NAIS, Codex Alimentarius, Bill S510 and Other Bedtime Stories to Guarantee Nightmares

By Tamrah Jo Ortiz

Thanks to my good friends on Facebook, I was alerted that the ugly head of the government is once again poking its’ large and obnoxious nose into places it doesn’t belong.   Yes, I realize this is a inflammatory statement, hence, my writing here, instead of posting this as a comment at the www.opencongress.org website.  (which, if you’d like, you can visit and look at the hoopla going on over various bills.)

So, let’s take a look at each of these and try to make sense of them.

NAIS – The National Animal Identification System.   In brief, this idea is supposedly born of the desire to quickly identify and destroy animals that pose a threat to both food supply and our existence. (mad cow disease, avian bird flu, anyone?)

What is not so clear is how anyone thinks any of this will really work.   Number 1, the folks that want to implement this currently employ thousands to audit tax returns and apparently have not been successful in creating a database or secure electronic means of verifying taxes or conducting a paperless census (which, by the way, we filled out, returned and apparently was ‘lost’ as a census person showed up at my house saying they didn’t get ours.   On the flip side, my mom got 2 censuses to fill out and a friend never received any….)

Now, if these folks have not centralized, streamlined and made efficient the operations they have been in charge of for decades, how in the world are we to believe they can implement this kind of system and let us know about diseased food within 20 years of our consumption of it?

Number 2 – current figures show that given the ‘requirements’ of the system, most of the costs will fall on the small farmers and ranchers – courtesy of Wikipedia is the following:

“The costs of becoming NAIS compliant for a U.S. beef producer were found to be a minimum of $2.08 a head for large producers and as much as $17.56 a head for smaller operations, with an estimated average cost to cow/calf producers of $6.26 per animal, according to research by Christopher Raphael Crosby of Kansan State University’s Department of Agricultural Economics published in 2008.”

Does anyone hear “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer”?

Number 3 – Historically, outbreaks of disease occur in close population, improperly nourished animals.   Farmer John who has 15 head of cattle and 160 acres of pasture does not face the same challenges as Mr. Beef, who has crammed 5,000 cows into a feedlot the size of a Wal-mart parking lot, where calves play on hills of cow patties and drink milk produced from the ingestion of soybean and corn meal (when cows have evolved to do just fine, thank you very much, on grass.)

Plus, Farmer John really depends on his herd for his food, to feed his family and perhaps a neighbor or two and to bring in some extra cash to pay the ever-increasing cost of living expenses.  So he has a HUGE investment in making sure his herd is healthy and well-nourished.  The loss of even one cow can make or break him.

Mr. Beef can depend on tax breaks, an adjustment of market prices, government bailouts, etc, if he somehow manages to lose his herd to disease.   So who do you think takes better care of their herd?

On to the next – Codex Alimentarius – Proponents will tell you it’s an international effort to ensure the safety of food for all – as well as to keep me from accidently killing myself from taking too much Vitamin C.

Again, these efforts are brought to you by folks who can’t even balance their own budgets and settle disputes among themselves in a peaceful manner.  Do you really think they know how much Vitamin C I can handle and furthermore, if I were receiving nutritious food, would I even need a supplement?   If they are so invested in “Nutritious, Safe Food to further the health and well-being of the populace” then why did they ignore the published findings of biochemist Dr. Mary Enig in the 70’s, who warned of the dangers of trans-fats and hydrogenated fats to the human body?  Um, no, took about 40 years before they figured that one out (if they even have yet……………)

I also find it interesting that many countries within the World Effort of this measure are ARDENTLY opposed to GMO foods and have been very insistent on pushing for foods containing those types of ingredients to be Labeled.   Those who have a vested interest in controlling both seed and food supplies, by getting ‘patents’ on their genetically modified seeds and plants have kept up the pressure and keep taking a run at getting that ‘pesky little nuisance’ of required labeling for GMO foods buried under the rug.

All in all, I cannot see the reasoning for extending all this effort on the Codex other than for countries who take their food and health seriously to put up a ‘fence’ to keep those exports out from countries that do not.  (meaning, US)

So with the history of these two long-running dramas, I now come to the most recent – Senate Bill S510.

Innocuously titled, “FDA Food Safety Modernization Act”, it lists high-sounding ideals and includes some of the following:

food facility re-inspection (um…I worked as a waitress for 12 years, I can tell you, restaurants get inspected every year……)
food recalls (aren’t they already allowed to do that?)
a voluntary qualified importer program (have these people never heard of eating locally?)
So those violently opposed to this bill read it and see how easily seed and food control could be placed in the hands of those who have no business telling us what we can grow or eat, share with our neighbors or sell at the local farmer’s market.   And I agree with them to a point; while the bill does not specifically state any of these intents, the large generalized points of it are open to all kinds of interpretations.

History tells me the interpreters will translate it for the benefit of themselves, their agency budget and their large campaign contributors (corporations) before they will for my health and well being.

Again, if you look to history, deaths and illness related to the consumption of contaminated, diseased foods, has been linked to large corporate mono-culture farms, not the small local producers.  Why?  Well, because the small local producer not only feeds you, but their own family.  They don’t have the time or the energy (or the insanity) to grow one garden with ‘good stuff’ for their family and another with ‘questionable stuff’ to sell at the local market.

In addition, if I get ‘bad food’ at the local farmer’s market, I know exactly who to go to with my accusations.   When large farms put out questionable produce, it has also traveled through one or more broker warehouses, a packaging plant or two, the transportation gamut….on and on and its’ so easy to pass the buck on who exactly is to blame.

I’m also curious as to why Homeland Security is one of the committees listed on the bill’s information page.  What, are they afraid terrorists are going to send us toxic bananas?   Newsflash, if everyone ate organic and locally, this fear would be laughable.  And I can tell you, any terrorist shows up at our local farmers market with evil intent on his mind, I can guarantee there are enough ‘rednecks’ around here that are just waiting for an opportunity to show the world what real Homeland Security looks like.

I also wonder just where they are going to get the money to implement all this when they are already crying about ‘deficits’ and ‘budget cuts’.   To my mind, this has less to do with feeding the nation safely and more to do with feeding the oversized monster we call our government, as well as nudging out any competition to the large centralized food companies.

Implementation, testing and compliance enforcement take money – and that money will come from those who want to ‘buy into the market’ (meaning smaller operations won’t be able to afford to be in the market) –  but most of the money will come from you and me, the consumer.   What?  You don’t think so?  Just who do you think is paying for the Tobacco Company Settlements?   It isn’t the companies or the government, its’ the consumers.  But I’ll leave that debate for another time.

The legislation listed above can only make sense in a climate of fear.   They can only pass when we blindly believe the government is really trying to protect us.  When we believe that death is more heinous than liberty. (Oh where is Patrick Henry when you need him?)

Quit looking to the government to save you from harm.   Know those who grow your food.   Have a relationship.  Trust me, they are much more invested in your health and well being than the FDA is.  Because without you, they don’t have a livelihood.  The FDA and government don’t either, but they have forgotten.

Remind them.

Health Care Legislation in Colorado Reflects Worldview of Policy Makers

By Janak Joshi MD (Ret)

Obamacare focused our attention on national health care reform.  But, it’s important to know what reforms are being talked about at the Colorado Legislature. What’s also clear looking at various bills is the difference in legislative philosophy between the political parties.

One criteria for national reform was to lower the cost of premiums by encouraging market competition. Regrettably, this is not a part of the 2,800+ page bill signed by President Obama.

In Colorado, Governor Ritter signed the following Democrat-sponsored bills that create the infrastructure for a nationalized healthcare system.  Meanwhile, Attorney General John Suthers has joined with 19 other states attorneys general to challenge the constitutionality of the federal law that mandates each person buy health care insurance – or pay a fine.

HB1028 creates a universal application form to help families know what early childhood health care and education services they are entitled to receive.
HB1330 enables an advisory committee to create a statewide all-payer health claims database.  The database would collect, aggregate, distribute and publicly report performance data on quality, health outcomes, health disparities, cost, utilization and pricing – all in compliance with the privacy protections of HPPA.  But, the group authorized to collect the information could audit the raw data for accuracy.  The Fiscal Note on the bill says the cost of the database won’t come into effect until 2012, so the cost is unknown.  There is no consideration given to how much capturing such data and reporting it to the State will cost physicians, health care providers, and insurance companies.

SB153 creates a council to develop strategies for implementing a “systemic transformation” of the behavioral health system, formerly known as mental health and substance abuse.

HB1004 directs the insurance commissioner to set up a board to develop a universal reporting form for all health care insurers.

Republicans offered several common sense bills to reduce the cost of insurance, but they were all killed by the Democrat-controlled legislature. HB1163 would have allowed interstate purchases of health care insurance; HB1168 was a resolution to Congress for a federal income tax deduction for health insurance premiums paid by individuals; and HB1154 would have placed a one-year moratorium on mandated covered treatments.  This bill would have also required a cost/benefit analysis of mandates.
Colorado currently has 53 mandated coverages, including the recently passed Democrat bill HB1021 that requires insurance companies to pay for all maternity care and contraception, except abortion services and HB1252 that makes the cost of a mammogram recommended by a health care provider to be covered by insurance.
Add to this the newly passed Democrat bill HB1008, which says there may be no discrimination in pricing health care policies based on gender, and the cost of health care policies will increase yet again. (Women’s health care costs are typically more than men’s, due to pregnancy.) If you are a healthy young male, your premiums will go up even more.

Republicans were successful in passing a few bills to reduce costs and improve access to health care.  HB1029 allows the State to negotiate agreements with medical equipment suppliers so that people on Medicaid or those on the waiting list for benefits can purchase high-quality equipment and supplies at the lowest cost.

Another Republican bill to reduce the costs of health care premiums is HB1160, which will allow health insurance carriers to offer incentives for participation in wellness programs that meet certain standards.

HB1322, by Republican Representative Kent Lambert, was passed.  It allows cost effective telemedicine programs to continue in Colorado.

Democrats did kill one of their bills, HB1397.  A similar bill died last year when small business owners argued that mandating accrued paid sick leave was not only an example of Nanny Statism run amok, but also a sure job-killer.
Democrats tend to see government as a kindly overseer with legislation designed to protect individuals who can’t or won’t take care of themselves, such as seen in SB189’s clean needle exchange program for substance abusers.
Republican legislators and others, like me, believe that individuals are generally competent and capable, that individuals will make better decisions for themselves and their families than a bureaucrat could, and that the marketplace only functions because people enter into it when all parties believe they benefit.

The identified cost for the Colorado healthcare bills described above could be as much as $2 million and five new State employees paid from taxes, fees and grants.  But for many of the bills, we don’t what it will cost because usage is unknown and the costs to businesses and consumers cannot be calculated.

Janak Joshi MD (Ret) has practiced medicine in Colorado Springs for 31 years.

Seeds Trust – Enhancing Sustainability in Local Farming & Ranching

Seeds are just amazing things.  From a very small shell of all shapes and dimensions comes beautiful and delicious fruits, vegetables, nuts, grains, and flowers.

Healthy seeds, non-GMO seeds, and heirloom seeds are a very important component of preserving agriculture for future generations

Seeds Trust is a 25-year old, family-owned seed company that has very helpful information and resources for those interested in saving seeds, growing a garden, and basically preserve man-kind by preserving agriculture as we know, or used to know it.

Visit Seeds Trust HERE.

- Tisha Casida

SJR 10-045 10th Amendment Resolution for Colorado

From the 9-12 Pikes Peak Patriots:

SJR 10-045  10th Amendment Resolution for Colorado allows citizens to opt out of national health care insurance reform act (Sponsored by Senators Lundberg, Brophy, Scheffel, Harvey, Kester, Renfroe, Schultheis and Rep. Lambert)
NOTICE: Public Hearing is Wednesday, May 5, at 1:30 PM in Senate State Affairs committee meeting.

Resolution is attached, but here’s highlights that can be used in your email if you choose to send:

(1) Affirm Colorado’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not granted to the federal government and not prohibited to the states;
(2) Demand that the federal government cease and desist immediately all actions that are beyond the scope of the federal government’s constitutionally delegated powers;
(3) Reserve the opportunity and ability of the state of Colorado and its people under the Tenth Amendment to opt out of any obligations due or participation required by the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”; and
(4) Further reserve the right to approve or reject the state of Colorado’s participation in any federal health care plan or program.
We have received a request for direct support at the hearing from sponsor Sen. Kevin Lundberg (Larimer County).  His message is, “What I am hoping for at the hearing is a great number of citizens giving the legislature their opinion on this critical issue. I am fairly certain the vote has been predetermined: we lose on a party-line vote, but the opportunity to make our point in a forceful way is still wide open.”

Bill Link:
http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2010A/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/54D02B689975C1C9872576EF0070E17A?Open&file=SJR045_01.pdf

While Senator Lundberg is not optimistic, this should be a Bill we should shake the Denver Capitol dome over. This preps the battlefield for the health care petition from the Colorado institute we are collecting signatures for. Here is the contact info for the sponsors in El Paso County:

Rep Kent Lambert: rep.kent.lambert@comcast.com
Sen Dave Schultheis senatorschultheis@gmail.com

Crusaders for Real Food

Okay, so perhaps the picture is a little dramatic, but hey, it caught your attention, didn’t it?

Today I was forwarded a wonderful article on a teacher speaking out against the drab food that is a part of our public education’s lunch system.  The variables are complex (subsidized lunches, funding from both state and national governments, purchasing/volume requirements, marketing, mark-ups, profits, and federal requirements), but the problem is not.

The problem is that our kids (in general) are not engaging in a healthy diet.  Now, that is NOT just education’s fault, as a matter of fact our “social structure” is very much a culprit.  However, I myself have recently been in an elementary classroom, and our youth are eating a lot of foods that are not good for them (processed foods to wrap it into one category).

One teacher in Colorado, is speaking up and speaking out.  An naturally, she is getting resistance from others because of her actions.  However, it takes people – from our community – to make a difference and to stand up for nutrition, produce, and supporting local agriculture whenever and wherever we can.

Read the whole story HERE, and if you have more stories and links about other people speaking up and DOING SOMETHING ABOUT THIS, please let us know, we would love to feature them online and in-print.

- Tisha Casida

Health Care – POSITIVE and PRO-ACTIVE Solutions

By: Sean McCarthy

There is a truism in governance which states if you want to limit a particular behavior or activity then regulate it—if you want to severely limit it then tax it.  Consider the current “health care” debate this country is having.  Then reflect on the various “social engineering” initiatives this country has supported based on moral grounds:  Prohibition—alcohol; regulation and prohibition of various pharmaceuticals aka “drugs”; regulation of tobacco, and ever increasing taxing of its use; legalization and government funding of abortion; funding and support for various sex education programs for youth; government funding of planned parenthood, and single parent support initiatives.

The list above is but a few random selections.  Based on the examples I provided above, when the government both regulated and taxed an activity (tobacco use) the result was a dramatic reduction in the use of the offending product.  Those unable to break their habit pay a heavy tax to continue satisfying their urge.  Some may say this is an unjust taxation as typically smokers are from the lower strata of the socioeconomic status—we are penalizing the poor to fill government coffers.  What can I say?  What government tax or regulatory regime is fair?  When does it not take from one group and give to another group?  At least the behavior is legal and smokers are free to choose whether to pay the price or not, whereas many other tax schemes do not afford one a choice.  Note the failings of the other initiatives listed above—what do they have in common?  They are projects whose stated objectives are failing miserably.  It seems the more money we put into education, or child pregnancy prevention the worse the results.  There is no adverse tax, or regulation associated with those behaviors.  We don’t regulate or tax the activity—in fact we subsidize it and thereby encourage the behavior.

So, drawing empirically from the anecdotes above, one could surmise if you wish to limit a behavior, then you should regulate and tax it.  If you wish to encourage a behavior, then limit the regulation, tax, and cost associated with the activity.  (Hmmm, a paradoxical conundrum may exist; we publically deplore an activity, yet through our governmental action we are literally increasing the numbers of participants in said “bad” behavior.)

Applying this postulate to health care will allow an effective perspective to develop.  Let’s start by stating the goals for which we can all agree:

1. Universal transportable coverage.
2. Reasonable/affordable costs for both services and insurance.
3. The best health services and medication available in the world.

We don’t want to see costs continue their rapid escalation; we don’t want to see rationing, or long waits for care; and we don’t want to see any degradation in the quality of care in our country as it exists today.  It is becoming readily apparent the various proposals being weighed in the Congress will not achieve the basic tenets we desire, nor will they guarantee no degradation of the current system we have.

The various options all discuss increased regulatory oversight of all aspects of our system; they include various increases in the tax burden for both small business and the currently insured.  Remember, taxing and regulating limit a behavior; I think we want to encourage citizens and business to be responsible and pay for their own insurance and health care.  So, if the solution is to reduce regulatory burden and the tax burden to incentivize a desired behavior, what would it look like?  John Mackey’s “The Whole Foods Alternative to Obamacare” (WSJ, August 12, 2009) provides a CEO’s (Whole Foods, national grocer) perspective with several private sector solutions:

-Encourage HSAs (Health Savings Accounts).  Similar to IRAs, individuals can deposit money directly tax free, as well as accepting deposits from their employer into this same account tax free.  The monies roll forward year to year tax free which encourages savings to cover deductibles or health care costs directly.  This is a limit on taxes which encourages a good behavior.

-Ensure all health insurance plans are tax deductible.  Whether paid for directly by the individual or by an employer, we should encourage this.  Making the premiums tax deductible will definitely encourage everyone to buy an insurance plan.

-Reduce regulations regarding mandatory coverage.  Oftentimes many like to blame a failing of the market place when results are not desirable.  In this case years of mandated coverage by our well meaning government have increased the cost of coverage for all concerned.  Let’s allow the consumer/citizen to choose what coverage they need—not special interest groups and their lobbyists.  This is the practice in all other forms of insurance markets (i.e., auto, life, property, etc.)

-Tort reform.  No surprise here.  If my costs to insure my practice increase, I simply pass the cost to the consumer.  If I cannot recover the cost, then I cannot stay in business which limits the number of practitioners, increasing demand on the remaining service providers which further increases costs.  Some argue tort reform is a canard.  They say liability claims represent only 1% of the total monies spent in health care.  What they don’t discuss are the various extra tests, and costs associated with ensuring a practitioner is not vulnerable to a future claim of negligence.  Oftentimes a past law suit judgment against a doctor causes all others in the medical field to require additional procedures to ensure they are safe from potential nuisance suits.

-Transparent and timely costs.  Call a doctor or hospital and ask for their rate sheet on various procedures and they won’t be able to provide one.  Why?  Well, it depends on the method of payment, the insurance company, and several other medically irrelevant factors.  Why is this not the case with a dentist?  How about a Veterinarian?  If you get a cavity filled, or your dog has its regular check up, you know the cost and you pay it right then and there.  Let’s make routine treatment the same for our personal medical needs.  If you have to pay it, you will likely be more cost conscious.  If your doctor does not have to wait 60 to 90 days while fighting your insurance company for payment, then costs will be reduced.

You can see these are simple suggestions, but they are based on eliminating needless regulation and tax.  We should own our coverage and be responsible for the costs associated with our health care.  As with other areas of our life, when we have to pay the freight directly, we are more diligent in ensuring costs are low and quality is high.  What about pre-existing conditions?  If you owned your health care plan, and it was not tied to your employment, then this issue would be mollified tremendously. With few exceptions we could all get inexpensive health coverage plans when we are young. Similar to term life insurance, you would lock in an annual premium for life.  Regardless of sickness in the years ahead, your premium would remain the same.  If you lose your job, you don’t lose the coverage—analogous to life, property, and auto insurance.  Your employer can, and as your value to the firm dictates, should contribute towards your individual health insurance plan.  Again, this would be tax deductible and increase the savings for the individual plan holder.

Individual responsibility, limiting government involvement, and allowing the power of personal economics to govern one’s choice of coverage is the key.  Whatever difficult issue faces our country, it is, it will be, and it always has been better to solve difficult issues in our country by supporting individual choice, as opposed to arcane legislation.

A US ARMY Veteran who proudly served as a Cavalry Officer and  Airborne Ranger.  After his military service, McCarthy worked as an executive in the transportation industry providing transportation solutions for large manufacturing facilities.  Intrigued by manufacturing McCarthy was hired by the Trane Company in Pueblo as a production manager in 1995,  learning their innovative world class manufacturing processes.  This allowed him to run his own facility in Colorado Springs for a small door and window manufacturer.

Commuting, and working long hours for the benefit of absentee owners motivated McCarthy to start his own enterprise.  His affinity for “numbers” drew him to the mortgage industry.  On July 4th, 1997 he started his venture which he has run continuously either solely or with partners since.  He purposely started on that date to commemorate his own “independence” day.  McCarthy still owns and operates Castle Investment & Loan, an independent mortgage brokerage and private placement lender.

McCarthy serves on numerous community boards in Pueblo; currently he is President of both the PCC Foundation Board of Directors, as well as the Pueblo Performing Arts Guild (PPAG).  He proudly advocates for Pueblo businesses, the downtown district (member Board of Directors Pueblo Downtown Assoc.), taxpayers, and the “Traditional Liberal” perspective of free enterprise, limited government, and fiscal prudence.   McCarthy can be reached at: seanmccarthy@aculink.net