OCR Text |
Show August 1968 UTAH FARM BUREAU: Page 2 V- -l FOfvlFLAfvl fvlAlMI fc.v caf USE) A GUEST EDITORIAL FB Deseret News 'check-of- f' J F YOU HAVEN'T seen the "National Observer"( opposes on honey The American When Will U.S. Get Farm Bureau Federation is opposing enactment of a bill (H.R. 164SS) to authorize a government-controlle- d promotion program for honey. In a letter to Representative Freedom To Farm? A prize ought to be awarded to anyond who can make sense out of the U.S. Department of Agricultures latest announcement on wheat controls. The other day the department outlined a program for Z'educing the acreage planted to wheat by 18 per cent. The national wheat-acreag- e allotment will be pared by 13 per cent. Farmers are expected to withhold another 5 per cent voluntarily because the government is offering payments on wheat land set aside for conservation. Whats hard to understand is not how the program is supposed to work, but why the Agriculture Department is embarking on it. At a time when millions are hungry all over the globe, it seems sheer folly for the worlds most efficient fanners to be iold to produce less. Then theres the issue of hunger within America's own borders. According to one recent study, at least 10 million Americans supposedly suffer unremitting hunger, and the number is said to be growing. Theres room for doubting that hunger in America is anywhere near this extensive or serious, But officials of the Agriculture Department itself profess to believe that hunger is a problem in America. If so, why is the department trying to get wheat farmers to produce less food? As for the effectiveness of the projected curbs on wheat acreage, what makes the Agriculture Department think it will do any better this time than it has with the 1968 crop? Despite a cut of 13 per cent from last years acreage, the current wheat harvest is running ahead of scheduled production. Moreover, when is the Agriculture Department going to give wheat farmers what they want rather than what the federal bureaucracy says they ought to want? For example, the outcome of the 1963 wheat referendum clearly showed that wheat producers want to move away from restrictive government programs and assume greater personal responsibility in the production and marketing of wheat Likewise, polls by various agricultural publications from the Farm Journal to the Prairie Farmer show that farmers themselves overwhelmingly want the federal government to relinquish various crop controls and subsidy programs and gradually get out of agriculture. Indeed, a study by the Twentieth Century Fund, a nonprofit research and public education foundation, shows that federal farm programs are excessive in cost, provide the most benefits to the biggest farms that need them least, and should be abandoned in favor of the free market. Instead of prescribing more of what ails American agriculture, the government should get out and let the free market system of take over. self-regulati- on Thomas G. Abernethy (D.) of Mississippi, chairman of a House Agriculture Subcommittee which held a hearing on the bill. Farm Bureau expressed support for well coordinated promotion programs. II. R. 16455 is contrary to Farm Bureau policy because it provides for the use of the power of the federal government to collect honey promotion funds, and provides that the federal government shall administer and have veto power over the program, the subcommittee chairman was told. Our only experience to date with a nationwide check-of- f program for any agricultural commodity that involves the use of the power of the federal government to collect funds, administer the program, or have veto power over it, has been with the Cotton Research and Promotion Act of 1966," Farm Bureau said. EXPERIENCE under this Act makes it clear that the federal government becomes deeply involved in the administration of promotion programs whenever federal power is used to collect the funds for them. The Farm Bureau realizes the importance of farmers promoting the increased sale and consumption of their farm products. We support a promotion, research, and market development program for honey that does not involve the federal government. We do not believe that a promotion activity is in the best long-terinterest of honey producers. Mutual Fund, Inc . Date NAV Thursday, July 25 Friday, July 26 Monday, July 29 Tuesday, July 30 $12.94 $12.95 $12.85 $12.95 each month by the Utah Farm Bureau Federation at Salt Lake City. Utah. Editorial and Busmcvs (hike. 629 East Fourth South, Salt Lake City, Utah. POSTMASTER: Please address P.O. Form M79 to 029 East lounli South, Salt Lake City, Utah 84102. Subscription price of twenty-fivcents per vear to members is included in membership fee. Entered as second class matter March 24, 1948 at the Post Otlic'e at Salt Lake Citv, Ltali under ict of e - ' - DIRECTORS K. Barton Nichols Dr. W. H. Bennett Glenn T. Baird, Jr Dr. D. Wynne Thorne Salt Lake Citv Salt Lake Citv Loan Loean I.ofjan DIRECTORS Mrs.. Willis Whitbeck, Farm Bureau Woman; Mrs. Paul Nelson, Farm Bureau Women; Ken Ashby. Yount; Farmers Sc Ranchers; Frank Harris, Beaver; A. Alton Hoffman, Cache; Lloyd Olsen, Cache; Ferris Allen. North Box Elder; William C. Dause, Carbon; S. Jay Child, Davis; Carl Van Tassell, Duchesne; Kenneth Brasher. Emery; Lowell Hcnrie. Garfield; Richard Nelson, Iron; Roy Bowles, Juab;. Graydon Robinson. Kane; Thurman Moody, Millard; Mark Thackeray, Morgan; Ambrose Dalton, Piute; Roy Hoffman, Rich; Elmo Hamilton, Salt Lake; Arion Erekson. Salt Lake; Elmer Sanders, Salt Lake; Ashton Harris, San Juan; Lee Barton, Sanpete; Gerald Johnson, Sevier; D. O. Rob- erts. Summit; Jack Brown,' Tooele; Roland Mcrkley, Uintah; Don T. Allen, Utah; Glade Gillman, Utah; Eldon Money, Utah; Emer Wilson, Wasatch; Don F.- Schmutz, Washington; Hugh King, Wayne; William C. Holmes, Weber; Carl Fowers, Weber;. Lorin Hardy, Weber; John P. Holmgren, South Box Elder; key L. Allred, Utah Horticultural Society; John Roghaar, Intermountain Farmers Assn.; Virgil Peterson, Utah Sugar Beet Growers Assn.; Tom Lowe, Utah Canning Crops Assn.; Joe I. Jacobs, Producers Livestock Marketing Assn.; J. R. Garrett, Norbest Turkey Grwo ers Assn.; M. E. Carroll, Country Mutual Life. - "1 . You are to gain entrance into NFT (Non-Federall- y Inspected) plants (slaughter and or processing) under the guise of (a) meeting local inspection personnel to gain cooperation in our normal C&ES work, (b) discussing our denaturing and decharacterizing requirements with management, (c) etc. This should be done quickly and quietly in such a manner that no one is aware of the real purpose of your visit This will require a very discreet approach and may tax your imagination. Other approaches used to gain entrance to NFI plants are: (1) requesting management's permission to check their freezers for product bearing Federal Marks or Inspection that might be forged or counterfeit (2) explaining to and showing management how Federal Marks of Inspection must be obliterated before used containers are filled. " PARAGRAPHS 2 AND 3 concerned reports on state meat inspection laws, collection of meat samples at retail stores, and instructions for airmailing them to USDA's St Louis Meat Lab. Near the close of the Memo was the following paragraph: your reports of plant "surveys" it is suggested you use dramatic, graphic terms with impact such as cancer-eypus, "In e, manure, disease, excreta, cockroaches, rats, flies, loose paint cobwebs, rust, grease, overhead dripping sewer lines, toilet facilities, mice, flour, excess water, chemicals, excess fat etc., instead of other more acceptable terms. Of course, you must be factual in your reports. Try to find evidence of contaminants on the meat if possible." The man in USDA who initiated the "survey", according to "The National Observer", was Rodney E. Leonard, adminis- trator of C&MS, the same man who is working so desperately to build a USDA Inspection empire by Congress into passing new inspection law's for poultry, eggs and fish . . . while at the same time merging all the various inspection services into one huge, bureaucratic "Consumer Protection flim-flami- ng Service". Published Aldcn Mark last July to swiftly and deceptively gather reports of horrid conditions in meat processing plants not under USDA control. The reports were used as undisputed authority for scare stories that frightened the public and stampeded Congress into passing the Wholesome Meat Act Here are 2 key paragraphs from the USDA Memo, secured by "The National Observer" only after months of determined effort and legal action: Net Asset Values (NAV) For Week Ending July 31 UTAH FARM BUREAU fHI NEWS March 3,1879. UTAH FARM BUREAU FEDERATION OFFICIALS Elmo W. Hamilton, Riverton, Utah President S. Jay Child, Clearfield, Utah Vice President Mrs. Willis Whitbeck, Bennion, Utah Chairman, Farm Bureau Women V. Allen Olsen Executive Secretary Kenneth J. Rice Editor weekly newspaper) of May 20, 1968, try to get a copy and read the front page story, Tainted Meat - and Tainted Evidence ". It tells in full and graphic detail the story of "Special Project (Quick, Quiet & Confidential) by which USDA's QQ&C Consumer & Marketing Service ordered federal meat inspectors m Farm Bureau a I N A SEPARATE editorial in the May 20 issue, the Observer said: "There is more involved than an indiscreet Government memo; there is more involved, even, than the problem of adequate meat inspection. What is involved is no less than the proper functioning of the democratic process. Surely none (of the USDA men involved) would speak of a hoax. Yet there is no other word for it Further, the same thing can happen again, in the Agriculture Dept or in any of the other, and powerful, bureaucracies that have been set up to serve, not deceive, the public . In a democracy, the public should be able to trust its elected and appointed officials - trust .them to tell the truth, and trust them to enact and enforce the laws without bias. If these officials choose to divorce themselves from the public, to lie to the public, they deceive themselves as well by pretending they serve the public interest They do no such thing. It is now up to Congress, through its appropriate committees, to open a formal investigation into Special Project Quick, Quiet, and Confidential - to keep the Federal bureaucracies honest, and to show the people that their lawmakers do not like being taken in by hoaxes." . |