Categories
Environment

The right to drink water

Don’t think what happens in the farmland impacts you in the city? Not interested in taking the time away from Starbucks to go vote on Amendment 1 this coming Tuesday because of it?

Then think on this:

Toledo, Ohio, has had to put out an alert that toxins are present in the water and it can’t be drunk or boiled for use. Yes, not even boiling will make it safe, and will make the situation worse.

What causes this type of toxin? Typically fertilizer runoff from factory farms, or manure runoff from large CAFOs. In this incident, they’re suspected of contributing to a harmful algal bloom (HAB) in Lake Erie.

From the Toledo News Now:

Consuming water containing algal toxins may result in abnormal liver function, diarrhea, vomiting, nausea, numbness or dizziness. Seek medical attention if you feel you have been exposed to algal toxins and are having adverse health effects. Skin contact with contaminated water can cause irritation or rashes. Contact a veterinarian immediately if pets or livestock show signs of illness.

What happened? What is being done?

Lake Erie, which is a source of drinking water for the Toledo water system may have been impacted by a harmful algal bloom (HAB). These organisms are capable of producing a number of toxins that may pose a risk to human and animal health. HABs occur when excess nitrogen and phosphorus are present in lakes and streams. Such nutrients can come from runoff of over-fertilized fields and lawns, from malfunctioning septic systems and from livestock pens.

If Amendment 1 was part of the Constitution after next Tuesday, and an incident like this happened in Missouri, the state could have very little authority to do much of anything about the problem. It is the Missouri DNR that enforces clean water laws related to agricultural runoff in our state.

So think about switching your Starbucks coffee for a nice drink of clean, cool water on Tuesday, and use the extra time to go vote against Amendment 1.

Categories
Environment

Koster’s Right to…collect large campaign contributions from big Agribusiness Interests

I was not surprised to read that Missouri’s Attorney General, Chris Koster, has come out in support of Amendment 1, the so-called Right to Farm Amendment. He used Missouri tax payer money to sue the state of California on behalf of a few large egg producers in the state. It’s pretty obvious that Mr. Koster is regretting that whole “I’m now a Democrat” thing, especially among the rural, large agribusiness types.

It must also sadden Mr. Koster to realize that the egg lawsuit isn’t doing all that well. California and other intervenor defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit under the reasonable claim that Missouri can’t sue because it doesn’t have standing. States can sue, but only if a significant percentage of the population of the state is impacted by the lawsuit. I don’t work in the chicken or egg industry, and I have a strong suspicion neither does a significant number of other Missourians.

I strongly doubt the lawsuit will survive, and I believe Koster knows this, which is why he claims the costs will be less than $10,000. But it doesn’t matter in the end, because it makes Koster look real good to large agribusiness interests in the state. Large agribusiness interests that are known to donate big bucks to election campaigns.

Koster’s support for Amendment 1 is more of the same. You’d think a state Attorney General would know the costly, negative impacts from such a vaguely worded piece of legislation. Legal analysis has demonstrated that the Right to Farm Amendment is an awful piece of drivel that will clutter up an already cluttered up state Constitution and costs millions to defend in court. At best. At worst it can mire critical decisions in uncertainty and contentiousness.

But there you go, Koster supports Amendment 1, and he supports his ill-considered lawsuit against California. So does a new libertarian legal entity in Missouri called the Missouri Liberty Project. They filed an Amicus Curiae brief in opposition to California’s motion to dismiss. The group was founded by Joshua Hawley, and if you don’t recognize that name, he’s one of the lawyers who represented Hobby Lobby in its successful drive to get the Supreme Court to recognize that corporations can go to church on Sunday.

Josh Hawley’s name might also be familiar to those interested in the Amendment 1 vote, because Hawley wrote a piece in favor of the amendment, just before Nixon decided to put it to the vote in August instead of November. The piece contains the usual references to farming and how it hasn’t changed all that much since Jefferson’s time (just ignore those CAFOs with rivers of pink manure, and genetically altered corn implanted with some kind of bug DNA). According to him, all this innocent little Amendment will do is ensure that farmers can continue doing what farmers have been doing since the dawn of time.

But then he slips a little and writes:

Unfortunately, Missouri agriculture is under attack from government bureaucrats and outside interest groups that want to tie down farmers with burdensome regulations.

But, but…don’t all industries have to conform to one regulation or another? After all, we don’t allow oil companies to drill anywhere they want, nor can coal-fired utilities dump their waste into waters, putting wildlife, livestock, and people at risk—not without suffering consequences. Car makers have to ensure air bags inflate when they’re supposed to, planes really do need to stay in the air, and most of us just hate it when banks—or cable companies—rip us off.

Come to think of it, we’re not all that happy when we find out that rare beef hamburger we just ate comes with a generous dose of E.coli, or that the cow that supplies the milk the little ones drink can glow in the dark. And yeah, I don’t really want to eat the meat of a animal that’s so sick, some idiot in a fork lift has to lift her up to get her ready to be killed. It’s that whole, not wanting to die because I lost the luck of the draw in the food safety game, thing.

Then there’s that whole issue of clean water. I’ve seen some creeks and streams in Missouri that are so clear, you can see the fins on the tiny fish that inhabit them. I’d really hate to see these streams turned pink and murky, and all those cute little fish killed off before they have a chance to develop into nice big trout.

Though I live in the city, I’m also sympathetic to the small, organic farmer, fighting to keep pesticide off his or her field, and the country home dweller who once lived next to a corn field, only to wake up to 5,000 hogs the next day. Right next door.

And yeah, I like puppies. I like dogs, cats, horses, elephants, bats, bees, deer, and whole host of critters. I hate to think of any of them suffering or dying unnecessarily because of greed, stupidity, and cruelty. True, some animals we make into pets, some we eat, and some we leave alone, but that doesn’t mean any of them deserve abuse. I’d like to think we humans are better than that.

Regulations may sound scary, but they ensure we all have at least a fighting chance for a decent life. And a fighting chance to be decent human beings.

Amendment 1 isn’t about outside interest groups—it’s about people who live here, in Missouri. It’s about our interests, our concerns, and our responsibilities. Right to Farm sounds innocent, but it’s a backdoor method to undermine every county, city, and state-based regulation that impacts on anything even remotely related to agriculture. And it’s a way of making it almost impossible to adapt our laws to new information, new concerns, and new discoveries. It permanently enshrines the worst of behavior into the State Constitution for one single industry.

I’m thankful that Josh Hawley at least had the decency to come out and say that Amendment 1 is about undermining state and other regulations. That’s more than you’ll get from Chris Koster.

After reading all this, do you still think it’s all about the farmers? How’s this then: Go move a mile down river from a CAFO with 5,000 hogs and then tell me you’re going to vote for Amendment 1. Just be careful not to step in the pink stuff on your way to the poll.

Categories
Documents

Mother Jones Fascinating Murder Mystery with an NRA Twist—and Documents

Mother Jones has a fascinating, longer look at an early murder mystery associated with none other than the NRA’s general counsel, Robert Dowlut. It would seem that Dowlut was originally convicted of second degree murder, a conviction that was later overturned.

In an act I’ve come to expect from Mother Jones, the publication has also provided easy access to all of the documentation that provided the basis for the story.

Journalists can’t always provide all of their background material, but when they can, they should. This allows others to review the material, enabling them to either agree or disagree with the writer based on the same material, if the writer forms a conclusion. At a minimum, this sharing ensures open access to documents that may be difficult for non-journalists to obtain—documents that may form the basis for other, future works.

There is nothing to agree with or disagree with in the Mother Jones article, since it’s very careful to remain neutral and factual in its retelling of the older story (and the more recent activities Dowlut has undertaken for the NRA). But the author, Dave Gilson, provides much to think about.

Categories
Legal, Laws, and Regs

Who keeps e-mails?

fishing expedition

If you’re following the BPI vs. ABC “pinkslime” lawsuit, than you might be aware that the company is attempting to subpoena emails from several journalists and food safety experts.

The subpoenas to Food Safety News reporters are a bit tricky, because the publisher for the online site is Bill Marler, who is providing pro bono legal defense for the two former USDA workers who are also being sued in this lawsuit. I’m not a lawyer, but this means attorney-client privilege to me. I’m surprised that the Judge would allow such a fishing expedition so close to this privilege, but maybe this is the way they do things in South Dakota’s courts.

Michele Simon responded to the subpoena, but as she noted, she doesn’t keep emails. Come to think of it, I don’t keep emails, either. Nowadays, when you have corporations shotgunning subpoenas under indifferent judicial eyes, perhaps none of us should keep emails. Not unless we primarily write about cats or JavaScript. Or the latest squabble between the WhatWG and the W3C HTML working groups (because no one would ever want any of these emails).

If BPI, Inc doesn’t have what it needs to to win its case, or can’t get it from those directly involved in the lawsuit, maybe it should focus on how to explain away both the pinkness and the slimy feel of its product when the defendant lawyers bring a mess in for the jury to fondle. And spend some time contemplating the fact that, yes, people in this country really do want to know what’s in the food we’re eating.

Update: ABC has also covered the subpoena story. Must have been a bit cathartic for them.

Categories
Political

Missouri’s Amendment 1: Missouri’s sucker bet

$3, 173.70.

That’s the amount that Missouri tax payers have paid between March 3, 2014 and May 30, 2014 for Chris Koster’s lawsuit on behalf of large egg producers against California’s egg laws. It doesn’t sound like a lot of money until you realize that this just covers the fees paid to the California legal team representing Koster (and supposedly, Missouri). It doesn’t cover the time that J. Andrew Hirth, our Assistant State Attorney General, has put into the case, or any of the other members of the AG office staff. It also represents only about 6% of the likely cost, overall, for the lawsuit if it manages to survive the California Motion to Dismiss. If the case goes to trial, the cost will easily exceed $55,000 in legal fees.

This, just to defend a couple of larger egg producing companies in Missouri.

Doesn’t sound like a good use for tax payer money, does it? After all, wouldn’t we expect the companies to defend themselves, rather than take a ride on the tax payer dollar? In fact, this is one of the arguments California gives in the motion to dismiss: stripping aside the legalese, why on earth is Missouri suing another state on behalf of a tiny, miniscule group, when typically states only sue on behalf of a significant number of citizens?

Well, the reason why Koster and Missouri are seemingly fighting this lawsuit is because in Missouri, large agricultural concerns take precedence over the average citizen. In fact, if we look more closely at Mr. Koster’s recent actions, large agricultural concerns are the only interests that he seems to think are worth defending. Because not only did he file this lawsuit that benefits so few, he’s also campaigning across the state for Amendment 1, the so-called Right to Farm Constitutional amendment up for a vote on August 5th.

Right to farm? More like, right to undermine existing animal welfare laws, right to allow Chinese owned large animal operations (CAFOs) to disregard state water and air laws in order to minimize costs, and right to undermine this state’s initiative process by putting one industry, just one, outside the rule of law