The Debate is Simple: Horses Health vs. Better Public Perception

Image Source

By Wes Bright, Staff Member

Proponents of Lasix have an array of reasons why the drug should be used in horseracing. The most obvious of these is that it prevents bleeding in horses. The number of horses that bleed is said to be close to 80%.[i] Because of this great majority, many studies have been done, similar to one conducted at the University of Melbourne, in Melbourne, Australia.[ii] This study was performed in South Africa and used 167 thoroughbreds to determine if the use of Lasix actually helped control Exercise Induced Pulmonary Hemorrhage (EIPH). These horses were raced twice, one week apart, with every variable being controlled except for the administration of Lasix.[iii] Randomly, the horses were either given Lasix or a placebo saline solution during the first race. Those that received the Lasix in the first race would then receive the saline in the second and vice versa. The study found that horses given the saline solution were far more likely to develop EIPH and that almost 68% of the horses that bled when given the Lasix had a reduction in the severity of the EIPH.[iv] This study is often cited as one of the main reasons Lasix should be used in horse racing.[v]

The most popular reason for banning Lasix is that the drug is a black eye to the sport’s public perception. The Jockey Club cites a poll conducted by the Horseplayers’ Association of North America (HANA) that found almost 75% of its members supported the phasing out of Lasix.[vi] They go on to say that, “they’re against the idea of performance enhancing drugs in sports.”[vii] Therein lies the problem. If we believe the popularity of the sport is dwindling, it may be because the public has not been well informed enough to know that the phrase “performance enhancing” does not always involve steroids. Organizations and the public observe certain studies finding that horses on Lasix are better at running than those without and assume Lasix must be like steroids.[viii] If they understood how water could also be seen as a performance enhancer, it is likely that they would realize the need for Lasix.[ix]
_________________
[i] Kenneth W. Hinchcliff, Paul S. Morley & Alan J Guthrie, Efficacy of furosemide for prevention of exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhage in Thoroughbred racehorses, 235 J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 76 (2009).
[ii] Id.
[iii] Id.
[iv] Id.
[v] Erica Larson, EIPH and Furosemide Use in Racehorses Explained, TheHorse.com (Oct. 4, 2012) http://www. thehorse.com/articles/29833/eiph-and-furosemide-use-in-racehorses-explained.
[vi] Transcript of The Jockey Club Annual Round Table Conference, The Jockey Club (2011) (available at http://www.jockeyclub.com/roundtable_11.asp?section=4).
[vii] Chris Wittstruck, Banning Lasix is wrong for the horses, USTANews.com (May 7, 2012) http://xwebapp.ustrotting.com/absolutenm/templates/article.aspx?articleid=47932&zoneid=29.
[viii] Study: Furosemide has health benefits for Thoroughbred racehorses: AVMA Press Room 6/29/09, Racing Medication and Testing Consortium (June 29, 2009) http://www.rmtcnet.com/content_ headlines.asp?id=&s=&article=546.
[ix] See Wittstruck, supra note vii.

Genetically Modified Tobacco Has Bright Future

Image Source

By: Ted Walter, Staff Member

The news has given profuse attention lately to genetically modified plants. Much of that attention has been focused on agribusiness giant, Monsanto. Just last month, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously “that when farmers use patented seed for more than one planting in violation of their licensing agreements, they are liable for damages.”[1] Another issue is whether there should be mandatory labeling of food products containing GMOs. “In all, 28 states considered genetic labeling this year, but so far the two New England states [Maine and Connecticut] are the only ones to pass legislation.”[2] One writer put it best: “Love them or hate them, this is for certain: GMOs have easily become one of the most divisive topics in the world of food production.”[3]

If it isn’t easy to tell, much of the attention casts GMOs in a negative light. And all of these issues are on a national scale. But the biggest question is how does this relate to Kentucky? More specifically, how will this impact Kentucky’s most nationally recognized crop: tobacco.

Tobacco has a long history of being genetically modified. In 1983, tobacco became the first genetically modified plant.[4] In fact, “[t]obacco often is chosen as a production platform, since it is easily modified genetically.”[5] Further, not only does tobacco have a long past of genetic modification, but the future of genetically modified tobacco is promising too. Currently, “[s]cientists are touting tobacco as the risk-free biofuel capable of weaning us off fossil fuels.”[6] Additionally, a pharmaceutical company is using genetically modified tobacco to develop flu vaccines.[7] And if those are not enough, right now lab experiments are underway “using a genetically altered version of [tobacco that] might provide a relatively inexpensive cure for the deadly virus rabies.”[8]

While there is some merit to the negative attention GMOs receive in the media, there are definitely many positive aspects to GMOs, especially for crop so important to the state of Kentucky, such as tobacco.
_________________
[1] Nina Totenberg, For Supreme Court, Monsanto’s Win Was More About Patents Than Seeds, NPR, (May 13, 2013), http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/05/14/183729491/Supreme-Court-Sides-With-Monsanto-In-Seed-Patent-Case.
[2] Bill Cummings, Few states have genetically modified food laws, Connecticut Post, (June 17, 2013) http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Few-states-have-genetically-modified-food-laws-4606162.php.
[3] Jen Russell, Farmers Say ‘No’ to Labeling GMOs, Ag Web, (June 20, 2013) http://www.agweb.com/article/farmers_say_no_to_labeling_gmos/.
[4] History of Genetically Modified Foods, Global Change, http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/workspace/sect008/s8g5/history.htm
[5] GMO Compass, http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/database/plants/304.tobacco.html.
[6] Biofuel-ing change with tobacco, Euronews, http://www.euronews.com/2013/05/30/biofuel-ling-change-with-tobacco/
[7] Katherine Gammon, Fight Flu With Tobacco, Wired, (March 18, 2013) http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/03/fight-flu-with-tobacco/.
[8] Genetically Modified Tobacco Plants Produce Antibodies to Treat Rabies, Science Daily, (February 1, 2013) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130201100244.htm.

Genetically Modified Crops: A Positive Perspective

Image Source

By: Rebekah McKinney, Staff Member

The controversy du jour of the agriculture community is the recent discovery of genetically altered wheat, which has not been approved for sale or commercial production in an Oregon farmer’s wheat crop.[i] While the developer, Monsanto, was given clearance to legally test the product in 1998, such testing stopped in 2005.[ii] While officials are frantically trying to determine how the genetically altered wheat made its way into the crop, wheat farmers are already feeling the effects of the discovery as Japan and South Korea have stopped all shipments of U.S. wheat.[iii] One Kansas farmer has even filed a claim against Monsanto alleging gross negligence by driving down wheat prices.[iv]

With the current debate involving a mostly negative perspective concerning the use of such products, it is important to consider the benefits these technological developments can bring to society. Genetic modification is when a segment of DNA from one organism is extracted and then combined with another organism’s DNA.[v] This scientific development has enabled the scientific community to select desirable traits, such as resistance to herbicides, from one species and confer that trait onto another in ways that were previously thought impossible.[vi] Such scientific developments have the potential to lower cost of production, increase yield, decrease toxic runoff, and provide important employment opportunities in developing countries.[vii] Furthermore, land once thought unusable and unproductive can now sustain crops, thus presenting opportunities for farmers where none existed before.[viii] The positive effects of genetically modified crops have already been documented, with the National Academy of Sciences reporting an increased yield of 24% over traditional cotton plants.[ix] Furthermore, due to increased yields and changes in pesticide and seed cost, farmers experienced a 50% increase in profits due to the genetically modified crop.[x]

As the media frenzy surrounding the discovery of the genetically modified wheat unfolds, the issues surrounding these crops will undoubtedly be placed squarely in the spotlight of public awareness. As such, being aware of the potential benefits these crops can offer is critical to a thorough understanding of this hot topic.
_________________
[i] CBS News, Nonapproved strain of genetically modified wheat discovered in Oregon (May 29, 2013), http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57586713/nonapproved-strain-of-genetically-modified-wheat-discovered-in-oregon/.
[ii] United States Department of Agriculture, USDA Investigating Detection of Genetically Engineered (GE) Glyphosate-Resistant Wheat in Oregon, Press Release (March 29, 2013), http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/2013/05/ge_wheat_detection.shtml.
[iii] CBS News, How did genetically altered wheat end up in Oregon Field? (June 6, 2013), http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57588150/how-did-genetically-altered-wheat-end-up-in-oregon-field/.
[iv] CBS News, Kansas Farmer Sues Over GMO Wheat Discovery (June 4, 2013), http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-57587625/kansas-farmer-sues-over-gmo-wheat-discovery/.
[v] John Charles Kunich, Mother Frankenstein, Doctor Nature, and the Environmental Law of Genetic Engineering, 74 Cal. L. Rev. 807, 809 (2001). See also Matthew Rich, The Debate Over Genetically Modified Crops in the United States: Reassessment of Notions of Harm, Difference, and Choice, 54 W. Res. L. Rev. 889, 890 (2003).
[vi] Matin Qaim, The Benefits of Genetically Modified Crops-and the Costs of Inefficient Regulation, Resources for the Future (April 2, 2010), http://www.rff.org/Publications/WPC/Pages/The-Benefits-of-Genetically-Modified-Crops-and-the-Costs-of-Inefficient-Regulation.aspx.
[vii] Id.
[viii] G. Masip et al. Opinion: Don’t Fear GM Crops, Europe!, The Scientist, News and Opinion (May 28, 2013) http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/35578/title/Opinion--Don-t-Fear-GM-Crops--Europe-/.
[ix] Jonas Kathage and Matin Qaim, Economic Impacts and Impact Dynamics of Bt (Bacillus Thuringiensis) Cotton in India, 109 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 11652, 11653 (2012).
[x] Id. at 11654.

iPhone, iPad, iCigs… Really?

Image Source

By: Shannon Lawson, Staff Member

At a time when almost everything can be purchased in an electronic form, should we really be surprised that there is such a thing as electronic cigarettes? Or should I say, e-cigs? For those who don’t know, electronic cigarettes are battery-powered devices that contain cartridges of liquid nicotine, which heats and vaporizes into the lungs as the smoker inhales.[1] However, unlike traditional cigarettes, e-cigarettes are tobacco free, which makes them difficult for the FDA to regulate.[2] Since they are tobacco free, many of the FDA regulations on tobacco products do not apply.[3] For instance, commercials for electronic cigarettes are not regulated to the degree of traditional cigarettes.[4]

Since the U.S. government decided to abandon graphic warning labels on cigarette packages,[5] the regulation of electronic cigarettes is likely to be the FDA’s next big smoking related issue. Although the FDA has the authority to regulate electronic cigarettes if they are marketed as tobacco cessation aids,[6] healthcare professionals are concerned about the side effects of directly inhaling nicotine.[7] These professionals along with the FDA, are worried electronic cigarettes might “perpetuate the use of nicotine and tobacco products among smokers who might otherwise quit.”[8]

There are also questions on the second hand effects of electronic cigarettes. We have all heard of second-hand smoke, but what about second-hand vapor? While it might seem as though second-hand vapor might not be a problem, we should be aware that not all the micro particles found in the vapor are completely taken in by the smoker.[9] At this point, there is not enough evidence available to say that second-hand vapor is a health hazard.[10]

At any rate, it would probably be best to regulate the sale of e-cigarettes as vigorously as we regulate tobacco products, whether at the federal or state level, until we are well aware of the side effects.
_________________
[1] See Electronic Cigarettes: How They Are – and Could Be – Regulated, Change Lab Solutions, http://changelabsolutions.org/sites/default/files/E-cigarette_FactSht_FINAL_%28CLS_20120530%29_October21_2011_0.pdf.
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] See Mary Katherine Ham, Panic: Ads for e-cigs not banned by tobacco regulations…because they’re not made of tobacco, Hot Air, (June 12, 2013), http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/12/panic-ads-for-e-cigs-not-banned-by-tobacco-regulations-because-theyre-not-made-of-tobacco/ (last visited June 13, 2013).
[5] See Michael Felberbaum, AP Newsbreak: US to Revise Cigarette Warning LablesAPNEWSBREAK:, The Big Story, (March 19, 2013), http://bigstory.ap.org/article/apnewsbreak-us-revise-cigarette-warning-labels.
[6] See Electronic Cigarettes at 1.
[7] See Susan Cassidy, 10 Little-known Facts About E-cigarettes, Discovery Fit & Health http://health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/smoking-cessation/10-facts-about-e-cigarettes2.htm (last visited June 13, 2013).
[8] Mathew L. Meyers, New Study Finds Increased Use of Electronic Cigarettes, Shows Need for FDA Regulation, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, (Feb. 23, 2013), http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/press_releases/post/2013_02_28_ecig
[9] E-Cigs And The Myth Of Second-Hand Vapor, Free ECigarettes Samples (May 1, 2013) http://freeecigarettesamples.com/e-cigs-and-the-myth-of-second-hand-vapor (last visited June 13, 2013).
[10] Id.

Water Aquifers: A Solution or Further Nuisance to the U.S. Drought Issue?

Image Source

By: Lauren Hart, Staff Member

Much of the United States has serious problems with maintaining a natural resource, which is crucial to anyone’s survival: water.[1] Many places in the U.S. are prone to droughts and some places out West even must have their water brought in so that those places, and their people, can survive.[2] Many of these cities, which have such distinct water problems, are growing significantly, and the water situation is not getting any better.[3]

Utilizing aquifers is a proposed solution to this ever-growing problem.[4] An aquifer is an under-ground water source that allows for water to be stored and drawn from there.[5] It is typically an extremely porous rock under the water-table where varying amounts of water can move fluidly through the rock-face.[6] Water can be added to an aquifer during times of plentiful water and then extracted when needed during times of drought.[7] Some places are using aquifers in this way instead of using reservoirs, as they are “natural” and cheaper as they are just “supplementing” the water already in the aquifer.[8]

The ultimate issue is whether or not this tactic is a good one. Ultimately, it is not. The point of using an aquifer is to store more useable water. However, one of the major issues with the artificial use of aquifers is the tendency to create contamination of the water, making it undrinkable and unusable.[9] For example, if there is pyrite in the rock used for the aquifer, there is a higher likelihood of arsenic poisoning…and we all know that is not good to drink.[10] Ultimately, the chemical make-up that causes this is not the important thing to understand,[11] but what is important to understand is the impact it has on the people drinking the water and that the impact on the environment is not positive.[12]

Although aquifer use is a proposed solution, around the country, many states that have previously used aquifers to store water have been abandoning this course of action due to the enormous contamination issues associated with its practice. Georgia, which is currently in the process of bringing this aquifer issue to the forefront, should be wary of any proposals.
_________________
[1] Environmental News Network staff, NWS forecast leaves drought-prone states high and dry, CNN, May 24, 2000, http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/05/24/drought.enn/.
[2] Mark T. Anderson and Lloyd H. Woosley, Jr., Water Availability for the Western United States--Key Scientific Challenges, U.S. Dept of the Interior, (Last modified: Friday, January 11 2013, 12:47:22 PM) http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2005/circ1261/.
[3] Id.
[4] Dave Williams, Georgia taking over water supply test project, Atlanta Business Chronicle, May 16, 2013, http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/news/2013/05/16/georgia-taking-over-water-supply-test.html.
[5] Idaho Museum of Natural History, What is an Aquifer?, (last visited Jun. 3. 2013), http://imnh.isu.edu/digitalatlas/hydr/concepts/gwater/aquifer.htm.
[6] U.S. Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, (last modified Mar. 6, 2013), http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthgwaquifer.html.
[7] Dave Williams, supra note 4.
[8] See generally Dave Williams supra note 4.
[9] Aquifer Recharge (AR) and Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR), Environmental Protection Agency (2012) (available at: http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/aquiferrecharge.cfm).
[10] Id.
[11] Id. Essentially, it involves redox potential (and by re-dox: reduction oxidation potential), which has to do with the electron make-up of the water, which then would react, with the stone. of the aquifer creating this contamination.
[12] See generally Dave Williams, supra note 4.

A Fresh Solution to a Rotten Problem: Combating Food Waste and Hunger in America

Image Source

By: Megan Pigman, Staff Member

Here are some statistics to chew on: 40% of food in the United States today goes uneaten.[1] This means, as a country, we waste more than 35 million tons of food each year.[2] To put it into dollar signs, we are throwing out the equivalent of $165 billion each year.[3] Meanwhile, one in six Americans are suffering from hunger each and every day.[4] Hard to swallow? Former Trader Joe’s President, Doug Rauch, thought so, which is why he decided to launch the Urban Food Initiative, a program that will use food past its sell-by date to prepare affordable and nutritious meals for low-income consumers in Boston.[5] Rauch’s idea is grounded in the belief that by reclaiming some of the roughly 47 billion dollars worth of food supermarkets throw out each year, both America’s food waste and hunger problems could see a positive impact.[6]

It sounds like a great plan, so whatß would prevent major grocery stores across America from getting edible, past the sell-by date foods in the hands of needy families instead of in methane-producing landfills? Legally speaking, very little. State laws generally do not prohibit the sale of “expired” food as long as it is safe and wholesome. Companies are not heavily burdened by liability concerns either, thanks to the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act that President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1996.[7] Known more commonly as the “Model Good Samaritan Food Donation Act,” the law promotes food recovery by limiting the liability of donors to instances of gross negligence or intentional misconduct.[8]

If donating or selling past sell-date food items is generally not prohibited by state law, surely these stores are not dumping such massive quantities of food due a broad corporate policy requiring such, right? As it turns out, this is usually not the case. When I questioned a Kroger corporate representative on the issue of their food waste policy, I was informed that decisions regarding what to do with past sell-by date food items is made on a store-by-store basis. If this is the case, then why are so many stores choosing to trash literally tons of still-edible food rather than establish an efficient food recovery system, which would benefit others on a local and national level? I’m sure there’s a good reason.

To give credit where credit is due, it is not the case that all grocery stores are completely failing us on the food waste and recovery front. There are many grocery stores across the nation that are making the effort to donate non-perishable goods as well items from their bakery to local food banks and homeless shelters. While their efforts should not be overlooked, there are still greater measures that can and should be taken by those in the food industry as a whole to create a less wasteful, less hungry America for future generations.
_________________
[1] Dana Gunders, Wasted: How America Is Losing Up to 40 Percent of Its Food from Farm to Fork to Landfill?, National Resources Defense Council (last visited May 28, 2013), http://www.nrdc.org/food/wasted-food.asp#.UaUAR5OznnM.email.
[2] “The Problem,” Food Recovery Network (last visited May 28, 2013), http://www.foodrecoverynetwork.org/about-us/our-work/.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Jenna Russell & Jenn Abelson, Putting Expired Foods to Healthy Use, The Boston Globe (Feb 26, 2013), http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2013/02/25/former-trader-joe-executive-wants-sell-inexpensive-prepared-meals-made-from-expired-food/Cyz1TwTAEFbQnWxn0teNsN/story.html?s_campaign=8315.
[6] Id.
[7] Waste Not, Want Not: Feeding the Hungry and Reducing Solid Waste Through Food Recovery, USDA, EPA, 21 http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/pubs/wastenot.htm.
[8] Id.

Striking a Balance: Modifying the Appalachian Community Health Emergency Act

Image Source

By: Maegan Pirtle, Staff Member

Earlier this year, John Yarmuth (KY-3) and Louise Slaughter (NY-25) introduced the Appalachian Community Health Emergency Act (H.R. 526) that would impose a moratorium on new mountaintop removal mining permits until the health consequences to proximate communities are systematically studied.[1] The bill cites a growing body of research suggesting a link between mountaintop removal mining and elevated risks of serious health problems, including chronic diseases and birth defects. [2] The bill would also assess a fee on those engaged in mountaintop removal operations in order to fund the required health studies.[3]

Environmentalists view the ACHE Act as a “no brainer”[4] and hope the bill is a first step in ending what they describe as a “human rights/human health disaster.”[5] The coal industry criticized the studies cited by Yarmouth and other environmentalists, arguing that there is inadequate evidence to support finding a strong link between “mining and the chronic health conditions present in Appalachia.”[6]

Until systematic research produces more concrete answers, the issue will be who bears the burden of proof in determining whether mountaintop removal should be prohibited.[7] Yarmouth argues that “[i]f it can’t be proven that mountaintop removal mining is safe, we shouldn’t allow it to continue.”[8] On the other hand, it is arguably more reasonable to only place a moratorium on mountaintop removal operations once studies have conclusively shown that increased health risks in certain populations are directly related to these mining operations.

The ACHE Act could be modified to find a balance between these competing positions by still requiring coal companies to pay a fee to help fund further studies, but only imposing a moratorium once those studies show an indisputable connection between mountaintop removal and the health problems of nearby communities.
_________________
[1] Reps. Yarmouth, Slaughter Introduce Bill to Study the Health Consequences of Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining (Feb. 6, 2013), Congressman John Yarmouth, http://yarmuth.house.gov/press/reps-yarmuth-slaughter-introduce-bill-to-study-health-consequences-of-mountaintop-removal-coal-mining.
[2] Appalachian Community Health Emergency Act, H.R. 526, 113th Cong. § 4 (2013).
[3] Appalachian Community Health Emergency Act, H.R. 526, 113th Cong. § 6 (2013).
[4] Jeff Biggers, Will Congress Finally Deal with the Health Emergency of Mountaintop Removal?, Common Dreams (Feb. 8, 2013), http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/02/08-1.
[5] Appalachian Community Health Emergency, http://acheact.org.
[6] Ken Ward, Jr., Coal-backed Research Takes on Mining Health Studies, The Charleston Gazette (Apr. 20, 2013), http://www.wvgazette.com/News/201304200057?page=1.
[7] Id.
[8] Jeff Biggers, Will Congress Finally Deal with the Health Emergency of Mountaintop Removal?, Common Dreams (Feb. 8, 2013), http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/02/08-1.

Nationalize the Coal Industry to Overcome Regulatory Difficulty

Image Source

By: Will Emmons, Staff Member

The controversies surrounding the coal industry have led to a complex series of regulatory regimes that control workplace safety as well as environmental impact. Different state and federal agencies are responsible for these regimes, but many of them have one thing in common: reliance on individual plaintiffs, under the aegis of whistleblower or citizen suits, to ensure the law is enforced.[1]

In the safety context, it is true the occasional miner may win a series of 105(c) whistleblower claims.[2] However, advocates claim these successes are inadequate for protecting miners and criticize the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) for failing to compel companies to pay penalties.[3] Safety advocates argue the agency is under-staffed and under-funded and companies can "get away with murder."[4] Attorney Chris Regan has argued MSHA may be a “captured agency.”'[5]

Under environmental statutes, there are also issues with enforcement. Some scholars argue the 'cooperative federalism' of federal environmental statutes, a scheme that gives state agencies primary responsibility for applying federal law, results in the law not being enforced.[6] These scholars argue state budget cuts and political considerations, including competition with other coal-producing states make the framework completely reliant on citizen intervenors.[7] Point in case, in Kentucky, a group of citizen interveners recently won a settlement under the Clean Water Act against the state's chronically “do-nothing” Department of Natural Resources.[8]

There are several problems with relying on whistleblowers and citizen interveners for the heavy lifting. First, as a matter of principle, one hopes a democratically constituted government would seek to enforce its own laws to protect its citizens against depredation. Second, in the environmental context, citizen suits frequently raise constitutional standing questions.[9] Third, a whistleblower or citizen intervenor can never marshal the kind of resources the federal government or even state governments could even if they wanted to. While various non-profit law firms like Kentucky's own Appalachian Citizens' Law Center are providing plaintiffs with high quality legal representation for free, non-profits' resources are always as limited by their donors good will.[10] Finally, advocates argue coal companies are notoriously undercapitalized.[11] Even if a plaintiff wins a lawsuit, there is often little money to recover in a judgment.[12] The investors are protected by the corporate veil and may carry on the same illegal practices using another fictitious entity.[13]

Recently, economist Gar Alperovitz, proposed that the difficulty of regulating the banking system could be resolved by nationalizing it and running it as a public good.[14] I propose nationalizing the coal industry would similarly make coal extraction easier to regulate. This was UK College of Law graduate, Harry Caudill's plea at the end of Night Comes to the Cumberlands.[15] He recognized a nationalized coal industry under a Southern Mountain Authority, similar to the Tennessee Valley Authority, as tool to alleviate poverty and break the political power of coal bosses.[16] Today, a Southern Mountain Authority could also serve as a way to capitalize an economic transition for Appalachia as the world turns away from fossil fuels.

 _________________ 

[1]See infra note 2.

[2] Dave Jamieson, Charles Scott Howard, Whistleblowing Miner, Wins Another Round Against Arch Coal, Huffington Post (Apr. 13, 2013), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/05/charles-scott-howard_n_3017913.html.

[3] James R. Carroll, Kentucky coal mine's unpaid fines show MSHA's penalty process still broken, critics say, Courier Journal (May 6, 2013), http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20130506/NEWS01/305060089?nclick_check=1.

[4] Id.

[5] Chris Regan, UPPER BIG BRANCH GUILTY PLEA REVEALS ADVANCE NOTICE GIVEN OF MSHA INSPECTIONS, Bordas & Bordas Attorneys, PLLC Blog (Apr. 18, 2012), http://www.bordaslaw.com/blog/2012/04/upper-big-branch-guilty-plea-reveals-advanced-notice-given-of-msha-inspections.shtml.

[6] Will Reisinger, et. al., Environmental Enforcement and the Limits of Cooperative Federalism: Will Courts Allow Citizen Suits to Pick Up the Slack?, 20 Duke Envtl. L. & Pol'y F. 1, 3 (2010).

[7] Id.

[8] Amanda Moore, Clean Water in Eastern Kentucky, Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law (Mar. 3, 2013), http://povertylaw.org/communication/advocacy-stories/cromer.

[9] See generally Reisinger et al., supra note 6.

[10] Donate, Appalachian Citizens' Law Center, http://appalachianlawcenter.org/donate/ (last visited May 9, 2013).

[11] Carroll, supra note 3.

[12] Id.

[13] Id.

[14] Gar Alperovitz, Wall Street Is Too Big To Regulate, New York Times (July 22, 2012), http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/23/opinion/banks-that-are-too-big-to-regulate-should-be-nationalized.html?_r=1&.

[15] John Cheves and Bill Estep, Chapter 3: The world comes to Whitesburg to take Harry Caudill's 'povery tour', Herald-Leader (Dec. 19, 2012), http://www.kentucky.com/2012/12/19/2448366/the-nation-takes-notice-of-eastern.html.

[16] Id.

Want to be an Environmentally-Friendly, Cost-Effective Dairy Farmer? There's an App For That.

Image Source

By: Meredith Schuh, Staff Member

While the economic crisis that recently took hold in the United States may not have significantly affected Americans in the country's highest tax brackets, our nation's dairy farmers have struggled to stay afloat in these hard financial times. Fortunately, innovative technological minds from Penn State University have created a mobile app, entitled "DairyCents," hoping to ease economic suffering of these hardworking farmers.[1]

Throughout most of the 2000s, "the American dairy industry was doing relatively well," but in 2009, "a series of events including an increase in grain prices, a melamine scare in China[2] and the global recession caused demand to drop dramatically."[3] As a result, a significant number of dairy farms were forced into debt due to an excess supply of cattle.[4] Although milk prices in the U.S. are "strong," they are "determined based on supply and demand and not on the cost of production."[5] Regrettably for dairy farmers, costs of production are high, often higher than milk prices. In his book, "Milk Money: Cash, Cows, and the Death of the American Dairy Farm," author Kirk Kardashian describes this phenomenon as a "chronic oversupply" issue because as milk prices fall, farmers inevitably produce more milk, thus sinking prices even further.[6] Small dairy farms are especially negatively impacted by this problem as they see very little profit; middlemen and retailers get rich because milk prices for consumers remain stable and they avoid the production costs incurred by dairy farmers.[7]

Recognizing the negative effects of this problem on American dairy farms, the creators of "DairyCents" devised a mobile app which can easily calculate a farmer's income over feed cost, compare feed costs with costs paid by others, as well as track feed efficiency and estimate nutrient excretion.[8] This latter feature, a product of the second-generation DairyCents app, is referred to as "precision feeding," which aims to "decrease the amount of nutrients and manure solids that could potentially enter" bodies of water, thus achieving better environmental safety.[9]

DairyCents was made available to smartphone users in August 2012, and with the backing of the USDA's National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) and the Mid-Atlantic Water, the mobile app's inventors are geared up for even greater expansion across the country.[10]

In such hard economic times, it is a relief that technology can aid those seeking to provide an invaluable service to American consumers. It will be interesting to weigh the success of mobile applications such as DairyCents as their use becomes more pervasive.
_________________
[1] Scott Elliott, Mobile Apps help Dairy Farmers Compute Costs and be Environmentally Friendly, USDA.gov, (April 2, 2013, 1:12 PM), http://blogs.usda.gov/2013/04/02/mobile-apps-help-dairy-farmers-compute-costs-and-be-environmentally-friendly/.
[2] In 2009, the FDA blocked the importation of all Chinese products containing milk into the U.S. due to contamination of the milk products with melamine, a chemical compound that can be harmful if consumed by humans or animals. This affected dairy farmers who depended on the exportation of certain milk products from China in their business. See Denise Ibens, The Great Melamine Scare, Foodquality.com, http://www.foodquality.com/details/article/807885/The_Great_Melamine_Scare.html?tzcheck=1 (last visited April 9, 2013).
[3] Stephanie McFeeters, Kirk Kardashian talks troubles of dairy farms, TheDartmouth.com, (Jan. 11, 2013), http://thedartmouth.com/2013/01/11/news/dairy.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] Id.
[8] Supra note 1.
[9] Id.
[10] Id.