USDA Fires Organic Farming Specialist for Expressing Opinions
By Jeff Deasy, AlterNet
The free exchange of ideas is so essential to a healthy democracy, it was particularly disturbing to learn that Mark D. Keating was terminated as an Agricultural Marketing Specialist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Organic Program (NOP) for expressing personal opinions in communications with the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB).
Posted on January 18, 2011, Printed on January 22, 2011
http://www.alternet.org/story/149577/
In an interview, Mr. Keating said the official reasons given for his termination were a "complete fabrication." He added, "I was the guy who knew too much."
Mr. Keating brought 20 years of experience in various aspects of organic farming to his government service. He was once an organic farmer himself and played a key role in the development of the USDA's organic standards and the establishment of the sustainable agriculture program at the University of Kentucky. "Abandoning traditional processes has brought new problems," he said.
Mr. Keating is convinced that it was the "political hierarchy" at the USDA rather than knowledgeable civil servants who were responsible for his termination. When asked whether powerful corporate interests had sought his dismissal, he said he had no evidence to support such a claim. He did say that giant agribusiness believes it has provided the "most abundant and cheapest food supply in the world" and the criticism leveled at it by sustainable farming advocates has led to "hurt feelings" in the industry.
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), a national alliance of local state and federal resource professionals, is urging the NOP to reverse its decision. PEER contends that Mr. Keating did not contradict official policy, but was aiding an advisory panel in formulating recommendations for official policy.
PEER argues that his termination:
• Violates Obama administration policies encouraging "free and open inquiry" by scientists and other technical specialists; and
• Is at odds with policies adopted by other agencies, such as the Department of Interior, promoting the "free exchange of ideas" while formulating policy.
Mr. Keating's job description called for "wide latitude to exercise independent judgment" to "influence, motivate, and persuade the very diverse constituent population of the NOP." Since he was hired just last April, Mr. Keating was still a probationary employee with limited rights to appeal his dismissal.
If, as Mr. Keating maintains, the official reasons given for his dismissal were fabricated, then why was he fired? He says the truth lies in the answer to, "Who in the political leadership would object to my work?"
Undue Corporate Influence at USDA?
Last September, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) published the results of a survey of USDA scientists and inspectors responsible for food safety. "Hundreds of scientists and inspectors responsible for food safety have personally experienced political interference in their work, and that's bad for public health," said Francesca Grifo, director of UCS's Scientific Integrity Program at the time. "Both the administration and Congress need to act."
More than 1,700 respondents took part in the survey, which was conducted for UCS by the Iowa State University Center for Survey Statistics. Most of the respondents had worked at their agency for more than ten years.
Disappointing Appointments at USDA
Back in 2008, Ronnie Cummins, executive director of Organic Consumers Association (OCA), told Democracy Now! about his opposition to the appointment of Tom Vilsack as Secretary of Agriculture:
"Vilsack has been an ardent promoter, not only of genetically engineered foods and crops, but also of the extremely controversial biopharmaceutical crops, which involves [inaudible] pharmaceutical drugs or industrial chemicals into food crops. Even, you know, quite a few people in the biotech industry are alarmed by these biopharmaceuticals, since you could get dangerous drugs throughout the food supply."
New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof wrote, "Unfortunately, Mr. Obama on Wednesday chose Tom Vilsack, the former governor of Iowa who has longstanding ties to agribusiness interests, as agriculture secretary - his weakest selection so far."
During the presidential campaign many sustainability advocates were encouraged by this statement from then candidate Obama, ""We'll tell ConAgra that it's not the Department of Agribusiness. It's the Department of Agriculture. We're going to put the people's interests ahead of the special interests."
Jeff Deasy is president of American Feast.© 2011 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/149577/
No Free Discussion from Obama Appointee Vilsack
Ambien Ups Risk of Falling in Elderly
Refer to The Case of the Sequestered Mind
The elderly are often unsteady on their feet – but it might not be anything to do with getting old. One of the world’s most popular sleeping pills could be the unsuspected culprit, researchers have discovered this week.
Zolpidem – which is found in many prescription sleeping drugs, such as Ambien – causes a loss of balance and unsteadiness even several hours after waking up.
Zolpidem causes a “significant loss of balance” in around 58 per cent of elderly people.
Tamiflu Not 4 You
Tamiflu is not the answer to flu outbreaks
18 January 2011
People worried about the current seasonal and swine flu outbreaks are calling for the wider availability of the Tamiflu drug. But the anti-viral may be far less effective than the manufacturer claims.
Researchers have discovered that Tamiflu (oseltamivir) does not reduce complications in adults who develop flu – the very thing that Tamiflu’s manufacturer, Roche, claims.
from 30+ posts re: tamiflu - from Natural Health News
Aug 08, 2009
Antiviral drugs, such as Tamiflu (oseltamivir), work by inhibiting something called neuraminidase, produced by viruses and essential for their ability to replicate. So too does vitamin C according to recent research. ...
Nov 13, 2005
TOKYO - Two teenage boys who took the antiviral drug Tamiflu exhibited abnormal behavior that led to their deaths, with one jumping in front of an oncoming truck last year and the other falling from the ninth floor of a building earlier ...
Nov 23, 2007
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Food and Drug Administration staffers are recommending new warnings about psychiatric events observed in some patients taking Roche Holding AG's Tamiflu and GlaxoSmithKline Plc's Relenza, according to ...
Nov 29, 2006
"Health Canada has requested that the manufacturer ... update the Canadian prescribing information for Tamiflu to include this new information," the department said in a statement. According to Health Canada, there have been 84 reports ...
A Position to Consider: Repeal of Obama Care
From the Gormley Files: Why Obama Care Needs to Be Repealed
Posted: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 14:31:31 PST
By Jane M. Orient, M.D.
Guest contributor
The plight of people who lose their insurance and then get sick is one of the most appealing arguments for health care reform. And the White House really took advantage of it, soliciting tear-jerking stories from responsible folks who played by the rules and who can’t get insurance through no fault of their own.
The disagreeable truth—a relentless law of economics—is that you can’t insure a pre-existing. If you wreck your car, State Farm pays only if you had the insurance policy before the accident. If you don’t have insurance, your options are to take the bus, walk, ride a bicycle, get help from friends or family, or come up with money to buy a new car from some source other than a car insurance company.
People would very much like the “right” to buy insurance that would cover their pre-existings, without restrictions or waiting periods. But the same folks don’t much like the idea of paying for other people’s pre-existings—or even for their sicknesses. So the healthy ones often switch into a new policy that gives them an enticing low rate if they pass the underwriting. Then those who can’t switch see their premiums go up rapidly. This is called the “death spiral.” Is it the wicked insurance companies’ fault? Or human nature?
You might naturally feel sympathy toward a person who finds out that he has a costly and fatal condition like AIDS. But what if he doesn’t tell the life insurance company about the pre-existing as he buys a million-dollar policy for the benefit of his partner? Is it wicked of the insurer to rescind the policy because of fraud? Or should the government force the company to pay—until it goes bankrupt, and leaves all of its subscribers without coverage?
If you have insurance through your employer, pre-existings are likely not a problem—if you can get the job, that is. But the huge drawback of employer-owned insurance is that you lose it if you lose your job. This is called “job lock.” Lots of people are stuck in jobs they hate because of this.
It might not seem fair that people who pay into a policy for years or decades are left with nothing the instant the policy lapses. But that is the nature of an insurance contract.
If over 10 years or so, you put $100,000 into a safe investment, at the end of that time you have $100,000 plus interest. If instead you hand the money over to the insurance cartel, you have nothing. The trade-off is that if you have a catastrophic event during the time you are covered, the insurer pays. Most people think the deal is a fair one, and that’s why they voluntarily pay the premiums.
As soon as the government forces people to pay a premium for other people’s pre-existings, they are likely to object to what they—quite reasonably—see as a rip-off. Hence the need for more force: the individual mandate.
Some people don’t see the connection, and think we can keep that popular provision on pre-existings, and delete the rest. We can’t.
The long-term answer to the problem of pre-existings is to break the connection between health insurance and employment, which requires changing the tax code provision that caused it. People can pay medical costs with pre-tax dollars if and only if they pay with employer-owned insurance. If they pay out of pocket or through individual policies, they must use after-tax dollars. With payroll tax and income taxes, that means they pay about twice as much. How can that be fair?
People tend to have much longer relationships with groups other than their employer: churches, credit unions, or fraternal organizations, for example. Why can’t they get group health insurance in that way? This type of group policy could offer advantageous guaranteed renewability to keep healthy people in the program.
And why should people get a huge tax advantage if and only if they funnel payments through a third party?
Meanwhile, there are people who have problems now. And there is a solution that already works, without the system-wide destruction of ObamaCare. Many states have high-risk pools for the uninsurable. In Colorado, the monthly premium for a 35-year-old man with income under $50,000 is about $204, around $50 higher than premiums in the regular market. In New Jersey, with guaranteed issue/community rating like that in ObamaCare, the regular monthly premium is $2,150.
Forcing insurers to cover pre-existings without allowing enormous premium increases will bankrupt them. Perhaps driving private insurers out of business is the real agenda. However, imposing a “solution” that multiplies costs bankrupts everybody.
Those who are counting on that single payer hovering in the background need to remember that the government is already bankrupt—a very dangerous pre-existing condition.
The most popular provision of ObamaCare may also be the worst. The whole Act needs to be repealed.
About the Author
Doctor Orient is the Executive Director of Association of American Physicians and Surgeons and has been in solo practice of general internal medicine since 1981. She is a clinical lecturer in medicine at the University of Arizona College of Medicine. She received her undergraduate degrees in chemistry and mathematics from the University of Arizona, and her M.D. from Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons. She is the author of Sapira’s Art and Science of Bedside Diagnosis, the fourth edition of which has just been published by Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins. She also authored YOUR Doctor Is Not In: Healthy Skepticism about National Health Care, published by Crown. She is the executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, a voice for patients’ and physicians’ independence since 1943. Complete curriculum vitae posted at http://www.drjaneorient.com/. Additional information on health-related issues: http://www.aapsonline.org/ and http://www.takebackmedicine.com
Guest contributor
The plight of people who lose their insurance and then get sick is one of the most appealing arguments for health care reform. And the White House really took advantage of it, soliciting tear-jerking stories from responsible folks who played by the rules and who can’t get insurance through no fault of their own.
People would very much like the “right” to buy insurance that would cover their pre-existings, without restrictions or waiting periods. But the same folks don’t much like the idea of paying for other people’s pre-existings—or even for their sicknesses. So the healthy ones often switch into a new policy that gives them an enticing low rate if they pass the underwriting. Then those who can’t switch see their premiums go up rapidly. This is called the “death spiral.” Is it the wicked insurance companies’ fault? Or human nature?
If you have insurance through your employer, pre-existings are likely not a problem—if you can get the job, that is. But the huge drawback of employer-owned insurance is that you lose it if you lose your job. This is called “job lock.” Lots of people are stuck in jobs they hate because of this.
It might not seem fair that people who pay into a policy for years or decades are left with nothing the instant the policy lapses. But that is the nature of an insurance contract.
If over 10 years or so, you put $100,000 into a safe investment, at the end of that time you have $100,000 plus interest. If instead you hand the money over to the insurance cartel, you have nothing. The trade-off is that if you have a catastrophic event during the time you are covered, the insurer pays. Most people think the deal is a fair one, and that’s why they voluntarily pay the premiums.
As soon as the government forces people to pay a premium for other people’s pre-existings, they are likely to object to what they—quite reasonably—see as a rip-off. Hence the need for more force: the individual mandate.
Some people don’t see the connection, and think we can keep that popular provision on pre-existings, and delete the rest. We can’t.
The long-term answer to the problem of pre-existings is to break the connection between health insurance and employment, which requires changing the tax code provision that caused it. People can pay medical costs with pre-tax dollars if and only if they pay with employer-owned insurance. If they pay out of pocket or through individual policies, they must use after-tax dollars. With payroll tax and income taxes, that means they pay about twice as much. How can that be fair?
People tend to have much longer relationships with groups other than their employer: churches, credit unions, or fraternal organizations, for example. Why can’t they get group health insurance in that way? This type of group policy could offer advantageous guaranteed renewability to keep healthy people in the program.
And why should people get a huge tax advantage if and only if they funnel payments through a third party?
Meanwhile, there are people who have problems now. And there is a solution that already works, without the system-wide destruction of ObamaCare. Many states have high-risk pools for the uninsurable. In Colorado, the monthly premium for a 35-year-old man with income under $50,000 is about $204, around $50 higher than premiums in the regular market. In New Jersey, with guaranteed issue/community rating like that in ObamaCare, the regular monthly premium is $2,150.
Forcing insurers to cover pre-existings without allowing enormous premium increases will bankrupt them. Perhaps driving private insurers out of business is the real agenda. However, imposing a “solution” that multiplies costs bankrupts everybody.
Those who are counting on that single payer hovering in the background need to remember that the government is already bankrupt—a very dangerous pre-existing condition.
The most popular provision of ObamaCare may also be the worst. The whole Act needs to be repealed.
About the Author
Doctor Orient is the Executive Director of Association of American Physicians and Surgeons and has been in solo practice of general internal medicine since 1981. She is a clinical lecturer in medicine at the University of Arizona College of Medicine. She received her undergraduate degrees in chemistry and mathematics from the University of Arizona, and her M.D. from Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons. She is the author of Sapira’s Art and Science of Bedside Diagnosis, the fourth edition of which has just been published by Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins. She also authored YOUR Doctor Is Not In: Healthy Skepticism about National Health Care, published by Crown. She is the executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, a voice for patients’ and physicians’ independence since 1943. Complete curriculum vitae posted at http://www.drjaneorient.com/. Additional information on health-related issues: http://www.aapsonline.org/ and http://www.takebackmedicine.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)