A Bit Of Praise For A Texas (And American) Hero

The man pictured at left is Kenneth Kendrick. He is a personal hero of mine, and I hope, also a friend. So I was very pleased to read the post below, praising him for his courage in exposing a dangerous situation in our food supply. It was written by Darin Detwiler at Food Safety News.

Kenneth Kendrick, missing Monday from the federal courthouse in Albany, GA, did not hear the praise that came from a witness during a pivotal day in the world of food safety.

Kendrick is a former assistant plant manager of the Plainview, Texas, peanut processing facility once owned by the now-defunct Peanut Corporation of America (PCA). On Sept. 21, 2015, his past bosses and supervisors — Stewart Parnell, former owner of PCA, Michael Parnell, former peanut broker, and Mary Wilkerson, former quality assurance manager — sat for sentencing in the same courthouse in which their federal trial was conducted a year earlier.

At the heart of this trial and sentencing sits the 2008-09 Salmonella outbreak, considered one of the most significant in U.S. history. The CDC report on this multistate outbreak identifies 714 clinically confirmed illnesses across 46 states and nine deaths. Later estimates from the CDC place the number of potential victims not reporting an illness at more than 22,000.

Their attempts to hide evidence and obstruct justice delayed investigators from finding the true source of the contamination and bringing an end to the outbreak sooner.

Unbeknownst to investigators, PCA also had a peanut processing plant in Plainview, Texas, where Kendrick worked for several months in 2006. Back then, Kendrick observed numerous problems in the Texas plant, including rat infestations, bird nests, and a roof leak — all of which triggered his concern for feces in the product. According to Kendrick, “particularly with water leaking off a roof, bird feces can wash in and drip onto the peanuts.”

After only a few months on the job, Kendrick chose to leave his position with PCA because, as he stated, “I knew it was a train wreck and something unethical and bad was about to happen.”

“When I was working there, [PCA had] nothing that resembled a quality assurance program,” Kendrick said. “I came from a lab testing background in the meat industry. I thought there would be regular testing, like in the meat industry… .”

Years later, when Kendrick learned that the widespread Salmonella outbreak in 2008-09 had been traced back to PCA’s Georgia plant, he spent “hundreds of hours” trying to contact the media and federal food or health agencies to alert them to the numerous violations he witnessed in PCA’s plant in Plainview. Attempt after attempt failed to result in a reply from anyone. Kendrick sent anonymous emails and letters to the Texas Department of Health and to companies that purchased products from his plant, but he never received a response from them.

The only response he received was from the Chicago office of STOP Foodborne Illness, the leading national non-profit organization dedicated to the prevention of illness and death from foodborne pathogens. STOP convinced FDA officials to meet with Kendrick in January 2009.

The staff at STOP Foodborne Illness also connected Kendrick with Gardiner Harris, a reporter at The New York Times. Harris’ article, “After Tests, Peanut Plant in Texas Is Closed,” appeared in the Feb. 11, 2009, Health and Policy section of the paper.

After that article appeared, STOP Foodborne Illness connected Kendrick with a producer from ABC’s “Good Morning America” show.

During a Feb. 16, 2009, exclusive interview with the show, Kendrick discussed how his granddaughter became ill with Salmonella-like symptoms for three weeks in December, a time when she only wanted to eat peanut butter crackers.

“So I kept giving her the crackers and she kept getting sicker,” Kendrick said. “I’ve had a lot of sleepless nights over that, a lot of crying over that issue.” He then went on to describe in shocking detail the conditions he observed at the PCA plant in Texas.

After his interviews, investigators shifted their focus to the plant where Kendrick once worked. Texas officials had no idea that the Plainview facility even existed. Stewart Parnell had not registered his Texas peanut facility as a food processing plant with the state.

As a result of Kendrick’s whistleblowing, federal authorities and the Texas Department of Health investigated the Plainview plant as another source of the outbreak. His information helped prove that peanut products were being shipped between PCA facilities in different states — contrary to what Parnell had told the public and investigators throughout the outbreak.

In 2013, the U.S. Department of Justice indicted Parnell, his brother, and three other executives involved in the attempts to conceal problems at PCA on charges of fraud, wire fraud, obstruction of justice, and more than 70 other charges.

At the end of their 2014 trial, a 12-member jury found Stewart Parnell guilty on 67 federal felony counts, Michael Parnell guilty on 30 counts, and Wilkerson guilty on one of two counts of obstruction of justice.

The 2015 sentencing of the five convicted food industry executives included the testimonies of victims and families affected by PCA and the outbreak of Salmonella tied to the company. Jeff Almer, who lost his mother during the outbreak, named each guilty executive and had a word or two for them. He asked Wilkerson about her definition of quality assurance. He even stared at Stewart Parnell and said, “You killed my mom.”

Before ending his testimony, Almer stated before the court his appreciation for the efforts of Kenneth Kendrick in helping to make sure that the investigation, as well as the subsequent trial and sentencing, became possible.

On Monday, Sept. 21, 2015, the judge handed Stewart Parnell a sentence of 28 years in prison, Michael Parnell 20 years, and Mary Wilkerson 5 years. Former PCA managers Daniel Kilgore and Samuel Lightsey, who pleaded guilty under agreements with federal prosecutors, are scheduled to receive their sentences on Oct. 1, 2015.

Are Genetically-Modified Foods Bad ?

(The cartoon image above is by Peter Schrank, and appeared in The Economist on 2/25/2010.)

I'm probably going to make some of my liberal friends mad with this post. But my purpose in writing this blog is not to placate anyone, but to tell the truth as I see it.

There is a debate raging in this country (and the world) right now over genetically-modified foods (commonly called GMO's). Corporate entities like Monsanto say the GMO's are safe and want to rush them to the market, while many on the left say they are inherently unsafe and should be banned. I have always suspected that the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

Humans have been genetically-modifying foods since the invention of farming many centuries ago. Almost all of the foods we eat today have been modified. For instance, the original wheat plant had a very tiny head of grain and the original tomato was about the size of a thumbnail. Both were modified through genetic cross-breeding of the plants to produce the vegetables we enjoy today.

The difference is that in the past this genetic-modification took a long time through the process of cross-breeding to achieve the desirable result, while today it is done much faster through gene-splicing in a laboratory. Does that mean the new way is unsafe? Not necessarily.

One of the best things I have read on this issue comes from the writer of a blog called Saul of Hearts. The writer identifies himself this way:

I'm a crazy hippie.  I go to Burning Man every year.  I teach yoga.  I live in a co-op.  For the past two years I've been delivering organic vegetables for a local delivery service.  I've been eating vegetarian for years, and vegan for the past four months.

I'm also fascinated by genetics.  I read every book that comes my way on evolutionary theory, population genetics, and mapping the genome.  I took several classes on the subject at the University of Pennsylvania.  All told, I have a pretty solid understanding of how genes work.

The writer has written an excellent post on this subject, and I urge you to go over and read the entire post. I am reprinting here only a part of that post that I consider especially important -- a discussion of 3 common myths being circulated about GMO's. Here is what was written about these myths:

1. GMOs create more "unnatural" mutations than traditional breeding methods.

    Genetic manipulation is nothing new.  Humans have been breeding plants and animals for thousands of years.  Many of our staple crops (wheat, corn, soy), would not exist without human intervention.  The same goes for domesticated farm species.

    Whether we're using genetic modification or selective breeding, we're playing God either way.  But some people seem to think that selective breeding is "safer" -- that it allows less opportunity for damaging mutations than genetic engineering does.  This couldn't be more wrong.

    The entire process of evolution is dependent upon mutation.  UV radiation changes the structure of the DNA code in each individual organism.  Most of these mutations aren't beneficial.  Some leave out necessary proteins.  Others add useless information.  And yet, a percentage of these "errors" are helpful enough that they're passed along to future generations and become the new normal.

    If there's any danger with genetic engineering, it's that we can be too precise in our manipulation.  We can ensure that each new generation of seeds contains the exact same DNA sequence, double-checked for errors and mutations eliminated.  The "unnatural" process actually produces less mutations, not more.

2. GMOs contain animal DNA that has been "spliced" into plants.

    One of the most enduring myths about genetic engineering concerns a GM tomato which, as legend would have it, contained flounder genes spliced into tomato DNA.  While it's true that Calgene experimented with a freeze-resistant tomato, they used a "synthesized ... antifreeze gene based on the winter flounder gene" -- not a cut-and-pasted copy of the gene itself.

    Those freeze-resistant tomatoes never made it to market, but a different version called the Flavr Savr did.  Tomatoes contain a protein called polygalacturonase (PG), which breaks down the pectin in the cell walls, causing the tomato to soften as it ripens.  To create a tomato that would ripen more slowly, Calgene took the gene that encodes for the PG protein and reversed it.  This backwards strand of DNA, known as an "antisense" gene, binds to the forward-running strand and cancels it out.  Without PG, the pectin (and therefore the tomato) breaks down more slowly.  The simplicity of the process is remarkable.  No toxic chemicals, no mysterious bits of DNA.  Just a simple tweak of the tomato's own genetic code.

    But hold on a minute.  What if they had used a gene from a fish in creating this tomato?  Would the tomato taste fishy?  Would you have to watch out for fish bones in your pasta sauce?  Not unless you've added anchovies.

    Genes are basically bits of computer code that are interchangeable from species to species.  When you isolate a tiny bit of gene, it doesn't retain the essence of whichever species it came from.  You might have a bit of DNA that says simply, "Grow appendage X on the abdomen," but doesn't specify what kind of appendage.  If you put that code into a fly, it activates the part of DNA that grows a wing.  Put that same code into a mouse and it grows a foreleg.  It doesn't make the mouse any more like a fly.

3. GMO's are radioactive, cause cancer, and are bad for the environment.

    This is a trickier question to answer, and I'll be the first to admit that we need more research into the health effects of GM products.  But I'm going to bet that the answer turns out to be something like this: some GMOs are safe, and others are not.  Lumping all GMOs into the same category is like lumping all fertilizers or all pesticides into the same category.  Genetic changes are only as dangerous as the proteins they encode for -- just as in any plant.  Consider how many "natural" plants have genes that produce poisons and toxins. 

    In the case of the Flavr Savr tomato, I wouldn't be too worried.  It simply blocks a protein that the tomato itself produces.  In the case of herbicide-resistant soybeans, I'd want to know more.  What kind of herbicide is being sprayed on the plants?  Are traces of the herbicide still found in the food when it reaches our plate?

    While I voted for the labeling act that was on the California ballot last year, a simple "contains GMOs" label would be of little use to me.  I want to know what specifically about the organism was modified so I can reach my own conclusions.

I agree with the author of this post. GMO's are not inherently bad -- especially in a world where the population is growing fast. Modifications that make foods more nutritious and more productive are needed. My only concern is that some of these foods may be rushed to the market too fast -- before they have been proven to be safe. We need to find some middle ground -- that will allow modifications that increase yield and nutrition, while insuring safety. 

The government should take a leading role in this effort, but this cannot be done until we get control of the government back. Corporations currently have too much control over our government, and because of that they will automatically come down on the side of corporations. This is just one more area where corporate control of government is not in the best interest of the citizens. The issue of GMO's is not unsolvable, but it cannot be solved until we wrest back control of our government from the corporations.

The Coming Food Crisis

(The picture above is from Quierosaber's Blog.)

I found the following article at the Zero Energy Construction blog. It concerns the coming food crises that will happen if we (and other countries) don't change many of our greed-based policies -- and change them fast. It was written by Lester R Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute. I am re-posting it here because I think it is something that everyone should read and think about. Here is what Mr. Brown has to say:


In the early spring of 2012, U.S. farmers were on their way to planting some 96 million acres in corn, the most in 75 years. A warm early spring got the crop off to a great start. Analysts were predicting the largest corn harvest on record.

The United States is the leading producer and exporter of corn, the world's feedgrain. At home, corn accounts for four-fifths of the U.S. grain harvest. Internationally, the U.S. corn crop exceeds China's rice and wheat harvests combined. Among the big three grains – corn, wheat, and rice – corn is now the leader, with production well above that of wheat and nearly double that of rice.

The corn plant is as sensitive as it is productive. Thirsty and fast-growing, it is vulnerable to both extreme heat and drought. At elevated temperatures, the corn plant, which is normally so productive, goes into thermal shock.

As spring turned into summer, the thermometer began to rise across the Corn Belt. In St. Louis, Missouri, in the southern Corn Belt, the temperature in late June and early July climbed to 100 degrees Fahrenheit or higher 10 days in a row. For the past several weeks, the Corn Belt has been blanketed with dehydrating heat.

Weekly drought maps published by the University of Nebraska show the drought-stricken area spreading across more and more of the country until, by mid-July, it engulfed virtually the entire Corn Belt. Soil moisture readings in the Corn Belt are now among the lowest ever recorded.

While temperature, rainfall, and drought serve as indirect indicators of crop growing conditions, each week the U.S. Department of Agriculture releases a report on the actual state of the corn crop. This year the early reports were promising. On May 21st, 77 percent of the U.S. corn crop was rated as good to excellent. The following week the share of the crop in this category dropped to 72 percent. Over the next eight weeks, it dropped to 26 percent, one of the lowest ratings on record. The other 74 percent is rated very poor to fair. And the crop is still deteriorating.

Over a span of weeks, we have seen how the more extreme weather events that come with climate change can affect food security. Since the beginning of June, corn prices have increased by nearly one half, reaching an all-time high on July 19th.

Although the world was hoping for a good U.S. harvest to replenish dangerously low grain stocks, this is no longer in the cards. World carryover stocks of grain will fall further at the end of this crop year, making the food situation even more precarious. Food prices, already elevated, will follow the price of corn upward, quite possibly to record highs.

Not only is the current food situation deteriorating, but so is the global food system itself. We saw early signs of the unraveling in 2008 following an abrupt doubling of world grain prices. As world food prices climbed, exporting countries began restricting grain exports to keep their domestic food prices down. In response, governments of importing countries panicked. Some of them turned to buying or leasing land in other countries on which to produce food for themselves.

Welcome to the new geopolitics of food scarcity. As food supplies tighten, we are moving into a new food era, one in which it is every country for itself.

The world is in serious trouble on the food front. But there is little evidence that political leaders have yet grasped the magnitude of what is happening. The progress in reducing hunger in recent decades has been reversed. Unless we move quickly to adopt new population, energy, and water policies, the goal of eradicating hunger will remain just that.

Time is running out. The world may be much closer to an unmanageable food shortage – replete with soaring food prices, spreading food unrest, and ultimately political instability– than most people realize.

Willie Says "Occupy The Food System"

The legendary Texas singer, song-writer, and farm-aid activist, Willie Nelson, has spoken out in favor of including America's food system in the fight for economic justice (typified by the Occupy Wall Street movement). It seems that our food system is even more concentrated in the hands of a few giant corporations than our financial sector or other sectors of the economy. Here is Willie's article at Reader Supported News:

            Thanks to the Occupy Wall Street movement, there's a deeper understanding about the power that corporations wield over the great majority of us. It's not just in the financial sector, but in all facets of our lives. The disparity between the top 1 percent and everyone else has been laid bare - there's no more denying that those at the top get their share at the expense of the 99 percent. Lobbyists, loopholes, tax breaks... how can ordinary folks expect a fair shake?

No one knows this better than family farmers, whose struggle to make a living on the land has gotten far more difficult since corporations came to dominate our farm and food system. We saw signs of it when Farm Aid started in 1985, but corporate control of our food system has since exploded.

From seed to plate, our food system is now even more concentrated than our banking system. Most economic sectors have concentration ratios hovering around 40 percent, meaning that the top four firms in the industry control 40 percent of the market. Anything beyond this level is considered "highly concentrated," where experts believe competition is severely threatened and market abuses are likely to occur.

Many key agricultural markets like soybeans and beef exceed the 40 percent threshold, meaning the seeds and inputs that farmers need to grow our crops come from just a handful of companies. Ninety-three percent of soybeans and 80 percent of corn grown in the United States are under the control of just one company. Four companies control up to 90 percent of the global trade in grain. Today, three companies process more than 70 percent of beef in the U.S.; four companies dominate close to 60 percent of the pork and chicken markets.

Our banks were deemed too big to fail, yet our food system's corporations are even bigger. Their power puts our entire food system at stake. Last year the U.S. Departments of Agriculture (USDA) and Justice (DOJ) acknowledged this, hosting a series of workshops that examined corporate concentration in our farm and food system. Despite the hundreds of thousands of comments from farmers and eaters all over the country, a year later the USDA and DOJ have taken no action to address the issue. Recent decisions in Washington make clear that corporate lobbyists have tremendous power to maintain the status quo.

In November, the Obama administration delivered a crushing blow to a crucial rule proposed by the USDA (known as the GIPSA rule), which was meant to level the playing field for independent cattle ranchers. The large meatpackers, who would have lost some of their power, lobbied hard and won to leave the beef market as it is - ruled by corporate giants. In the same month, new school lunch rules proposed by the USDA that would have brought more fresh food to school cafeterias were weakened by Congress. Food processors - the corporations that turn potatoes into French fries and chicken into nuggets - spent $5.6 million to lobby against the new rules and won, with Congress going so far as agreeing to call pizza a vegetable. Both decisions demonstrate that corporate power wins and the health of our markets and our children loses.

Despite all they're up against, family farmers persevere. Each and every day they work to sustain a better alternative - an agricultural system that guarantees farmers a fair living, strengthens our communities, protects our natural resources and delivers good food for all. Nothing is more important than the food we eat and the family farmers who grow it. Corporate control of our food system has led to the loss of millions of family farmers, destruction of our soil, pollution of our water and health epidemics of obesity and diabetes.

We simply can't afford it. Our food system belongs in the hands of many family farmers, not under the control of a handful of corporations.

Was Corn Ethanol A Good Idea ?

Whether they will admit it or not, everyone has known for a few years now that America (and the world) must find an alternative for fossil fuels. One of the biggest uses of fossil fuels is the gasoline that powers our automobiles.

Recently there has been a push to replace much of the gasoline with ethanol derived from corn. The rising price of oil has made ethanol very feasible. In addition, ethanol burns much cleaner and therefore produces less damaging pollution.

It sounded like a great solution. I have to admit, it even sounded good to me. Last year the United States produced 6.5 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol. But in 2007, a new energy bill up the ceiling to 15 billion gallons. It sounded like a win-win situation. Farmers get a new market for corn, and consumers get a cleaner burning fuel.

But there was an aspect that was not considered. What would it do to the food supply? The first person to express doubts was Fidel Castro. Months ago, Castro warned that this would add to world food shortages -- especially in third-world countries. But Castro is not well-liked in this country, so no one listened.

Now it looks like he could have been right. But the effect is not being felt only in third-world countries. Food prices are rising everywhere. The 6.5 billion gallons produced last year did not reduce exports of corn (for food and feed) last year, but it did contribute to rising prices because their was less corn available for bidding on.

Imagine what production of 15 billion gallons will do (and even that is only a fraction of what would be needed if we were serious about replacing gasoline).The more ethanol we produce from corn, the more the price of corn will rise -- both food and feed corn.

When food corn rises in price, it creates more demand for other grains and their price also begins to rise. When feed corn rises in price, it will also drive up the price of meat. As the prices rise, the third-world cannot buy as much and shortages will be larger. The rest of us will feel the rise in prices when we go grocery shopping.

Now this is not the only factor in the rising food prices. Higher energy costs, droughts, and the rising consumption of meat and dairy foods in many places (like China) are also contributing factors. But the production of corn-based ethanol is becoming a major factor.

Maybe it's time to rethink food-based ethanol. While those who came up with the idea didn't take it to its logical conclusion, the marketplace certainly did. If ethanol is to be a real alternative, it must be made from non-food sources.