Dean Hughson has invited you to open a Google mail account
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dean Hughson has invited you to open a free Gmail account.
To accept this invitation and register for your account, visit
http://mail.google.com/mail/a-bdf6886a55-27ef7b1182-4052642f9f
Once you create your account, Dean Hughson will be notified with
your new email address so you can stay in touch with Gmail!
If you haven't already heard about Gmail, it's a new search-based webmail
service that offers:
- Over 2,500 megabytes (two gigabytes) of free storage
- Built-in Google search that instantly finds any message you want
- Automatic arrangement of messages and related replies into
"conversations"
- Powerful spam protection using innovative Google technology
- No large, annoying ads--just small text ads and related pages that are
relevant to the content of your messages
To learn more about Gmail before registering, visit:
http://mail.google.com/mail/help/benefits.html
And, to see how easy it can be to switch to a new email service, check
out our new switch guide: http://mail.google.com/mail/help/switch/
We're still working every day to improve Gmail, so we might ask for your
comments and suggestions periodically. We hope you'll like Gmail. We
do. And, it's only going to get better.
Thanks,
The Gmail Team
(If clicking the URLs in this message does not work, copy and paste them
into the address bar of your browser).
Trade pact proposal has U.S. upside
BY NANCY COLE
Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005
URL: http://www.nwanews.com/story/adg/105823
A proposal to liberalize U.S. trade with six Central American and
Caribbean nations has received broad support from U.S. agricultural
groups. But the fate of the U.S.-Central America-Dominican Republic
Free Trade Agreement remains uncertain.
Negotiations for the regional pact began in January 2003, shortly
after Congress granted trade promotion, or "fast track," authority to
President Bush. On May 28, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative
signed an agreement with five Central American countries — Costa Rica,
El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua. The Dominican
Republic, on the island of Hispaniola, subsequently signed the accord
on Aug. 5.
Although El Salvador's legislature has ratified DR-CAFTA, the pact
awaits approval and implementing legislation in the six other
countries. Under "fast track," Congress cannot amend DR-CAFTA.
The Bush administration is expected to formally submit DRCAFTA to
Congress during the first half of this year. Members of Arkansas'
congressional delegation are, by and large, taking a wait-and-see
attitude. "International trade should be a two-way street that
benefits both parties fairly," said Sen. Blanche Lincoln.
And Sen. Mark Pryor said he supports trade agreements "that open new
markets to our products as long as the playing field is level." But he
also mentioned several specific concerns that he has about DR-CAFTA.
"CAFTA could have meaningful benefits for Arkansas.... However, I am
concerned about the environmental and labor provisions and the impact
of the concessions in the textile/apparel and sugar sectors will be
damaging to U.S. industries," Pryor said.
Mickey Paggi, director of the Center for Agricultural Business at
California State University in Fresno, said U.S. agriculture faces few
downsides with DRCAFTA. "The first thing that strikes you about that
particular agreement is that 99 percent of the agricultural products
coming from those countries already enter the United States
duty-free," said Paggi, citing existing programs like the Caribbean
Basin Initiative. "We've got an agreement that, if it's enacted,
creates market-access opportunities for U.S. agricultural products."
Ron Heck, chairman of the American Soybean Association, said, "It's a
very good deal for soybeans."
DR-CAFTA would immediately eliminate tariffs on U.S. soybeans, soybean
meal and soybean flour, and tariffs on U.S. soybean oil would be
phased out over a 12- to 15-year period. The pact also liberalizes
quotas and tariffs on U.S. exports of pork and pork products.
Increased U.S. production of pork would have an added impact because
hogs account for more than 20 percent of U.S. soybean-meal
consumption.
Since 2001, the United States has exported an average of more than
$238 million worth of soybean products annually to the DR-CAFTA
nations. "It's a market that's naturally ours because of the
proximity," Heck said.
Soybeans are Arkansas' No. 1 crop. In 2004 the state ranked ninth in
U.S. soybean production, growing almost 4 percent of the nation's
crop.
The prospect of U.S. rice exports to the region under the agreement
also is positive, but not quite as simple as that for soybeans.
Rice is considered a "sensitive" product in Central America and the
Caribbean because it's a dietary staple throughout the region. As a
result, DR-CAFTA's tariff reductions for rice are "backloaded," said
Eric Wailes, an agricultural economist at the University of Arkansas.
Backloading means that the DR-CAFTA countries are compelled to reduce
their tariffs only after 18 to 20 years.
Rice tariffs in the region also are subject to "tariff escalation,"
said Wailes, "where basically you have higher tariffs on the
valueadded products, like milled rice, compared to rough rice." Over
time, DR-CAFTA will "harmonize" tariff rates for rough and milled
rice, he said.
Bob Cummings, vice president for international policy at USA Rice
Federation, said his group is "strongly supportive" of DR-CAFTA. "We
are going to get some small immediate access for milled rice, we're
going to preserve the very large rough rice market that we have, and
then we're going to have prospects down the road for the market to
decide what kind of rice is going to get shipped there," Cummings
said.
Since 2001, the United States has averaged more than $84 million
annually in rice exports to the DR-CAFTA region. Arkansas, the leading
rice state, produced 46.5 percent of the nation's 2004 crop.
The U.S. poultry industry also "is solidly behind CAFTA," said Toby
Moore, vice president of the USA Poultry and Egg Export Council.
Central American countries had feared an influx of chicken leg
quarters, which account for about 55 percent of U.S. poultry exports
to the region, so the United States agreed to longer tariff-phase-out
schedules for leg quarters, Moore said. "In return, the Centrals
agreed to allow further processed products immediate access to zero
tariff," he said.
The DR-CAFTA countries also committed to recognizing the U.S. poultry
inspection system, thus eliminating an important non-tariff trade
barrier.
Since 2001, U.S. poultry exports to the DR-CAFTA region have averaged
$61 million annually. Arkansas is the nation's No. 2 poultry-producing
state. THIRD-COUNTRY PARTICIPATION
The U.S. cotton and textile industries have been less enthusiastic
about DR-CAFTA, "because it includes some opportunities for
third-country participation," said Gaylon Booker, a consultant and
former president of the National Cotton Council. "In other words,
allowances are made for something called 'tariff preference levels,'
which would allow a country like China to ship fabric into Central
America, have it used in garments, and enter the United States
dutyfree," Booker said. "Timely implementation of safeguards on China
textile exports into the U.S. market could possibly have some impact
on whether the U.S. cotton industry would be willing to reconsider its
opposition to this current CAFTA."
Assurance of such quid pro quo legislation, however, "is sort of hard
to come by," he added.
U.S. cotton exports to the DRCAFTA countries have averaged more than
$55 million annually since 2000. In 2004, Arkansas ranked fourth in
U.S. cotton production, growing almost 9.1 percent of the nation's
crop.
One sector within U.S. agriculture has been outspoken in its
opposition to DR-CAFTA.
U.S. sugar cane and sugar beet producers say the pact would destroy
their industry by permitting an influx of sugar imports.
Sugar cane is grown in four states — principally Florida and Louisiana
— and sugar beets are grown in 12 states — the most important being
Minnesota, Idaho, North Dakota and Michigan. Arkansas produces neither
crop.
Since the War of 1812, the United States government has treated sugar
as a "sensitive product," guaranteeing U.S. producers a minimum price
that is above world prices and placing a ceiling on sugar imports.
U.S. trade negotiators defend DR-CAFTA's sugar provisions, saying
their concessions on import quotas equate to less than 2 percent of
annual U.S. sugar consumption.
Rob Paarlberg, a political scientist at Wellesley College in
Massachusetts, said negotiators learned their lesson after completing
the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada.
"They underestimated Mexico's ability to become a net exporter of
sugar," said Paarlberg, "and the NAFTA agreement is going to give
Mexico duty-free access to the U.S. market after 2008."
IMPACT DISPUTED In August, the U.S. International Trade Commission
released its official analysis of the potential effects of DR-CAFTA,
concluding the agreement "would provide benefits to the U.S. economy
worth $166 million each year" once fully implemented. The report noted
that "some sectors of the U.S. economy are likely to experience
increased import competition... while other sectors are likely to
experience increased export opportunities." The study concluded that
any impact would be "minimal" given "the small economy and market
size" of the DR-CAFTA region. According to the commission, 2003
exports to DR-CAFTA countries amounted to $14.4 billion, about 2
percent of total U.S. exports, while imports totaled $16.9 billion, a
little less than 1.3 percent of total imports. Although the DR-CAFTA
market ranked just 12 th in terms of U.S. exports and 15 th in terms
of U.S. imports in 2003, it did represent the second largest U.S.
export market in Latin America, exceeded only by Mexico. Paarlberg
said the potential impact of trade agreements on the United States is
less a function of tariff reductions and more a function of the
economic growth and development that the agreements might generate.
"If CAFTA stimulates income growth in Central America, and it
stimulates growth across a broad base of the urban middle class,
that's going to be very good for U.S. exports — with or without trade
reductions at the border," he said. Parr Rosson, an agricultural
economist at Texas A&M University, expects DR-CAFTA to initially
benefit U.S. agricultural exporters of such high-end products as
processed foods and highquality beef. "Once everything is fully phased
in, you're probably looking at about $2 billion a year in additional
ag exports," said Rosson. But the DR-CAFTA region needs other
development assistance, he said, "if we expect to see those markets
become like a Mexico, for example." The National Farmers Union opposes
DR-CAFTA, saying the potential benefits for American agriculture are
exaggerated. "We think it just continues some of the failed trade
policies of the past, which obviously aren't working," said Tom Buis,
vice president of government relations for the union. "You know, we're
going to be a net importer of agriculture products this year for the
first time in 40 some years." Buis was critical of U.S. trade
negotiators, saying "they're negotiating on market access, domestic
subsidies and export subsidies, as opposed to some of the big factors
of trade that aren't being negotiated, like labor standards,
environmental and health standards, and currency differences. All
three are hugely important to America's farmers and ranchers because
it makes these other countries lower-cost producers of many of the
commodities."
OTHER OPPONENTS The international development and relief agency Oxfam
also "actively opposes" DRCAFTA, said Stephanie Weinberg, a
trade-policy adviser with Oxfam America. "What we believe it will do,
primarily, is displace large numbers of small and vulnerable farmers
across the region," Weinberg said. Such farmers won't be able to
compete against such heavily subsidized U.S. crops as rice, she said.
"We're concerned there is gong to be more displacement of jobs than
there is possible creation of jobs." " What we would like to see is
the U.S. really put all its efforts into completing a successful round
at the World Trade Organization Doha Development Round, "she said,
where agricultural subsidy issues are scheduled for negotiation.
A loose-knit group of social justice and solidarity organizations,
called the" Stop CAFTA Coalition, "in October wrote all 535 members of
Congress, asking them to vote no on DR-CAFTA for many of the same
reasons as Oxfam.
Opposition to the agreement also is coming from the U.S. Business and
Industry Council, which represents small- and mediumsized
manufacturers. Senior Fellow William Hawkins said the group opposes
DR-CAFTA because past trade agreements, like NAFTA, have created U.S.
trade deficits rather than surpluses.
" We're still the larger market and, when we have these mutually
market-opening agreements, naturally the larger market is the target,
which is us, and these smaller markets don't add up to very much for
us, "Hawkins said.
" When NAFTA was put in, we had a small trade surplus with Mexico. And
the object of NAFTA was to increase that surplus by giving us
preferential access to Mexico and also to cheaper Mexican labor as an
export platform for us to other parts of the world, "he said." The
problem, of course, is that we now have a huge trade deficit with
Mexico, and Mexico has become an export platform into the United
States. "
In addition to DR-CAFTA, U.S. trade negotiators recently concluded
similar free trade agreements with Singapore, Chile, Australia and
Morocco, and they're working on the Free Trade Area of the Americas,
which would encompass 34 economies.
One final aspect of trade agreements — namely, security interests —
shouldn't be forgotten, said agricultural economist Paggi.
" Where you have countries integrated into a global trading system,
either internationally or bilaterally, you tend to find a more stable
environment. When people are engaged in mutual commerce, the tendency
for conflict is decreased. "
Hike in egg price is temporary, says Rahim
http://www.dailyexpress.com.my/news.cfm?NewsID=32139
INDEPENDENT NATIONAL NEWSPAPER OF EAST MALAYSIA
Established since 1963
Last Updated: Saturday, 22 January, 2005
WEEKLY SPECIAL
MondayTuesdayWednesdayThursdayFridaySaturdaySunday
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hike in egg price is temporary, says Rahim
Papar: Consumers should not be overly concerned over the reported
increase in the price of chicken eggs in the State lately, as this is
expected to be only temporary.
Agriculture and Food Industry Minister, Datuk Abdul Rahim Ismail, said
the price increase had to do with the increase in the price of
imported chicken feed as well as increase in demand for the product.
"The Ministry is confident the price increase will only be temporary,"
he said when asked about the matter at a meet-the-people session for
the Pantai Manis constituency at the Papar resthouse, Friday.
Grade A eggs are presently tagged at RM9 per tray (USD2.37/30 eggs) at
some of the malls in the State, and this is not much different from
the prices of other grades.
Nevertheless, he assured that the supply of chicken eggs was
sufficient to meet demand during the coming Chinese New Year.
Nearly 100 community leaders comprising village development and
security committees (JKKKs), village heads as well as heads of
government departments and agencies in the constituency attended the
session.
Abdul Rahim advised the community leaders not to be easily swayed by
rumours spread by irresponsible individuals who aim to split the unity
among the people.
"Instead, they should assist the government in channelling updated
information relating to government policies to the people under their
jurisdictionÉthey must also assist the Government's effort to achieve
the objective of the State's halatuju of development," he added.
During the event, Abdul Rahim who is Pantai Manis Assemblyman also
surrendered 10 cows and buffaloes meant for slaughtering in
conjunction with Hari Raya Aidil Adha.
The animals were handed over to every chairman of mosques within the
constituency.
Moark drops egg plant
http://www.joplinglobe.com/story.php?story_id=156619&c=87
Moark drops egg plant
Decision comes after weeks of protest
Roger McKinney
Globe Staff Writer
1/22/05
NEOSHO, Mo. - Egg-producer Moark has abandoned its plan to build an
egg-production farm in Cherokee County, the company's regional manager
said late Friday.
Dan Hudgens, Moark's Midwest regional manager, left a voice-mail
message Friday saying the company was no longer pursuing its plans for
Cherokee County.
He could not be reached immediately for further comment. A message
left for him was not returned.
Opposition to the plan surfaced even before the company officially
announced its plans.
Residents held meetings at which they voiced their concerns about the
potential of the operation to pollute farmland and water sources. Some
residents said they were concerned that the farm would deplete the
water resources of the county.
The Baxter Springs City Council, the Galena City Commission and the
Riverton School Board all recently adopted positions opposing Moark's
plan.
The company had previously dropped a plan to locate an egg-production
farm in Welch, Okla., also bowing to public protests.
Trey Clough, one of the organizers of the opposition, said the meeting
that had been scheduled for 2 p.m. today at the Riverton High School
auditorium will still take place, but it may be a celebration.
"I'm going to enjoy my evening," Clough said after hearing the news.
"I want to thank the community for standing together."
Hudgens said in his voice-mail message that he wouldn't be at the
meeting, because of the company's decision.
What else do you need in life with views like this in Arizona? 
"An egg fried in vegetable oil is a better breakfast choice than a white-flour bagel"
http://www.nwanews.com/story.php?paper=adg§ion=Style&storyid=105231
FINDING FITNESS : Harvard has its own diet pyramid
JAN GAUGHAN
Posted on Monday, January 17, 2005
Email this story | Printer-friendly version
If you're a bit confused about what you should and shouldn't be eating
for good health, a leading nutrition researcher at Harvard University
thinks you have a legitimate complaint. Oversimplification and a rush
to publicize what hasn't been substantiated are the culprits, he says.
"The academic community has told people they should do one thing â
say, avoid eggs, or eat a lot of margarine â when the evidence was
really very minimal, in fact nonexistent in some situations," Dr.
Walter Willett told PBS' Frontline in an interview a year ago. "But
yet it was presented as though this was the absolute truth.
" Of course there's huge economic interests behind a lot of this,
"said Willett." The huge push for high consumption of dairy products
is really not based on good science, yet the public's been led to
believe it's absolutely essential to have your three glasses of milk a
day. "
Willett, who's a professor of epidemiology at the Harvard School of
Public Health, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and
the author of Eat, Drink and Be Merry: The Harvard Medical School
Guide to Healthy Eating, has never liked the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Guide Pyramid, which he says is too vague and too
influenced by the agency's ties to agribusiness. He has created his
own Healthy Eating Pyramid.
His plan is based on the largest long-term dietary survey ever
undertaken, according to an article in the February 2004 issue of
Discover magazine. The 121,700-participant Nurses ' Health Study was
begun in 1976 by Frank Speizer, a professor at the medical school;
Willett has supervised its dietary assessments since 1980.
To make sure both sexes and two generations were included, he and some
colleagues also began tracking 52,000 men through a Health
Professionals Followup Study and 116,000 younger women through the
Nurses ' Health Study II.
Men who most closely followed his Healthy Eating Pyramid guidelines
lowered their risk of major chronic disease by 20 percent, and women
in that group lowered theirs by 11 percent. That's compared to reduced
risks of 11 percent and 3 percent for men and women whose diets most
closely followed the Agriculture Department's Food Guide Pyramid,
according to the December 2002 American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
At the base of Willett's Healthy Eating Pyramid is regular exercise.
It's included because it's essential to all the goals you're trying to
achieve by eating a healthy diet, he told Frontline." And this is also
a message that all forms of calories are important. "
One of Willett's chief complaints about the current Agriculture
Department pyramid is that a nutrition guideline should emphasize the"
right kinds" of protein, carbohydrates and fat, rather than demonizing
a whole category. And he says the department urges carbohydrates in
large amounts, but the pyramid doesn't make it clear that most of
these should be whole grains, and fruits and vegetables with a low
glycemic level.
Right above exercise, unsaturated fats share double billing with whole
grains in Willett's pyramid. (The current Agriculture pyramid lumps
all fats and oils in with sweets at the peak, advising you to "use
sparingly. ")
He advocates brown rice, whole wheat bread and oats â refined,
white-flour products are a no-no.
" The evidence is quite clear that it's perfectly fine to get more
than 30 percent of your calories from fat, if it's the healthy form of
fat, "Willett said. That would be plant oils such as olive oil,
canola, corn, sunflower and other vegetable oils, not fats that are
solid at room temperature, such as shortening and meat grease. If you
simply must have either butter or margarine, Willett says to go for
butter, because it's saturated fat but at least it's not trans fat,
the worse of the two.
Willett believes the department's 5-A-Day program regarding fruits and
vegetables doesn't make it clear enough that five servings is a bare
minimum. And he wants us to eat more nuts and legumes. We can get
calcium from spinach and other sources and should also strengthen our
bones through exercise, he says â we needn't consume as much dairy as
the department advocates. And unlike the agency's pyramid, Willett's
puts red meat, along with butter, sweets, white bread and white rice,
in the" use sparingly" category.
As for eggs, "No research has ever shown that people who eat more eggs
have more heart attacks than people who eat fewer eggs," Willett
maintained in the Discoverarticle. An egg fried in vegetable oil is a
better breakfast choice than a white-flour bagel, he said.
The Agriculture Department and the Department of Health and Human
Services last week issued new federal dietary guidelines that
emphasize exercise and portion control, and reiterate what Agriculture
has been urging at its Web site lately â that Americans should make
more of their grain choices whole wheat, and more of their fats
unsaturated. Will the revised Food Guide Pyramid, due out in a couple
of months, look more like Willett's?
You can compare the two pyramids yourself at www. hsph. harvard.
edu/nutritionsource/pyr amids. html. Copy editor Jan Gaughan's column
appears every other week. E-mail her at jan _ gaughan@adg.ardemgaz.com
It is almost scary. From this writer's works we learn that the egg white may hold the key to the creation of artificial life. Will we still sell it for 40 cents/lb? The jury is out. Dean Hughson, THE EGGMAN
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/edit/archives/2005/01/16/2003219652
9. Whether artificial life is a flash in the pan or a new industry.
"Vesicle bioreactors" are the Scrapheap Challenge of biology. A crude artificial cell, they have walls made from fats in egg white and contain the contents of an E coli cell stripped of its genes, plus a virus enzyme to decode DNA.
Distinctly unpromising -- yet when genes are added, they dutifully churn out proteins just like normal cells would. These are the recently announced brainchild of Albert Lichlaber at Rockefeller University. They could be the early entrants to a new field, synthetic biology, in which entire organisms are built from scratch.
(NOTE: Read more about Dr. Lichlaber at http://www.rockefeller.edu/research/abstract.php?id=93
read his work at:
http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041206/pf/041206-2_pf.html
Organic farmers get break on promotion fees
http://www.modbee.com/business/story/9774039p-10637265c.html
Organic farmers get break on promotion fees
By MICHAEL DOYLE
BEE WASHINGTON BUREAU
Last Updated: January 15, 2005, 06:02:12 AM PST
WASHINGTON â Uncle Sam will now cut California organic farmers some slack.
Many nonorganic farmers must still pay mandatory promotion fees, at
least until the Supreme Court rules otherwise. But even as the
justices consider whether such mandatory fees violate the First
Amendment, some organic farmers will get a free pass.
"I think advertising should be voluntary, not compulsory," Fresno
County fruit farmer Dan Gerawan said Friday. "The message of promotion
programs is that the product is generic. I want to differentiate my
product, not lump it with the rest of the industry. I suspect that the
organic growers have that same desire."
Gerawan has been fighting mandatory promotion fees for years. Though
he's a conventional rather than organic grower, he applauded the new
Agriculture Department rules made final Friday that spell out the
organic farming exemption from mandatory assessments.
For some, the result could be thousands of dollars of savings
annually. Others consider the mandatory assessments worth the price.
"From my perspective, I don't mind supporting the marketing order with
assessment pennies," said Wendy Larson, general manager of the
Turlock-based Big Tree Organic Farms. "Marketing order promotions are
designed to convey positive, generic messages about a farm product. It
doesn't matter if the product is organic or not, if the message builds
sales."
The new rules cover 17 federal research and promotion programs and 28
federal marketing orders. While these programs differ in some
respects, they have in common a mandatory fee that pays for
advertising and marketing. The mandatory fees, for instance, funded
such slogans as "Cotton: The Fabric of Our Lives," "Got Milk?" and
"The Incredible Edible Egg."
The programs are especially prevalent in California, because of the
state's agricultural diversity.
Their long-term future is now being decided by the Supreme Court,
which in 2001 struck down a mushroom promotion program and which is
now weighing a challenge to a beef promotion program.
The new rules don't confront the constitutional issue.
Instead, the rules specify only certified, purely organic handlers are
eligible for the exemption. Whatever the individual produces must be
organic.
Producers can start seeking exemptions next month.
U.S. plastic egg industry a shell of its former self
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/01/14/BUGQUAQ3R71.DTL&type=business
Friday, January 14, 2005
U.S. plastic egg industry a shell of its former self
America's sole maker of plastic Easter eggs has cracked under the
pressure of competition from Asia.
Bleyer Industries Inc. of Long Island last week filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy protection, saying it has lost too much business to rivals
in China. The company sold its plants in Hauppauge, N.Y., and Mount
Union, Pa., keeping one in Peoria, Ill., and is seeking a partner to
survive.
"It's been very stressful to all of us after all these years,"
Nicholas Poulis, Bleyer's president, said Thursday. Poulis and his
brother, Gus, Bleyer's chief executive, have been overseeing plastic
Easter egg manufacturing since 1991, when they acquired a bankrupt
company, Peoria Plastics.
About 250 million of the colorful plastic toys were made every year at
the Peoria plant, and were sold by some of the United States' largest
retailers -- Wal-Mart, Target and Toys R Us. But, Nicholas Poulis
said, "In the past five to seven years, there's been a lot of
competition," mostly from China.
Nicholas Poulis said that the company spent millions to upgrade and
automate its molding and packaging equipment at the Peoria plant. But
Gus Poulis said that exceptionally low labor costs in China -- as low
as 20 to 30 cents per hour, compared with about $9 an hour plus fringe
benefits in the United States -- proved too formidable.
