This presentation was for an environmental organization's planning meeting. It is about the courageous actions by people in and around Bokoshe (pop. 450) where the State of Oklahoma has permitted a fly ash dump to operate illegally for more than seven years. It is a call for immediate action by individuals.  

Earl Hatley tells of a Cherokee prophecy that one day the whites will come to the Cherokee for help because Cherokee have retain the wisdom of ages past. I don’t think the Oklahoma poultry lawsuit is the fulfilment of that prophecy, but it may be time for the whites, or at least the State of Oklahoma, to go to the Cherokee for help.

The National Animal Identification System (NAIS) would have gathered and introduced a huge amount of new data into the food supply chain.  Data is very valuable in any supply chain and would certainly be valuable to food. USDA had the power and resources of the US government and support of multinational corporations that dominate the U.S. meat market. Under these circumstances, getting data into the food supply chain should have been like shooting fish in a barrel.  Instead it was an amazing failure. Why?

Frequently, I hear two types of news related to food. One item reports that agricultural giants are using their market power to further industrialize production of crops and animals. The other item reports that farmers, consumers and small businesses are attempting to build alternative food supply chains because they believe the industrial model is damaging to health, food safety, rural communities, workers and the environment. Are these two parts of our food system on a collision course? Is it necessary that one must win and the other lose?

Oklahoma Department of Agriculture Food and Forestry (ODAFF) announced on June 24, 2009 that it would force youth exhibitors at livestock shows to sign up for a "voluntary" National Animal Identification System (NAIS).  Oklahoma farmers have decided not to "volunteer" for NAIS, so ODAFF has decided to force their children to "volunteer" for them. 

Attorney General Drew Edmondson is running for Governor of Oklahoma.  He is a democrat.  I am a Republican. I support Drew Edmondson for Governor because he is doing more to protect private property rights than any other public official.  

When I was a kid, in the summers, I drove a tractor -- first discing, then plowing, then cultivating about a thousand acres in north central Oklahoma.  Day after day, year after year, there was a lot of time to think.  One thing to think about was a brownish rusty streak on the northern horizon.  It came from a coal burning power plant near Red Rock.  There's no coal in northern Oklahoma. It comes on trains from Wyoming.  Why coal?  It didn't make sense.  Now it does.

If Oklahoma's Attorney General, Drew Edmondson, were a rodeo cowboy you could say that on Monday, October 20, 2008 he drew a real rank bull. Oklahoma along with 12 other states and the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit to block JBS, a Brazilian company, from buying National Beef, Inc. the fourth largest U.S. beef packer.  JBS, the largest meat packer in the world, bought Swift, the number three U.S. packer in 2007. The purchase of National Beef would make JBS the largest U.S. packer, bigger than Tyson and Cargill.  The three companies would control more than 85% of the U.S. beef market, with JBS controling 35%, Tyson 25 - 30% and Cargill 20-25%. In a manner of speaking, Edmondson and the other A.G.'s from cowboy states are attempting to tame the biggest baddest bull on the planet.  In keeping with the courage of lengendary Oklahoma bull riders like Jim Shoulders and Lane Frost, it is time for Drew to cowboy up!

Merlin the magician, legend has it, lodged the sword Excalibur in a stone where it would lie until taken up by the true King of England.  As of August 12, 2008 the United States Department of Justice has laid its hands on its own sword in a stone -- the Packers and Stockyards Act.  If it succeeds in taking up this sword, it will strike a great blow in defense of farmers, ranchers and consumers.

The market has forced Monsanto to abandon Prosilac, a bovine growth hormone used to artificially boost milk production in cows.  First, Monsanto could not convince enough consumers that milk from treated cows was as good as milk from untreated cows. Then, Monsanto could not convince enough governments to outlaw labels that revealed if the milk was from untreated cows. Now, Monsanto has decided sell its division that produces Prosilac. This would have happened long ago, but Monsanto persistently manipulated the market and suppressed information.