[RealJustme]

In Obama's insane quest to rape tax payers and profit his cronies he's ordered the USDA to allow the import of chicken raised, slaughtered and processed in China to be imported to fill the coming shortage in the United States. What the Obama Administration doesn't mention is that the coming shortage is due to his orders to increase bio fuels which are sucking up all the feed for US raised meat. Feeding the masses unsafe meat or raping taxes payers to stuff him and his cronies pockets and keep Democrats in power....mmmmm which is more important to Obama?

For the uniformed liberals out there, a clue....Obama has already answered that question.

[brandon]

In 2006, the USDA rapidly finalized China’s request to begin
exporting processed chicken to the United States the very
same day as a visit from China’s president.115 This action apparently
prompted China to resume negotiations over lifting
its ban on American beef, instituted in 2003 after the discovery
of mad cow disease in Washington state.116
Despite the George W. Bush administration’s public blessing
of Chinese chicken, the USDA’s internal inspection reports
of Chinese poultry facilities showed egregious food safety
problems, including mishandling raw chicken throughout the
processing areas, failing to perform E. coli and salmonella
testing, and routinely using dirty tools and equipment.117 As
these internal reports emerged, Congress refused to implement
the Bush administration proposal, effectively maintaining
the ban.118 Not surprisingly, corporate food producers
and their trade associations — such as Tyson, Pilgrim’s Pride,
Cargill, Keystone, Monsanto, Kraft Foods, the National Pork
Producers Council and American Meat Institute — lined up
to pressure the government to open trade channels.

That was back when the Bush administration approved of importing processed Chinese Chicken.

The Chinese still have a long way to go before that bird flies.

It may be less practical for some but we all need to do our best to support our locals.

Since
2005, U.S. poultry companies and the Chinese government
have tried to get Chinese poultry exports to the United States
approved, but the U.S. Congress has prevented the USDA
from weakening the prohibition.110 U.S. agribusinesses have invested heavily in Chinese chicken
production and processing — both to feed Chinese consumers
and as a future export platform to U.S. consumers.
Tyson Foods has invested hundreds of millions of dollars into chicken operations in China, including a 60 percent stake
in one of China’s largest poultry operations that produces 3
million chickens every week.111 Tyson has also invested in a
processing unit and a breeding facility that will expand into a
large-scale broiler production operation in 2011.112 Goldman
Sachs purchased 10 poultry farms in China for as much as
$300 million in 2008.113 Keystone foods, a major supplier of
food products to fast food restaurants, including McDonald’s,
operates a sprawling chicken processing plant in China.

[brandon]

...the coming shortage is due to his orders to increase bio fuels which are sucking up all the feed for US raised meat.

Updated July 25, 2012 8:27 p.m. ET

The record-setting drought scorching the Midwest is set to drive up Americans' food bills, the Department of Agriculture said Wednesday, with the biggest impact coming next year.

Poultry, milk and beef prices are expected to rise more quickly than historical averages, leading to an overall expected rise in food prices of between 3% and 4% above this year's levels, the department said in its initial forecast for 2013.

"Consumers will certainly feel that," said Richard Volpe, a USDA economist.

The main reason is the hit to corn, soybeans, wheat and other commodities used as animal feed, driving up their prices and therefore the cost to other agricultural producers. Corn futures are up 44% since June 1, and soybean futures are up 26% over the same period. Farmers are expected to pass at least part of that cost increase on to their customers, eventually leading to higher prices on grocery-store shelves.

Food prices these days represent a relatively small slice of consumers' daily living expenses—about 14%. And a drop in energy prices in recent months has brought overall inflation down. That means the price increases might not have a major effect on growth.

"Nonetheless, coming at a time when the economic recovery is faltering, even a small loss of output in a small sector is a further hindrance," wrote Paul Dales, a senior economist at research firm Capital Economics.

The drought is affecting parts of the farm economy in different ways, and the impact on prices isn't uniform. Cattle ranchers, anticipating higher feed costs, have begun slaughtering cattle at a quicker-than-normal pace, leading to a boost in beef production that will likely slow price growth in the short term, the USDA's Mr. Volpe said. Once that beef is off the market, supply will dwindle and prices will rise higher than normal, he said.

Beef prices are forecast to rise between 3.5% and 4.5% this year, and then by between 4% and 5% in 2013.

As a result, the department kept its forecast of 2012 food-price inflation at between 2.5% and 3.5%. That is below last year's 3.7% and near the historical average of just under 3%. Overall, U.S. consumer prices rose 1.7% in June from a year earlier.

Any federal relief may come too late to prevent surges in some food prices. The corn crop has already completed its pollination phase, when water has the greatest impact on yields, and much of the damage is irreversible. Rain could still help the soybean crop, which enters its pollination phase in July and August.

Consumers will likely see price rises for chicken and turkey first. Those animals grow more quickly than larger animals, and their meat thus typically reaches the market faster than, say, beef. About 70% of chicken feed is corn, said Tom Super, a spokesman for the National Chicken Council.

The USDA has opened up land to allow for grazing and hay production for ranchers dealing with higher feed prices. That is of little help to the chicken industry.

The department expects poultry prices to rise between 3.5% and 4.5% this year.

Congress passed legislation in 2007 requiring oil companies to blend billions of gallons of ethanol into gasoline. President Bush signed that bill into law. Bush predicted it would make the country "stronger, cleaner and more secure."

The consequences are so severe that environmentalists and many scientists have now rejected corn-based ethanol as bad environmental policy. But the Obama administration stands by it, highlighting its benefits to the farming industry rather than any negative impact.

Bush starts it and Obama carries on with it. Where have we heard that before?

:lol:


http://www.news-record.com/news/local_n ... 0f31a.html

[Intrepid]

I've been saying for years that turning food crops into fuel when we have abundant sources of oil we refuse to exploit is a horrible idea. Add in the fact that there are people starving in the world and it makes even less sense.
Ethanol is bad all the way around. It takes more energy to plant, cultivate, harvest, dry the corn and turn it into ethanol than the ethanol itself produces. Ethanol is a net energy loser from start to finish. The only way it can be produced is with government subsidies. That's why I refuse to use it in my vehicles, along with the fact that both power and mileage is worse.
Another prime example of unintended consequences.

[RealJustme]

The green push is turning our Country brown, 43% of our corn is now used for ethanol while our lands are destroyed. Time to end the green crusade by the millionaires to get richer off our backs.

CORYDON, Iowa (AP) - The hills of southern Iowa bear the scars of America's push for green energy: The brown gashes where rain has washed away the soil. The polluted streams that dump fertilizer into the water supply.

Even the cemetery that disappeared like an apparition into a cornfield.

It wasn't supposed to be this way.

With the Iowa political caucuses on the horizon in 2007, presidential candidate Barack Obama made homegrown corn a centerpiece of his plan to slow global warming. And when President George W. Bush signed a law that year requiring oil companies to add billions of gallons of ethanol to their gasoline each year, Bush predicted it would make the country "stronger, cleaner and more secure."

But the ethanol era has proven far more damaging to the environment than politicians promised and much worse than the government admits today.

As farmers rushed to find new places to plant corn, they wiped out millions of acres of conservation land, destroyed habitat and polluted water supplies, an Associated Press investigation found.

Five million acres of land set aside for conservation — more than Yellowstone, Everglades and Yosemite National Parks combined — have vanished on Obama's watch.

Landowners filled in wetlands. They plowed into pristine prairies, releasing carbon dioxide that had been locked in the soil.

Sprayers pumped out billions of pounds of fertilizer, some of which seeped into drinking water, contaminated rivers and worsened the huge dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico where marine life can't survive.

The consequences are so severe that environmentalists and many scientists have now rejected corn-based ethanol as bad environmental policy. But the Obama administration stands by it, highlighting its benefits to the farming industry rather than any negative impact.

Farmers planted 15 million more acres of corn last year than before the ethanol boom, and the effects are visible in places like south central Iowa.

The hilly, once-grassy landscape is made up of fragile soil that, unlike the earth in the rest of the state, is poorly suited for corn. Nevertheless, it has yielded to America's demand for it.

"They're raping the land," said Bill Alley, a member of the board of supervisors in Wayne County, which now bears little resemblance to the rolling cow pastures shown in postcards sold at a Corydon pharmacy.

All energy comes at a cost. The environmental consequences of drilling for oil and natural gas are well documented and severe. But in the president's push to reduce greenhouse gases and curtail global warming, his administration has allowed so-called green energy to do not-so-green things.

In some cases, such as its decision to allow wind farms to kill eagles, the administration accepts environmental costs because they pale in comparison to the havoc it believes global warming could ultimately cause.

Ethanol is different.

The government's predictions of the benefits have proven so inaccurate that independent scientists question whether it will ever achieve its central environmental goal: reducing greenhouse gases. That makes the hidden costs even more significant.

"This is an ecological disaster," said Craig Cox with the Environmental Working Group, a natural ally of the president that, like others, now finds itself at odds with the White House.

But it's a cost the administration is willing to accept. It believes supporting corn ethanol is the best way to encourage the development of biofuels that will someday be cleaner and greener than today's. Pulling the plug on corn ethanol, officials fear, might mean killing any hope of these next-generation fuels.

"That is what you give up if you don't recognize that renewable fuels have some place here," EPA administrator Gina McCarthy said in a recent interview with AP. "All renewable fuels are not corn ethanol."

Still, corn supplies the overwhelming majority of ethanol in the United States, and the administration is loath to discuss the environmental consequences.

"It just caught us completely off guard," said Doug Davenport, a Department of Agriculture official who encourages southern Iowa farmers to use conservation practices on their land. Despite those efforts, Davenport said he was surprised at how much fragile, erodible land was turned into corn fields.

Shortly after Davenport spoke to The Associated Press, he got an email ordering him to stop talking.

"We just want to have a consistent message on the topic," an Agriculture Department spokesman in Iowa said.

That consistent message was laid out by Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, who spoke to ethanol lobbyists on Capitol Hill recently and said ethanol was good for business.

"We are committed to this industry because we understand its benefits," he said. "We understand it's about farm income. It's about stabilizing and maintaining farm income which is at record levels."

The numbers behind the ethanol mandate have become so unworkable that, for the first time, the EPA is soon expected to reduce the amount of ethanol required to be added to the gasoline supply. An unusual coalition of big oil companies, environmental groups and food companies is pushing the government to go even further and reconsider the entire ethanol program.

The ethanol industry is fighting hard against that effort. Industry spokesman Brooke Coleman dismissed this story as "propaganda on a page." An industry blog in Minnesota said the AP had succumbed "to Big Oil's deep pockets and powerful influence."

To understand how America got to an environmental policy with such harmful environmental consequences, it's helpful to start in a field in Iowa.

[brandon]

In the face of the above, I can't imagine why anyone, regardless of their meaningless, ridiculous, partisanship would not support the localism movement.


You wanna eat shit from China or the third world ? Go for it.


I'll pass.

[brandon]

In the face of the above, I can't imagine why anyone, regardless of their meaningless, ridiculous, partisanship would not support the localism movement.


You wanna eat shit from China or the third world ? And support the corporations that are feeding and poisoning us for profit, go for it.


I'll pass.

[brandon]

The Obama administration proposed on Friday slashing federal requirements for U.S. biofuel use in 2014, bowing to pressure from the petroleum industry and attempting to prevent a potential fuel crunch next year.

"Congressional action to repeal the RFS remains the most viable pathway to allowing all users of corn to have equal standing in the marketplace," the National Chicken Council said in a statement.

Biofuels backers were livid at the announcement.

LOL

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/ ... 2F20131115


:lol: