The nomination of Harvard law professor Cass Sunstein (above) to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has hung up on the question of whether animals have the right to sue other animals, notably of the human kind. Sen. Saxby Chambliss, a Georgia Republican, has blocked Sunstein's nomination, according to The Hill, "because Sunstein has argued that animals should have the right to sue humans in court."

Sunstein is a prolific author and a long-time friend of Obama. (Sunstein just recently moved to Harvard from the University of Chicago.) In one of his books, Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions (2004), Sunstein wrote: “I will suggest that animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives, to prevent violations of current law....Laws designed to protect animals against cruelty and abuse should be amended or interpreted to give a private cause of action against those who violate them, so as to allow private people to supplement the efforts of public prosecutors.” Sunstein has also suggested, in a speech, that hunting should be banned. 

This has caused all kinds of consternation in the ag community. Cattle Network asks "Who Is Cass Sunstein & Why Should You Care?" hThe Hill reports that Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas has met with Sunstein and was told the nominee would not promote onerous regulations. Chambliss remains to be convinced. "I'm going to talk to him," Chambliss said. "He has not had the opportunity to look me in the eye."

The Financial Times reports that the G8 countries will announce a "food security initiative" at a summit this week that will commit "more than $12bn (£7.3bn) for agricultural development over the next three years, in a move that signals a further shift from food aid to long-term investments in farming in the developing world." The change in tactics comes at a time when increased commodity prices and stagnant agricultural investment have led to an increase in the number of people worldwide who are hungry to over one billion. 

For the past two decades, the U.S. has provided mostly food aid. The Obama administration is shifting to a policy that encourages increased agricultural productivity in poorer nations. "For too long, our primary response [to fight hunger] has been to send emergency [food] aid when the crisis is at its worst," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said last month. "This saves lives, but it doesn't address hunger's root causes. It is, at best, a short-term fix."

The change in policy could cause some conflict in U.S. farm communities. The U.S. spent over $2 billion last year on American-grown crops shipped overseas. A shift to local production in poorer countries could diminish U.S. exports. The U.S. spends 20 times more on food aid in Africa than on efforts to boost food production, however. According to the FT, "annual spending on African farming projects topped $400m in the 1980s, but by 2006 had dwindled to $60m...."

Edmond, Oklahoma, attorney Harlan Hentges tells us that the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry has announced that it would "force youth exhibitors at livestock shows to sign up for a 'voluntary' National Animal Identification System."  That is what the Oklahoma Agriculture Blog (Oklahoma's Official Agriculture Information Site) says: "Participants in swine shows and exhibits will be required to have an official premise identification card issued by the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food, and Forestry effective August 1. Officials say the rule will protect both economic and social interests." 

Attorney Hentges objects. "Using children to force farmers to do something that is supposed to be 'voluntary' is something far worse than NAIS. This use of children to manipulate parents is entirely illegitimate — perhaps it is best described as Orwellian." 

The Oklahoma ag department argued that it placed the requirement on the young exhibitors as a way to track the possible spread of H1N1 virus (yes, the "swine" flu). Hentges wrote this was a "patently false claim" — false "because the NAIS system is not operational and will not be for years, if ever. (The state) is only getting information." He adds. "These are not the actions of independent public servants. This is Big Brother."

The Aberdeen American News has the most incredible story today. It's about Herman Schumacher, a livestock sale barn owner and longtime advocate for independent cattle producers, who is about ready to lose his property. Schumacher and others had the temerity some time ago to file suit against several large meatpacking companies (Tyson, Cargill and Swift) claiming the companies violated federal law by manipulating prices paid to cattle raisers. Schumacher won. In the spring of 2006, a South Dakota jury ruled in his favor, finding that the packers "knowingly used erroneous U.S. Department of Agriculture price reports to pay less to producers for beef cattle." The jurors awarded the plaintiffs $9.25 million. 

An appeals court overturned that verdict and now Schumacher has a notice on his front door from the U.S. Marshal saying he owes about $16,000 to Tyson. (Picture above.) A federal judge ruled Schumacher owed that to defray the company's court costs. Now if Schumacher doesn't pay the bill, he'll lose his house in Herreid, South Dakota. He wins his case before a jury, but has that verdict taken away by judges.

“In a sense (the writ of execution) is on my door, but it's on the door of any producer that dares speak out” against meat packers, Schumacher said. “I really do think they're trying to make an example of me, to silence me."