Scary... Executive Order 13112 (Yes, on topic) : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

I am sorry if this has been explored before. This could make it illegal for us to keep livestock or grow corn in our backyards! In the not too distant future, we could be violating this executive order by feeding ourselves. Hmmm, if we can't feed ourselves we will be dependent on the government to feed us. Hmmm, I guess they want us to wear a sign that says "will do anything for food". (Baa, Baa, sheeple)

Ooops too quick on the draw. I was going to say that this is terrible in light of the fact so many of us are trying to get more self-sufficient by growing our own food and raising animals for Y2K. Duh to me.

-- Sharon (, May 05, 1999


As long as the government is permitting genetically-modified/altered crops, we probably don't have to worry about this.

-- Old Git (, May 05, 1999.

Sheesh! Magical thinking about EOs strikes again!

Anyone who has actually studied EO 13112 and sincerely believes that it could be used to outlaw keeping livestock or growing corn in their backyards needs a quick refresher course about zoning laws, agriculture, and animal husbandry.

-- No Spam Please (, May 05, 1999.

Old Git,

I hope your right. I believe that hybrids and genetically altered foods could fall into this because of the broad clause of "biological material capable of propagating that species, that is not native to that ecosystem."

No Spam,

Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get me. :-)

-- Sharon (, May 05, 1999.


Is your backyard zoned for agriculture?

-- No Spam Please (, May 05, 1999.

If it comes down to this, I really don't think we'll have to worry about the zoning inspector (unless he's coming to pick up dinner).

-- Lobo (, May 05, 1999.

EO 13112 cannot be used to outlaw backyard cattle, either.

Those who argue that it will are scraping the bottom of the barrel in their desparation to demonize Clinton.

-- No Spam Please (, May 05, 1999.

Read between the lines on this one folks...

"Europe Reviews Ban On BST Hormone Use In Dairy Cattle

By Alex Kirby

BBC News Environment Correspondent Presenter of BBC Radio Four's 'Costing the Earth' 5-4-99

By Alex Kirby BBC News Environment Correspondent Presenter of BBC Radio Four's 'Costing the Earth' 5-4-99

It has an eerie echo of BSE, the initials which now mean mad cow disease. But BST is not an illness. It is a drug.

It is an artificial hormone, a copy of one that occurs in nature. And just as natural bovine somatotropin, to give it its full name, promotes lactation, so artificial BST does the same.

Cows injected with BST produce 10%, sometimes even 15% more milk than they would do otherwise. But there is a downside.

Painful infection

BST causes increased health problems in animals injected with it. They include higher infertility rates, more mastitis - a painful infection of the teat - and a much higher incidence of lameness.

Despite that, the drug has been cleared for use in the United States, where between a quarter and a third of all dairy cows are thought to be injected with it.

Milk from them and from non-BST animals is mixed together haphazardly, and there is no way of knowing whether dairy products in the US - or exported from it - contain BST milk.

Five-year ban

The European Commission imposed a five-year ban on the sale and use of BST in 1994, on what it called socio-economic grounds. That ban is now under review.

Veterinary surgeons in both Britain and Canada say that BST should remain banned to protect animal welfare. The Canadian Government agreed that the drug presented an unacceptable threat to the safety of dairy cows.

But there are also concerns over possible implications for human health. One centres on the increased use of antibiotics to treat the increased disease that BST causes, and the risk that they could find their way to humans.

Cancer link

Another worry is the fact that the milk of cattle injected with BST contains up to five times more of a substance called IGF-1, insulin- like growth factor one, than normal milk.

IGF-1 has been linked with the development of some cancers of the breast, colon and prostate.

Professor Donald Broom, of Cambridge university, is one of a team of senior vets advising Brussels on BST.

He told the BBC that "the IGF-1 increase could possibly lead to a very small increase in the occurrence of some cancers in humans - a very small risk, but a real risk".

Dr David Challacombe, a consultant paediatrician in Somerset, says these higher levels could over a long period help to trigger the growth of malignant tumours.

Clean bill of health

BST does have its supporters. One influential group that has given it a clean bill of health is JECFA, the Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives.

JECFA's members are appointed by and answerable to two United Nations agencies, the World Health Organisation and the Food and Agriculture Organisation.

The drug's critics say the longest examination of its possible toxicological effects, a 90-day study involving thirty rats, showed significant impacts on the animals.

The US Food and Drug Administration did approve BST for use, but says it did not consider the rat study in reaching its decision.

But the chairman of JECFA, Professor Jock MacLean of Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne, says his committee did consider the study.

Insignificant role

He points out that the levels of IGF-1 present in milk from BSE cows are only a minute fraction of the amount produced naturally by the human body, which led JECFA to conclude that it plays no significant role.

However, a Japanese study suggests that IGF-1 from BST milk persists in the digestive tract long enough to pose a far greater risk than the natural version.

The European jury is still out on BST. But it has heard evidence to show that there is cause for concern.

-- Andy (, May 05, 1999.


Please come straight out and say what you mean.

-- No Spam Please (, May 05, 1999.

Andy - Another viewpoint

-- marsh (, May 06, 1999.

Here in Queensland, Australia, our federal government is bringing in two interesting laws which will make self-sufficiency virtually impossible: The first says we will not be allowed to chop down ANY trees on our properties (acreage) without a government permit each time, and the second states that we may not even PICK UP firewood off the ground on our own freehold land. (This is, of course, "to protect the environment". But it also makes all of us beggars to the "powers that be".) Be afraid. Be VERY afraid...

-- David Harvey (, May 06, 1999.

If TSHTF, zoning inspectors and other little tin-horn bureaucrats will become an endangered species.

-- A (, May 06, 1999.

No Spam,

Yes. I live on 66 acres near a small agriculturally-based community in west central Texas.

Andy, David, Marsh

Thank you for your additions to this topic. I believe all of this is important to our health and individual freedom. As it is now, if you want to eat something that is not full of chemicals or genetically altered in some way, you have to grow it yourself! At least for now we have that option.

-- Sharon (, May 06, 1999.

Don'tcha just LOVE politics? If it weren't for the fact that so many people would/will suffer and die because of all the devistation, I would welcome Y2K and a nuclear war all at once, right NOW. I just wish there were some way to get rid of the politicians!

-- winna (??@??.com), May 06, 1999.

David, it sounds as though the tree huggers got to the government. I think that tree huggers should be hung from them, not too radical am I?

-- Maria (, May 06, 1999.


Okay, then you have nothing to fear from zoning laws, and nothing to fear from EO 13112 in this regard because it does not restrict raising non-invasive species such as domesticated crops and animals.

-- No Spam Please (, May 06, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ