Is Organic Really Better?

By: Vanessa Rogers, Staff Member

You may want to think twice the next time you walk down the grocery store in search of organic products. Recent studies have discovered that high concentrations of Arsenics have been found in organic products.[1] Arsenic is a chemical that has been linked to cancer, chronic diseases, and developmental effects.[2] Many organic products substitute organic brown rice syrup as a healthier alternative to high fructose corn syrup.[3]  This substitution may however, prove to be not so “healthy.” Organic brown rice syrup has high levels of arsenic.

Many organic products use brown rice syrup as a main ingredient; such products include baby milk formulas, cereal bars, and high energy performance products.[4]  One study found that two out of 17 tested baby formulas contained a level of inorganic arsenic that was at or above the current United States drinking water standard.[5] The formulas were more than 20 times the inorganic arsenic concentrations in infant formulas that did not contain organic brown rice syrup.[6] In addition one cereal bar contained 12 times the legal limit for drinking water of 10 parts per billion, and energy performance foods tested at eight to 17 times the limit.[7] Although it is true that numerous products have trace amounts of arsenic, many are concerned about the effect that such high levels can have on infants during their development stage.[8]

So what does this mean for rice plants and the agriculture industry?  For now it has no effect.  There are currently no United States regulations applicable to arsenic in food despite the fact that studies show arsenic may introduce significant concentrations of inorganic arsenic to an individual’s diet.[9] If however, the government begins to implement regulatory limits, the agriculture industry may be affected. The industry will be forced to find a substitute for brown rice syrup or find a way to remove the arsenic qualities that are deeply rooted in the soil from past pesticides. Until that time comes, as you make your purchases remember that organic does not always mean better.

[1] Brian P. Jackson, Vivian F. Taylor, Margaret R. Karagas, Tracy Punshon & Kathryn L. Cottingham,

Arsenic, Organic Foods, and Brown Rice Syrup,

Environmental Health Perspectives

,  5http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.1104619#Ahead of Print (AOP) (February 16, 2012).

[2] Linda Carroll,

High Arsenic Levels Found in Organic Foods, Baby Formula

,

Msnbc.com

, http://todayhealth.today.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/16/10425025-high-arsenic-levels-found-in-organic-foods-baby-formula (February 16, 2012).

[3] Brian P. Jackson, Vivian F. Taylor, Margaret R. Karagas, Tracy Punshon & Kathryn L. Cottingham,

Arsenic, Organic Foods, and Brown Rice Syrup,

Environmental Health Perspectives

,  5http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.1104619#Ahead of Print (AOP) (February 16, 2012).

[4] 

Id.

[5] 

Id

. at 8-9.

[6] 

Id

. at 8.

[7] Linda Carroll,

High Arsenic Levels Found in Organic Foods, Baby Formula

,

Msnbc.com

, http://todayhealth.today.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/16/10425025-high-arsenic-levels-found-in-organic-foods-baby-formula (February 16, 2012).

[8] 

Id

.

[9] Brian P. Jackson, Vivian F. Taylor, Margaret R. Karagas, Tracy Punshon & Kathryn L. Cottingham,

Arsenic, Organic Foods, and Brown Rice Syrup,

Environmental Health Perspectives

,  13http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.1104619#Ahead of Print (AOP) (February 16, 2012).

Energy Indolence is becoming more likely, but will it impact foreign affairs?

By: Phillip Robinette, Staff Member 

Energy independence has been seen as a highly valued, yet difficult to achieve, goal for the United States for many years.

Its importance has crossed party lines, yet for many it seemed unlikely to be accomplished. With the price of gas increasing to new heights, as of March 5

th

the mean price for a gallon of gas was $3.79, slowly increasing towards the record high of $4.21, 

this topic is more appropriate now than ever.[1] 

This view has been challenged recently.

As of right now only 37.8% of our crude oil comes from domestic production.[2]

Now some believe this seemingly unobtainable goal is within reach for Americans.

Energy economist Phil Verleger stated his belief that the US will not even have to import any crude oil within a decade.[3]

Vergler attributed this development to small companies started by American entrepreneurs utilizing new techniques such as hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling which have opened up large amounts of gas and oil that were previously trapped under layers of shale.[4]

As of right now production is around half a million barrels a day of oil but reports are that this number is steadily increasing.[5]

These optimistic predictions are not without their detractors.  Dan Kammen from the University of California, Berkely claims that achieving 100% domestic energy production may be a step in the wrong direction.  He argues that we need to continue focusing on renewable energy methods, i.e. solar, wind and geothermal.[6]  A large incentive for reaching energy independence is that the US would no longer have to engage with potentially hostile Middle Eastern countries.  However, 

some claim this is not true because the US still needs to ensure the security of oil imports of its allies, ensuring protection for Israel and the continuing need to protect the balance of power in the region.[7]  Despite these detractions

,

energy independence seems to be a more and more realistic outcome.  If this future will help alleviate the necessity of foreign engagements is something that only the future can tell.

[1] http://www.npr.org/2012/03/06/148087543/whats-behind-these-high-gas-prices

[2] 

Id

.

[3] http://www.npr.org/2012/03/07/148036966/is-u-s-energy-independence-finally-within-reach

[4] 

Id

.

[5] 

Id

.

[6] 

Id

.

[7] http://www.riskwatchdog.com/2012/03/06/us-energy-independence-geopolitical-consequences/

Contraceptive Vaccine for Horses: A Cash Cow?

By: Kate Remias, Staff Member

The Environmental Protection Agency has officially registered the first contraceptive vaccine for use in horses, with The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) sponsoring the registration.

[1]

  The vaccine was registered under the brand name ZonaStat-H but is commonly known as porcine zona pellucida (PZP) and is touted as a “win-win-win” by HSUS President and CEO, who indicates it will be good for horses, the environment, and taxpayers.

[2]

This vaccine is making headlines across the Nation because of its potential to mitigate the problems associated with the approximately 12 million unwanted horses in the United States.

[3]

The HSUS estimates the vaccine’s use could save taxpayers millions of dollars over the next decade.

[4]

A U.S. Geological Survey indicated PZP could save as much as $7.7 million annually.

[5]

Wayne Parcell, President and CEO of the HSUS, posted in his blog–hosted on the HSUS website–that using PZP could save taxpayers tens of millions over the next decade.

[6]

The question obviously becomes: which is it? Unfortunately, the answer could be none of the above.  To determine if PZP will really save taxpayer money, we must compare the cost of administering the vaccine with the tax dollars the vaccine will save.

Data on cost and pricing for ZonaStat-H was not as readily available as I anticipated, but there is data available on PZP. In 2006–when PZP was being used to control deer population–the cost per dose was between $10 and $25, but was predicted to decrease as production became more efficient.

[7]

In 2008, however, PZP still cost $21 per dose when used on mares.

[8]

The problem with these figures is that they do not appear to fully impute all costs of producing the vaccine. The Science and Conservation Center is the boutique operation producing the PZP currently registered as ZonaStat-H.

[9]

The Center has three scientists and they only make a few thousand doses of the vaccine a year, with each batch taking about 25 hours over the course of week to make.

[10]

  So let’s assume they make 2,000 doses, which allegedly cost around $21 each, that’s a total cost of $42,000. The full cost of each vaccine needs to impute the cost of the scientist’s time, the cost of the facility, the Center’s overhead costs, the costs of the chemical components, etc. It seems impossible that that a cost figure around $21 accounts for anything besides the chemical ingredients to make PZP. Furthermore, when you account for the costs to actually administer the vaccine, cost estimates quickly rise to between $200 and $300 per dose.

[11]

Ok so it’s an expensive dose, but how does it compare to the taxpayer savings that will be generated? Since 1971 the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has been charged with wild horse and burro management.

[12]

  In 2011, BLM budgeted approximately $64 million for wild horse and burro management.

[13]

  In 2012 their plan is to shift horse and burro management to focus on fertility control, moving away from federally funded wild horse preserves.

[14]

  So how much taxpayer dollars will this shift save? None. The 2012 budget requests an increase of $12 million for horse and burro management in order to facilitate the new plan.

[15]

I’m having a hard time finding where these tax dollars are going to be saved. None of this is an argument against the potential utility of PZP, nor is it intended to deny the severity of the unwanted horse population. To the contrary, PZP appears to be an instrumental step in a positive direction. My point is only that if the President and CEO of the HSUS is going to blog about the tens of millions of taxpayer dollars which will be saved, perhaps Mr. Parcell should give the taxpayers the respect of tweeting some financials supporting that position. (@KJEANRL)

[1]

Environmental Protection Agency Announces First Fertility Control Vaccine Approved for Wild Horses in the United States: Wildlife managers join The Humane Society of the United States in support of action

,

Humane Soc’y U.S.

(Feb. 17, 2012), http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2012/02/EPA_Announces_First_Fertility_Control_Vaccine_for_Wild_Horses.html.

[2]

Id.

[3]

Brittany Wooley,

Horse Overpopulation Addressed b  Locally Produced Wildlife Contraceptive Vaccine

,

Q2 KTVQ.com

(Feb. 16, 2012, 1:46 PM), http://www.kpax.com/news/mt-company-helping-with-horse-over-population/.

[4]

Environmental Protection Agency Announces First Fertility Control Vaccine Approved for Wild Horses in the United States: Wildlife managers join The Humane Society of the United States in support of action

,

Humane Soc’y U.S.

(Feb. 17, 2012), http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2012/02/EPA_Announces_First_Fertility_Control_Vaccine_for_Wild_Horses.html.

[5]

EPA Approves New Horse Contraceptive

Vaccine,

GreatFallsTribune.com

(Feb. 17, 2012, 10:00 PM),  http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20120218/NEWS01/202180310/EPA-approves-new-horse-contraceptive-vaccine.

[6]

Wayne Parcell,

Humane Population Management – For Horses and Other Mammals

,

Wayne Parcelle: A Humane Nation

(Feb. 17, 2012, 10:50 AM)

, 

http://hsus.typepad.com/.

[7]

Frequently Asked Questions on IMMUNOCONTRACEPTION

,

Wildlife Fertility Control: The Cutting Edge of Science,

http://www.pzpinfo.org/pzp_faqs.html (last modified Sept. 14, 2006).

[8]

Dorinda Troutman,

PZP – Equine Contraceptive,

Rocky Mountain Rider Magazine,

http://www.rockymountainrider.com/articles/pdfs/0508%20PZP%20Equine%20Birth%20Control.pdf (last visited Feb 29, 2012).

[9]

EPA Approves New Horse Contraceptive

Vaccine,

GreatFallsTribune.com

(Feb. 17, 2012, 10:00 PM),  http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20120218/NEWS01/202180310/EPA-approves-new-horse-contraceptive-vaccine.

[10]

Id.

[11]

Id.

; Dorinda Troutman,

PZP – Equine Contraceptive,

Rocky Mountain Rider Magazine,

http://www.rockymountainrider.com/articles/pdfs/0508%20PZP%20Equine%20Birth%20Control.pdf (last visited Feb 29, 2012).

[12]

16 U.S.C.A. § 1331 et seq. (West 2012).

[13]

Bureau Highlights

,

Bureau of Land Management,

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Communications_Directorate/public_affairs/news_release_attachments.Par.11093.File.dat/BLM_fy2012_budget_in_brief.pdf (last accessed Feb. 29, 2012).

[14]

Id.

[15]

Id. 

Contractual Relationships Between Agricultural Growers and Commodity Buyers

By: Robert Proudfoot, Staff Member

On February 8, 2012, Diamond Foods released the results of its Audit Committee Investigation Findings regarding the accounting of crop payments to walnut growers and it found: 1) the payments were accounted for in the wrong fiscal accounting periods by $20 million in 2010 and $60 million in 2011, and 2) internal control over financial reporting had material weaknesses.

[1]

  As a result of the internal audit findings, CEO Michael J. Mendes and CFO Steven M. Neil were placed on administrative leave

[2]

, Procter & Gamble called off its $2.35 billion sale of Pringles

[3]

to Diamond Foods, and Diamond shares are trading around $24 a share, off from September 2011 highs of $90.  So, what went wrong?  In nutshell, Diamond Foods and their walnut growers had a vague contract that did not 1) have a proper escalation clause of higher market prices, 2) explicitly state when payments would be made and how they would be accounted for, and 3) adequately prepare both parties for being adverse parties with adverse interests after being a collective cooperative for  almost 100 years.

Diamond Foods was founded in 1912 as a walnut cooperative to market and sell walnuts collectively and voted to convert to a for-profit company and go public in 2005.

[4]

 While many growers opted to partake in the IPO by signing long-term contracts to sell exclusively to Diamond Foods

[5]

, some immediately started voicing concerns about inherent adverse interests presented between a for-profit company and its commodity suppliers (i.e. the company wants the lowest price possible to increase earnings whereas the growers desire the highest price for their crop).

[6]

 While growers did receive stock in the newly converted for-profit company with potential for capital gain and dividend income, this did not completely offset the adversity of the parties.

[7]

  The long-term walnut agreement signed by growers as a condition for receiving shares

[8]

in Diamond Foods was summarized in its 2011 Annual Report:

[Diamond Foods] have entered into long-term Walnut Purchase Agreements with growers, under which they deliver their entire walnut crop to us during the Fall harvest season and we determine the minimum price for this inventory by March 31, or later, of the following calendar year. The final price is determined no later than the end of the Company’s fiscal year. This purchase price will be a price determined by us in good faith, taking into account market conditions, crop size, quality, and nut varieties, among other relevant factors. Since the ultimate price to be paid will be determined subsequent to receiving the walnut crop, we must make an estimate of price for interim financial statements. Those estimates may subsequently change and the effect of the change could be significant.

[9]

Under this contract, Diamond Foods received the walnut crop in the fall, made its first payment in March the following year and a final make-up payment, as determined by Diamond Foods, almost a full year after the growers tendered their goods.   Frustrated from their unequal bargaining power and years of payments below market price, the growers unsuccessfully attempted to form a class action to sue for breach of contract, claiming the contract was one of adhesion and unconscionable.

[10]

  California state law requires that all nut sales be in writing and state the full purchase price,

[11]

unless both parties agree to waive this requirement, as were the case with walnut growers having long-term grower contracts with Diamond Foods.

[12]

  This ambiguity in contract price led to grower discontent when walnut prices skyrocketed from increased demand.

[13]

  The ambiguity also allowed Diamond Foods to temporarily exploit the uncertainness of payment terms to manipulate the payments’ accounting by pushing their reporting to next fiscal year to improve annual earnings.

[14]

The recent implosion of Diamond Foods once again demonstrates the importance of strong, clear contracts between agricultural growers and commodity buyers—especially for converted cooperatives that are now publicly traded for-profit companies.

[1]

Diamond Foods Announces Audit Committee Investigation Findings

,

Diamond Foods

(Feb. 8, 2012), http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=189398&p=RssLanding&cat=news&id=1658627.

[2]

Diamond Foods,

supra

note 1.

[3]

Diamond Foods Issues Statement Regarding Ter

mination of Pringles Transaction

,

Diamond Foods

(Feb. 15, 2012), http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=189398&p=RssLanding&cat=news&id=1661222.

[4]

Shermain D. Hardesty,

The Conversion of Diamond Walnut Growers

, 23

Journal of Cooperatives

40, 40-41 (2009),

available at

http://purl.umn.edu/56901.

[5]

Shermain D. Hardesty,

The Bottom Line on the Conversion of Diamond Walnut Growers

, 8

Agric. and Res. Econ. Update

(Univ. of Cal. Giannini Foundation), no. 4, at 1, 11 (2005)

available at

http://sfp.ucdavis.edu/cooperatives/reports/giannini_diamond.pdf.

[6]

Holman W. Jenkins,

Accounting for Nuts: Blame a misalignment of incentives for the scandal at Diamond Foods

,

Wall Street Journal

(Feb. 10, 2012), http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203824904577214853918682554.html.

[7]

Hardesty,

supra

note 4, at 50-51.

[8]

Hardesty,

supra

note 4, at 44.

[9]

Diamond Foods 2010 Annual Report

,

Diamond Foods

, at 18 (Sept. 15, 2011), http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1320947/000119312511249300/d232533d10k.htm.

[10]

Walnut Producers of California v. Diamond Foods, Inc, 114 Cal.Rptr.3d 449, 454 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010).

[11]

Cal. Agric. Code § 62801 (West 1983)

[12]

Walnut Producers of California

, 114 Cal. Rptr.3d at 462-63.

[13]

John Jannarone, Hidden Flaw in P&G’s Diamond Deal, Wall Street Journal (Sept. 27, 2011), http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204831304576595000985103090.html.

[14]

 Jenkins,

supra

note 6.

E-Waste: Damaging to the Environment and Earth’s Natural Resources - Advocating for E-Waste Producer Responsibility Legislation

By: Breck Norment, Staff Member

Electronics manufacturers continue to make impressive strides in the development of technology.

[1]

  Light-weight and thin flat screen television models have begun to completely replace the traditional and obsolete “tube-style” television.  Cell phone companies indirectly encourage consumers to buy new cell phones through incentives such as upgrades in return for continued loyalty with a particular carrier.   

Consumers focus their attention on acquiring these new electronics, but likely spend little time considering how to properly dispose of their old equipment.

Thus, a new environmental and natural resource problem is spawned:

Electronic waste, or E-Waste.

[2]

Used consumer electronics are overcrowding landfills and “represent the fastest growing segment of local solid waste in our country.”

[3]

Foreign countries without the capacity to safely handle the problem also bear the burden as they receive tons of used electronic waste from the United States.

[4]

Electronic waste is not only harmful to the environment, but is also a waste of “valuable materials, such as precious metals and rare earth minerals, which can be recycled.”

[5]

For example, “for every one million cell phones recycled, 75 pounds of gold, 772 pounds of silver, 33 pounds of palladium, and more than 35,000 pounds of copper can be recovered.”

[6]

These statistics and the sheer amount of used electronic waste in landfills leads to the need to recycle the valuable natural resources found in these discarded products.

“Recycling these components conserves materials, prevents air and water pollution, and reduces greenhouse gas emissions that occur during extraction, manufacturing and processing.”

[7]

The federal government has not yet mandated that E-Waste be recycled, despite several attempts to pass a federal law.

[8]

At least 65 percent of the states, however, have either already passed E-Waste legislation or have at least considered such legislation in 2011.

[9]

Perhaps the most logical approach has been taken by almost all of the states:

requiring manufacturers to foot the bill for recycling the electronics (the Producer Responsibility Approach).

[10]

Although a federal law is not on the books yet, the Responsible Electronics Recycling Act of 2011 “has been introduced in both the House and Senate.”

[11]

The states without current E-Waste laws should strive to pass such legislation, and the federal government should continue to work at establishing nationwide standards that will increase the recycling and conservation of these valuable materials found in used electronics while decreasing the harmful effects that used electronics have on the environment and our health.

[12]

[1]

California Department of Toxic Substances Control,

Electronic Hazardous Waste (E-Waste)

, 2007, http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/hazardouswaste/ewaste/.

[2]

Environment News Service,

Obama’s New E-Waste Task Force Spurs Recovery of Metals, Minerals

, Nov. 16, 2010, http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2010/2010-11-16-092.html.

[3]

Id

.

[4]

Id

.

[5]

Id.

[6]

Id.

[7]

Id.

[8]

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Wastes – Resource Conservation – Common Wastes & Materials – eCycling

,

Nov. 2, 2011,

http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/ecycling/rules.htm

.

[9]

Electronics Take Back Coalition,

States are Passing E-Waste Legislation

,

http://www.electronicstakeback.com/promote-good-laws/state-legislation/

.

[10]

Id.

[11]

Olga Khazan,

Boosted by regulations, a small business opens its own lobby shop

,

The Washington Post

, Feb. 13, 2012,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/on-small-business/boosted-by-regulations-a-small-business-opens-its-own-lobby-shop/2012/02/09/gIQAxoaR2Q_story.html

.

[12]

See

fn. 2,

supra.

High Gas Prices: Desperate Times, but No Call for Desperate Measures

By: Collier Marsh, Staff Member

Americans have been getting used to high gas prices for a while.  Despite taking significant strides to decrease dependence on foreign oil, in the last few weeks Americans again are watching gas prices rise.

[1]

  Experts say that record oil prices may drive the price of gas to five dollars per gallon this summer.

[2]

  So today, we find ourselves asking, what else we can do to slow the rise in gas prices and reduce the strain on our economy?

Meanwhile, in the far northwest of the United States, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) has announced a significant discovery.  On February 24, 2012, the USGS announced estimates of the “technically recoverable” onshore oil and gas resources contained in the shale of Alaska’s North Slope.

[3]

  These estimates indicate that there are as much as two billion barrels of oil and up to 80 trillion cubic feet of gas within North Slope shales.

[4]

  There have not been any attempts to produce oil or gas from the shale of the North Slope due to economic and infrastructure considerations.

[5]

  But other shales of the Untied States have been drilled for oil and gas and have been the subject of significant controversy.

[6]

  Hydraulic Fracturing is a common method to remove natural gas from shale, and opponents complain of significant health effects due to water contamination and air pollution, noise pollution and harm to nearby wildlife.

[7]

  Concerned citizens and organizations have responded through litigation and local governments have established laws and ordinances to restrict the use of these techniques.

[8]

  The issues that have surrounded the drilling of shale in other areas of the United States are arguably inapplicable to the shale in the North Slope.  The North Slope is remote with no significant human population that would be threatened by the potential negative effects of oil and gas production.

Despite the differences, we should not rush to drill in the North Slope.  Gas prices are rising today due to fears that Iran may disrupt the supply of oil

[9]

and speculators have responded by buying up oil reserves and driving the price up.

[10]

  As always, the speculation will subside and questions will be answered.  We should not rush to harvest our untapped resources without completing our due diligence.  As President Obama has noted, “there are no quick fixes to this problem … we can't just drill our way to lower gas prices.”

[11]

In the meantime, we should be confident that the steps we have taken will be sufficient.  As the president also stated, “we've got to have a sustained 'all of the above' strategy that develops every available source of American energy … oil and gas, but also wind and solar and nuclear and biofuels and more.”

[12]

  We will see more spikes in gas prices in the future, but they will subside over time, while damage to our environment will last much longer.  So let’s not rush to develop this new source of fuel until we are ready to do it the right way.  

[1]

Eamon Javers,

What can US do to halt rising gas

prices? Not much

, CNBC (Feb. 27, 2012, 1:40 PM),

http://www.cnbc.com/id/46542758

,

[2]

Id.

Dave Duncan,

Surviving High Gas Prices

,

Wall Street Journal Blogs

(Feb. 27, 2012, 10:54 AM),

http://blogs.wsj.com/wsjam/2012/02/27/surviving-high-gas-prices/

[3]

USGS Releases First Shale-Oil and Shale-Gas Resource Potential Assessment for the Alaska North Slope, US D

epartment of the Interior (

Feb. 24, 2012), available at

http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/USGS-Releases-First-Shale-Oil-and-Shale-Gas-Resource-Potential-Assessment-for-the-Alaska-North-Slope.cfm

[4]

Id.

[5]

Id.

[6]

See,

John Rawlins, Marcellus Shale: Feuding over fracking

,

ABC 6 Action News (Aug. 6, 2010)

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/special_reports&id=7596610

,

See also,

John Marchese,

Fracking with Pennsylvania: The Marcellus Shale Debate

,

Philadelphia magazine, (

Jun. 2011)

http://www.phillymag.com/articles/fracking_with_pennsylvania_the_marcellus_shale_debate/

[7]

PEHSU Information on Natural Gas Extraction and Hydraulic Fracturing for Health Professionals,

Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty units,

(Aug 2011), available at

http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/250048-pehsu-information-concerning-effects-on-children

[8]

See

,

Ohio AG Wants Tougher Fracking Laws,

Ohio News Network

(Feb. 9. 2012, 8;09 AM),

http://www.onntv.com/content/stories/2012/02/09/story-mike-dewine-fracking.html

Eric Niller,

Small Town Gets Court to Ban Fracking

,

Discovery News

(Feb. 24, 2012, 8:26 AM), news.discovery.com/earth/dryden-ny-fracking-122402.html#mkcpgn=rssnws1

Dan Wiessner,

New York fracking lawsuit could set drilling precedent

,

Reuters (

Sept

. 9, 2011,  7:04

PM),

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/19/newyork-fracking-suit-idUSS1E78D29G20110919

[9]

Dave Duncan,

Surviving High Gas Prices

,

Wall Street Journal Blogs

(Feb. 27, 2012, 10:54 AM),

http://blogs.wsj.com/wsjam/2012/02/27/surviving-high-gas-prices/

[10]

Eamon Javers,

What can US do to halt rising gas prices? Not m

uch

, CNBC (Feb. 27, 2012, 1:40 PM),

http://www.cnbc.com/id/46542758

,

[11]

Id.

[12]

Id.

“Rules to Live By III”: How the third phase of MSHA’s initiative seeks to save lives

By: Alison Marcotte, Staff Member 

On January 31, 2012, Joseph A. Main, the Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor's Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), introduced the third phase of an outreach and enforcement initiative intended to prevent fatalities in the mining industry.

[1]

  This phase of the program is named “Rules to Live By III: Preventing Common Mining Deaths.”

[2]

As its name suggests, Rules to Live By III focuses on why mining accidents happen and provides measures to miners and mine operators as to how to prevent them from reoccurring in the future.  In the press release issued by MSHA describing the initiative, Main stated the purpose in more detail, "[t]he goal of this phase of 'Rules to Live By' is to reduce numbers of deaths and injuries from the targeted standards by having mine operators identify and correct all hazardous conditions, direct MSHA enforcement toward confirming that violations related to these conditions are not present at mines, and ensure miners are better trained to recognize and avoid these particular hazards.”

[3]

The initiative achieves this goal through its concentration on 14 safety standards that were chosen because violations related to each have been cited as contributing to at least five mining accidents and at least five deaths during the 10-year period of Jan. 1, 2001, to Dec. 31, 2010.

[4]

Among the 14 standards chosen are on-shift examinations, equipment maintenance, inspections of surface coal mines, correction of hazardous conditions, and operations of haulage equipment.

[5]

  Along with mandating these standards, MSHA is using this phase to reach out to miners and miners' representatives during inspections to ensure that mine operators have the information they need to perform these standards and eliminate workplace hazards.

[6]

Beginning April 1, 2012, MSHA will increase the frequency of inspections for violations of the standards listed above and direct mine inspectors to carefully evaluate gravity and negligence when assessing violations of the 14 standards that may cause or contribute to mining fatalities.  Also, any violations of the targeted standards will be more likely to result in special assessments and punishment.

[7]

[1]

Mine Safety and Health Association,

MSHA begins 3rd phase of 'Rules to Live By' outreach and enforcement initiative Fatality prevention program to focus on 14 safety standards

,

United States Department of Labor

(Jan. 31, 2012) http://www.msha.gov/MEDIA/PRESS/2012/NR120131.asp

[2]

Id.

[3]

Id.

[4]

Mine Safety and Health Association,

Fatality Prevention: Rules to Live By

,

United States Department of Labor

, http://www.msha.gov/focuson/rulestoliveby.asp

[5]

Benjamin M. McFarland,

MSHA Announces Third Phase Of Its “Rules To Live By” Initiative

,

Occupational Safety and Health: News

Alert (Feb. 6, 2012)

 http://safety-health.jacksonkelly.com/2012/02/msha-announces-third-phase-of-its-rules-to-live-by-initiative.html

[6]

Mine Safety and Health Association,

supra

note

4.

[7]

McFarland,

supra

note 5.

On Thin Ice: Effects of a Historically Warm Winter on Ice Fishing

By: Neal Manor, Staff Member 

Generations of young children in the northern United States are familiar with two caveats related to walking over or skating on frozen lakes in the winter: “Thick and blue, tried and true – thin and crispy, way too risky” and “when in doubt, don’t go out.”

Climate change has brought the concerns inherent in these warnings more squarely into the consciousness of those who engage in the long-held tradition of ice fishing.  Although ice fishing is not nearly as vital for harvesting biotic natural resources such as fish as other methods, it represents a “

social activity that binds the community and gives the elders and young people the rare opportunity during the year to harvest traditional foods.”

[1]

December 2011 and January 2012 temperatures in the contiguous United States were almost four degrees above average.

[2]

These warmer average temperatures have been centered in the Midwest and Great Plains.

[3]

  Minnesota, for example, had its warmest December and January since officials began keeping records in 1896, as temperatures in that state have been more than 10 degrees above average.

[4]

These warmer temperatures have put a chill on ice fishing in places where it is an important tradition for harvesting biotic natural resources such as trout, herring, and whitefish.  Last year, Minnesota’s second largest ice fishing tournament came and went without a single fish being caught.

[5]

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources claimed that Lake Agnes was well-stocked and that there was sufficient oxygen in the water.

[6]

Officials at the tournament blamed the warm temperatures for sending over 2,000 anglers home empty-handed.  Not only are the fish not biting, but law enforcement officials have taken necessary precautions to cut down on ice fishing.  Sheriff Rick Stanek banned all driving of large vehicles (cars, trucks, and SUVs) on Hennepin County, Minnesota lakes on February 9, 2012.

[7]

The warm temperatures are causing decreased ice thickness and formation later in the season.  As a result, several mishaps have occurred which necessitated actions along the lines of those taken by Sheriff Stanek.  People or vehicles have fallen through the ice eight times on Hennepin County lakes.

[8]

  On February 8, 2012, in De Pere, WI, eight fishermen were stranded when the 100-foot chunk of ice they were fishing on broke off and floated into the Fox River near Green Bay.

[9]

  Firefighters in a rubber boat had to rescue the fishermen.

[10]

The warm temperatures and incidents where fishermen and women have fallen through the ice have caused the untimely demise of the ice fishing season in the Midwest and Great Plains. Winter anglers in Hennepin County now face a March 5

th

deadline to remove their ice houses.

[11]

  The distinct possibility of additional accidents has forced the cancellation of numerous ice fishing competitions, derbies, and demonstrations from Montana to Iowa.

[12]

  Such cancellations and limitations represent less publicized consequences of climate change and signal that warming trends endanger the important tradition of ice fishing.      

[1]

Mary Beth West,

Arctic Warming: Environmental, Human, and Security Implications

,

42 Vand. J. Transnat'l L. 1081, 1096

(2009).

[2]

Monica Davey,

The Warmth of Winter is Casting a Chill on Ice Fishing

,

The New York Times

(Feb. 18, 2012), http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/us/warm-winter-is-casting-a-chill-on-ice-fishing.html?_r=1&hpw.

[3]

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

January 2012 the fourth warmest for the contiguous United States,

http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/jan_stats.html (last visited Feb. 19, 2012).

[4]

Id.

[5]

No Fish Caught at MN’s 2nd Largest Ice Fishing Tournament,

CBS Minnesota

(Feb. 15, 2011) http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2011/02/15/no-fish-minnesotas-2nd-largest-ice-fishing-tournament-alexandria-minnesota/.

[6]

Id.

[7]

People heeding Hennepin County ban on driving on

ice,

Minneapolis Star Tribune

(Feb. 18, 2012), http://www.startribune.com/local/west/139588663.html.

[8]

Id.

[9]

Davey,

supra

note 2.

[10]

Id.

[11]

People heeding Hennepin County ban on driving on

ice,

Minneapolis Star Tribune

(Feb. 18, 2012), http://www.startribune.com/local/west/139588663.html.

[12]

Davey,

supra

note 2.

Federal budget cuts place key USDA programs at-risk

By: Colby Khoshreza, Staff Member 

President Barack Obama’s recent budget proposal to Congress includes a variety of cuts to federal programs including substantial reductions to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).  The reductions include a $3 billion decrease in the USDA budget in fiscal year 2012, thus bringing total spending to approximately $145 billion.

[1]

  The changes are likely to have a significant impact on farmers and consumers as the proposed budget calls for ending direct payments to major growers regardless of commodity prices, eliminates bacteria testing of produce and decreases funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

[2]

Under the proposed budget, farmer aid would briefly rise before facing a long-term reduction as a result of Washington budget woes and increased farm profits.

[3]

  The cuts would end direct payments paid to growers of major crops regardless of commodity prices saving $22.7 billion through 2022.

[4]

  While these cuts could have long-term impact on the survival of farms, especially small and family-owned farms, the cuts are offset by record farms profits in 2011, thus lowering the need for crop subsidies.

[5]

Consumers could be impacted by the proposed budget’s decision to eliminate the agency’s only program that regularly tests fruits and vegetables for deadly pathogens.

[6]

  According to the White House, the decision to eliminate the $5 million per year program was made after “the USDA determined it had a limited impact.”

[7]

  As a result, consumers may be left without adequate protection as public health officials will have fewer tools to investigate deadly food borne illness outbreaks.  While the USDA has argued that state and local officials are better equipped to perform this function, lack of funding at the local level continues to be a problem in maintaining food safety programs.

[8]

Another major program that will face small decreases as a result of the proposed budget is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

[9]

  The SNAP budget, typically recognized as the food stamp program, would decrease by nearly 1% in 2013, a reduction that occurs at a time when one out of six people are receiving assistance.

[10]

  SNAP is the USDA’s largest budgetary item and compromises $87.5 billion per year of the agency’s budget.  While the decrease comes at a time when a large number of Americans depend on the assistance, the USDA predicts that as the economy continues to improve fewer individuals will rely on the program.

[11]

Washington budget cuts appear to result in a large impact on the overall operation of the United States Department of Agriculture.  From food stamps to food inspection and farmer aid, the agency’s various programs all seem to be evolving and decreasing in funding and impact.  While local and state government is often expected to fill the voids left by USDA cuts, this often does not occur as municipal governments are facing budget woes of their own.  The next couple of years will be crucial in examining the impact, if any, that these financial changes will have on food safety and farm stability.    

[1]

Daniel Looker,

Obama’s USDA Budget to Shrink $3 billion in 2012,

(Feb. 14, 2012),

http://www.agriculture.com/news/policy/obamas-usda-budget-to-shrink-3-billion_4-ar14688

. 

[2]

Alan Bjerga,

USDA Budget Would Rise 2.5% Before Subsidy Cuts Would Begin,

BUSINESS WEEK (Feb. 16, 2012),

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-16/usda-budget-would-rise-2-5-before-subsidy-cuts-begin.html

.

[3]

Id. 

[4]

Id. 

[5]

Id.

[6]

Budget cuts could eliminate bacterial testing of produce,

CHRON ONLINE (Feb. 16, 2012),

http://www.chron.com/news/nation-world/article/Budget-cuts-could-eliminate-bacteria-testing-of-3337342.php

.

[7]

Id.

[8]

Id.

[9]

Alan Bjerga,

USDA Budget Would Rise 2.5% Before Subsidy Cuts Would Begin,

BUSINESS WEEK (Feb. 16, 2012),

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-16/usda-budget-would-rise-2-5-before-subsidy-cuts-begin.html

.

[10]

Id.

[11]

Id.