned chickens. The job of the farmer is to receive company chickens and raise them to a marketable age – PERIOD.

Not to put the chicken before the egg we have to look at where these contract chickens originate. It’s a complex web to untangle and there are many company steps involved before ever getting to the chicks placed on farms and grown. What is known is that the company designs, through genetic selection and engineering, what the final chicken will be. When placed on contract farms, the farmer has no choice or idea about the genetics, performance in growing of the chicken, or how much manure that chicken will produce.

Prior to chicks being placed on contract farms feed is delivered to the farm. This feed is formulated, mixed and delivered by the company. Feed ingredients are unknown to the famer and are a closely guarded secret claimed by companies to be a “trade secret”. The amount of feed delivered to the farm is unverifiable by the farmer and (s)he has to accept on “good faith” that the feed is what the company says it is. There are no options for contract farmers to acquire feed from another source because the contracts stipulate that feed comes from the company. This feed delivery process continues throughout the entire life cycle of the flock.

I have to insert here a few facts about the feed. Most people don’t understand that feed ingredient’s such as antibiotics/antimicrobials and arsenic isn’t the farmer’s choice to use or not use. This pertains to animal by-products in feed as well. Everything that goes into feed is decided by the chicken company and must be accepted and used by the farmer. Should a farmer decide to acquire feed from another source the farmer’s contract will be terminated.

The chicks delivered to contract farms derive from company owned hatcheries where the eggs are hatched into chicks. During the process at the company hatchery certain procedures could be performed such as in ovo injections of vaccines and antibiotics. In ovo is a process of injecting eggs before hatching and it’s anyone’s guess as to what is injected. Another company secret of which the farmer has no control over!

It could be assumed that the independent contractor, the farmer, comes into play once the chicks are on the farm for growing. That theory might hold water if the company only delivered the chicks and disappeared out of the raising process and returned to pick up the grown chickens for processing.

Throughout the flock company employees routinely come to the farm and manage the methods in which the farmer is raising the chickens. Court documents in the lawsuit revealed a company employee went so far as to leaving written instructions saying “need to work on these things ASAP’ and then listing things to be done. Some “notes” left by Perdue gave deadlines on work to be done and many notes referred to telling the farmer to do “heavy culling” (kill many chickens). If that is not telling the farmer what work to do, I’m at a loss to say what it is!

Other notes revealed that a Perdue employee set or adjusted equipment within the chicken house, moved fans around, culled chickens, and preformed many other tasks required in raising the chickens to a marketable age. These things are the job of the independent contractor not a company employee.

Again, I have to stop here and raise a question. Suppose some disaster should occur inside the chicken house because of the Perdue employee making a mistake in equipment adjustments such as ventilation and all of the chickens die (smother) – who would be responsible for the disaster? It’s my guess the blame would be laid at the farmer’s feet and income loss would be the farmer’s bitter pill to swallow. Having been a contract farmer I say this with ease because everything is always the farmers fault according to the company and there is no recourse for the farmer.

Reading court documents revealed that Perdue routinely performed farm operations inside of the chicken houses. It’s argued that the Perdue employee and Mr. Hudson had an understanding about this. The only time that I’m aware of the company coming on the farm, performing the daily tasks of the farmer, and caring for the flock would be if the company declared that the farmer was not doing his job and that the company was taking over. There is a clause in the contract that says that the company has the right to do that. However there are no supporting documents that say that Perdue made any such declaration or decision to take over the raising of the chickens on the Hudson farm.

Farmers have argued for a very long time that they aren’t independent contractors in their relationship with chicken companies. Independent – somebody or something that is free from control, dependence, or interference. Looking over court documents it’s clear that Perdue has some other definition of “independent”.

I remember a time in the early 1990’s Perdue declared all of its chicken catchers to be independent contractors. In the late 1990’s a lawsuit was filed against the company claiming that the chicken catchers were employees of the company not independent contractors. The lawsuit prevailed and a Federal Court found in favor of the chicken catcher’s. If memory serves me correctly, the court found Perdue willful in dealings with the chicken catchers.

Might Perdue also be willful in dealings with contract farmers?

Relevant legal documents and court pleadings

Thrown to the Wolves!

Up until now I’ve refrained from commenting about a monumental lawsuit which has been brewing in my neck of the woods, the Delmarva Peninsula.  I’ve done so because I knew that despite public persona there would come a time when the little guy in the case would be offered up as the sacrificial lamb.

The lawsuit filed by attorneys for the Waterkeepers Alliance (plaintiffs) against co-defendants Perdue and Alan and Kristin Hudson (defendants) claims discharge of pollutants from the Hudson’s farm in violation of the Clean Water Act and that Perdue has legal responsibility for it.

Locally known as the “Hudson Lawsuit” the case has a lot of history and has turned neighbor against neighbor.  At the crux of the issue is that the Hudson’s raise chickens under contract for Perdue and do so accordingly to dictates by the company.  Since the farmer doesn’t own the chickens or the feed they eat its questionable as to who owns the manure (chicken poop).

In the beginning, claims by the Hudson’s and Perdue were that photographs of mountains of manure stored on the Hudson farm were piles of bio-solids (waste) from Ocean City, MD not chicken poop.  Regardless of what was in the photographs, at issue is that the farm, that houses Perdue’s chickens, is a point source of discharge of nitrogen, phosphorous, and ammonia as well as bacteria (fecal coliform and E Coli) which the Waterkeeper Alliance sampled at high levels downstream from the farm and also citing on-site and leaving the farm sampling conducted by the Maryland Department of Environment (MDE).  Plaintiffs say this “confirms the poultry house pollutants are reaching the facility’s drainage ditches.”

The drainage ditches on the farm drain into Franklin Branch a tributary of the Pocomoke River which drains into the Chesapeake Bay.  Nitrogen and phosphorous have been long standing culprits in the killing of the Chesapeake Bay and efforts to clean up the Bay and revive it to its natural state have failed miserably over the years at the cost of millions to taxpayers.

We have a volatile mixture of people involved and interested in the outcome of the lawsuit and this is where the story gets really good.  Earlier motions filed by Perdue attempted to have the company dismissed as a defendant in the case which was denied.  This puts Big Chicken into hot water because if found guilty a precedent will be set for the country where corporate ag is responsible for the manure their animals produce.  I say “their animals” because legally they own the chickens, not the farmer.

Backing up Big Chicken are the usual attendees such as the Delmarva Poultry Industry INC. (DPI) the local industry trade union, allied industries and Farm Bureau.

Farmers have been propaganda-ized to the point of fearing for their livelihoods and believe that the environmentalists want to put them out of business.

The environmentalists, taxpayers, and the local public have become the nemesis of the farming community and are accused of not getting how it all works.  Outsider’s is what they’ve been labeled.

Just recently Maryland’s Governor, Martin O’Malley, stepped outside the bounds of legal decorum weighing in on the case and in a letter asked attorney’s for the plaintiffs to drop the case.

If anyone is confused by now don’t feel bad, you’re not alone.  I specifically recall asking the question in 1995 – who owns the manure.  In all of the initiatives set out toward cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay, no one, including our illustrious politicians, has answered that question in 16 years.  It’s come down to a lawsuit to determine the answer.

On November 17, 2011, court filings in U.S. District Court have asked for “summary judgment” in the case scheduled for a 3 week trial March 5, 2011.  Both sides presented arguments why the case should be resolved in their favor immediately.

This is where the story confirms my belief that the little guy (the farmer) would be thrown to the wolves.  Throughout the past couple of years Perdue and the camp followers have publically supported the Hudson’s, holding fund raisers for their legal defense fund and publishing a website in defense of the Hudson’s. Court documents recently filed cite internal Perdue email’s  – the Hudson Farm “is one of its 10 worst on the Eastern Shore of Maryland”.  This was based on an informal survey of Perdue farm managers.  I can only imagine what the farmer must think after staunchly defending Perdue.

Furthermore, in an effort to absolve the company from blame, Perdue legal arguments suggests ways that the judge could find the Hudson’s to be at fault for polluting – it was the Hudson’s cows that are the source of any pollutants.  I have to laugh because we have now moved from waste from Ocean City to waste from the cows.  In one deposition a suggestion is introduced that it was the wild geese.  Oh no folks, it can’t be from the chickens.

Perdue arguments also contend that Mr. Hudson “did not always follow Perdue’s advice”…  and “Mr. Hudson has not adopted various ‘best management practices,’ (such as hosing down the vents in a chicken house) recommended by Perdue.”

Could this be a case of “he who speaks with forked tongue”?  This is a perfect example of talking out of both sides of the mouth depending on who the target audience is at the moment.

I have to step up on my soap box…….  Big Chicken adamantly claims that they want to save farm families and then turn around and submit legal arguments to the contrary.  It reminds of little kids who get into trouble over something and they all claim “I didn’t do it” all the while coming up with some of the most ridiculous arguments as to why they shouldn’t be blamed and putting the blame off on another! PROPAGANDA – ized indeed!

Somewhere within the tangled web weaved practiced to deceive responsibility for pollution of the Chesapeake Bay from industry chicken poop will be decided.

I’ve spent countless hours reading over court documents.  Evasiveness and playing just plain dumb is the theme.  I especially loved reading some of the Perdue internal emails.  It’s quite obvious how the company big shots go about business.  One asks about farms that don’t have “curb appeal” meaning farms which don’t present a pretty picture.  Guess esthetically pleasing is now part of grower performance and whether the farmer has a contract to raise chickens for the company!

It’s my bet that the Hudson’s will not continue to contract with Perdue and more than likely any other chicken company on the Delmarva Peninsula.  It’s easy to sacrifice the little guy!

Relevant legal documents and court pleadings

Maryland Governor O’Malley Letter

Fast Forward….. Kill The Chesapeake Bay!

The Washington Post reports that an alarming “dead zone” is growing in the Chesapeake Bay because of unusually high nutrient levels this year. No kidding it’s being called alarming!

For as long as I can remember alarms have sounded about nutrient pollution associated with runoff into the Bay. Unfortunately, no one has paid much attention. Now officials in Virginia and Maryland are saying that this year the area of “dead zone” is on track to be the Bay’s largest in history.

We’ve pushed the “Fast Forward” button in the effort to kill the Chesapeake Bay and I have to wonder why. How much more needs to happen before we put a stop to the continuous bad behaviors that significantly contribute to the killing of the Bay?

Protectionism of Big Ag is a major culprit. It’s not the farmers, as we know farmers, it’s the powerful and tremendously wealthy lobbying associations of the major corporate players of food production and it’s no secret. Will Baker, President of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) has finally put a foot forward, after years of handling Big Chicken with kid gloves, and specifically said that we need to look at the amount of money that Washington lobbying associations “have given to candidates and lobbying, it’s in the hundreds of millions.”

Baker says that it’s “not mom and pop farmers” and the American Farm Bureau Federation’s director of energy and policy, Paul Schlegal, second’s that saying that “farmers in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed take a backseat to no one in their commitment to helping to clean up the bay”. This is where it gets confusing for ordinary folks.

If it’s not the farmers who are wantonly polluting and killing the bay with nitrogen and phosphorous runoff, who is it? The farm has been the scapegoat for decades because it’s the end of the line for Big Ag. Intensified, concentrated animal feeding operations to raise our nation’s meat and poultry has become the major player of production and if farmers want to remain on the farm this is the choice that they have. Unless a farmer raises animals according to the dictates of corporations there are not many who are able to stay on the farm. Period!

The dictates by Big Ag have turned farming into industrial sized production cramming animals into confined buildings on as little land as possible without thought as to how the land will safely handle all of the manure produced. It’s not about feeding people it’s about lining the coffers, and pockets, of a handful of select corporations who control our nation’s food supply.

The madness of the vicious circle we are entrapped in positively indicates that we can no longer afford to turn a blind eye. The land can only handle a certain amount of animal production before runoff from manure causes major problems in our streams, rivers, and eventually the Chesapeake Bay.

Studies, plans, initiatives, and nutrient reduction goals are continuously conducted, set, and not met. Every year increase in animal production occurs regardless of the fact that nutrient levels must be reduced. What does it take for our illustrious politician to understand that increased animal production means increased amounts of manure leading to more runoff?

It’s become a joke where EPA is easily blamed and lawsuits from both sides of the issue are thrown at the agency. The environmental side sues EPA for having weak anti-pollution measures. When the agency set forth a “pollution diet” last December to dramatically reduce the amount of nitrogen, phosphorous, and sediment that states in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed can allow in the Bay from municipalities and farms, the Farm Bureau sues EPA to stop the plan from going forward. A damned if you do and damned if you don’t situation for EPA!

Meanwhile, the Chesapeake Bay continues to die. As a taxpaying citizen who still doesn’t know what the additional environmental portion of my county taxes go to I have to say that I don’t appreciate my hard earned money going to the support of environmental initiatives that are not working. I expect results not failures!

In addition, I want answers. The Chesapeake Bay is a national treasure and I want to know who gave anyone the right to play stupid manipulative games all the while degrading something that belongs to all of us. That’s right, the Chesapeake Bay is there for everyone to enjoy not just for the whims of a select greedy few.

Farm Bureau says that their lawsuit is not about the quality of water in the Chesapeake Bay it’s about the confines of what EPA can or can’t do based on laws our illustrious politicians have written. I think that says it all. Big Ag with its powerful lobby machine has influenced the laws crippling the very agency within our government that is supposedly there to protect OUR water.

When will we, the American citizen, be afforded some protectionism?

---

Alarming “dead zone” grows in the Chesapeake Washington Post

EPA Pollution Diet For the Chesapeake

Growing Influence: the Political Power of Agribusiness and the Fouling of America’s Waterways