Apparently the devastating oil spill in the Gulf hasn’t taught our elected representatives any thing when it comes to the environmental dangers involved in our desperate attempt to pump every last drop of oil out of the ground, according to a A recent story on Alternet.org

According to the story, “But you would think plans to expand pipelines carrying this toxic crude into the United States would come under a little more scrutiny from U.S. leaders –- especially the ones living in states where pipelines threaten drinking water supplies.

“That’s why it was so surprising to hear Montana Senator Max Baucus pushing for hasty approval of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, which would carry this toxic oil right into his state, traversing major sources of fresh water like the Missouri and Yellowstone Rivers, posing a constant threat of ruptures, spills, and contamination. In addition to Montana, the pipeline would run through South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas, crossing dangerously close to drinking water supplies and agricultural aquifers.

“We know the oil industry’s influence on our representatives in Washington is out of hand. And when companies like BP spend nearly as much money on public relations after a major environmental disaster like the oil spill in the Gulf as they do on clean up, it’s clear that we’ve got our work cut out for us.”

Or as another story puts it: “Environmental Defense has called Alberta’s tar sands ‘the most destructive project on earth’, but perhaps the UN’s senior advisor on water, Maude Barlow, says it best. After a recent bus and helicopter tour of a tar sands operation in Fort McMurray she had one word to describe what she saw: Mordor.”

Buy Fresh, Buy Local movement in Nebraska is picking up more and more converts as news reports continue on massive food recalls and people look to local farmers to supply some of the food they put on their table.

In a recent New York Times story, Austin J. DeCoster, the Iowa egg producer, along with another company, recalled more than 500 million eggs after health officials traced salmonella bacteria that sickened more than 1,500 people and lead to some deaths to those companies.

In recent testimony before Congress, DeCoster apologized for the outbreak of salmonella his company’s eggs created and told lawmakers that his “family operation” had become “big quite awhile before we stopped acting like we were small.”

“What I mean by that is, we were big before we started adopting sophisticated procedures to be sure we met all of the government requirements,” he said before the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee.

What’s puzzling is his statement that his “family operation” had become big before “we stopped acting like we were small.”

What does that mean? Whether you are big or small, isn’t safety of your product first and foremost? Do you put growth and profits before adopting those practices that insure that your products are safe for public consumption before you put them on the market.

That’s no excuse. No matter what size your company is, if you are a company that produces food or products that impact human health, you implement those practices because food safety those be your top priority. Just like an oil rig on the water or a pipeline that is carrying toxic material across the land, the product doesn’t precede the safety of people and the environment.

People are growing weary of stories about food recalls and man-made natural disasters. Industry can’t police itself. No matter if the vast majority of industry does a good job of food safety, that 1 percent that messes it up makes it rough on everybody else. If you have adapted an industrial food complex worth billion of dollars, profits never precede food safety, whether the food is produced domestically or is exported into this country. Along with the market (the buying power of the consumer), government also has an important role in making sure the nation’s food supply is safe. It’s paramount on the level of national security.

New research from Michigan State University that these media reports of food recalls not only affects consumer spending when it comes to their purchasing decisions.

Consumers are not only quite attuned to food safety issues, but they also have significantly changed their shopping habits because of them, according to Chris Peterson, director of MSU’s Product Center for Agriculture and Natural Resources.

Peterson said similar patterns also are evident among food industry professionals – manufacturers, distributors, retailers – a majority of whom have, in the past five years, changed their business practices to adapt to concerns about the safety of food products.

The research, “Food Safety Certification: A Study of Food Safety in the U.S. Supply Chain,” was sponsored by Oslo-based Det Norske Veritas and conducted via online surveys of more than 400 consumers and nearly 75 food companies. DNV is a global provider of services for managing risk.

Nearly half of the consumers surveyed reported a change in shopping patterns due to food safety concerns. Also noteworthy is that the research subjects cited that higher price and brand name are not direct signs of safer food, Peterson said.

“Consumers are not only changing their buying habits, but they also want to see evidence on product labels indicating that their food has passed some kind of independent safety certification process,” he said. “Moreover, slightly more than one-third of consumers are willing to pay a premium – in upwards of 30 percent more – for food with a safety certification label.”

The research also found that food industry professionals also value third-party certification, but place a higher value on traceability.

Food comes from a complex and interconnected food chain. If there is an outbreak, the immediate industry priority is to trace its origin, Peterson said.

Traceability is a natural part of Buying Fresh, Buying Local because consumers appreciate developing that relationship with the farmer or rancher that they buy their food from.

“It’s sort of the 9-1-1 mechanism of food safety,” he said. “So we are not surprised that industry professionals place more emphasis on traceability, while consumers want to see the certification on product labels. In fact, they still see government inspection as the most credible signal of food safety, with certification and traceability coming in a close second and third.”

If we are going to have a safe industrial food complex, labeling is vital. Those people fighting labeling, whether it’s country of origin labeling or making sure people know the food products they are eating aren’t produced from genetically modified organisms or cloned animals, are basically thumbing their noses at consumers. Consumers want information. Information builds trust.

In addition, the study found that:

•Food suppliers and consumers believe that recycling, social justice, green practices, economic viability and animal welfare are important indicators of sustainability. But the most important attribute is safer and healthier food.

•Consumers have particular concern about domestic meat products and, in general, all products coming from international sources.

•A significant number of food suppliers are moving to implement certification audits primarily as a risk management tool. In general, food suppliers see a need for lower cost of implementation and a more consolidated/harmonized set of standards for third-party food safety certification.

Two recent items explain a lot about America going into the fall elections.

1. According to Slate.com, a new study released by Harvard and Duke University researchers finds that Americans radically underestimate the degree of wealth inequality in the country  and would prefer to live in a more equitable society.

The study asked 5,522 people across different economic, ideological and gender groups to estimate the distribution of wealth in the United States, only to find that most people think that the richest 20 percent of people control 59 percent of overall wealth. (The number is actually around 84 percent.)

Additionally, when asked what ideal wealth distribution would be, most respondents, regardless of their income bracket, say that 20 percent of people should control around 32 percent of the nation’s wealth.

2. According to Robert Reich, economist, who recently wrote in the Huffington Post, Forbes magazine’s annual survey reported that the combined net worth of the 400 richest Americans climbed 8 percent this year, to $1.37 trillion. Wealth rose for 217 members of the list, while 85 saw a decline.

He said said Wall Street continued to dominate the list; 109 of the richest 400 are in finance or investments.

From another survey, Reich said the 25 top hedge-fund managers got an average of $1 billion each, but paid an average of 17 percent in taxes (because so much of their income is considered capital gains, taxed at 15 percent thanks to the Bush tax cuts).

“The rest of America got poorer, of course,” he said. “The number in poverty rose to a post-war high. The median wage continues to deteriorate. And some 20 million Americans don’t have work.”

According to Stephen Jannise, ERP market analyst at Software Advice, from beef to spinich to eggs, ever increasing food recalls have “customers have been returning to stores in droves” to get their money back.

“But what happens next?,” Jannise asked. “How do retailers, distributors, and suppliers coordinate their efforts to deal with the dilemmas associated with a food recall? In other words, what will become of the eggs?”

And what Jannise has found “were interesting and often alarming.”

“For example, did you know the government doesn’t require farmers to trace their produce?” he said.

Jannise said if more reports of sickness emerge, the recall list could grow.

“If a new lot of eggs is found to be contaminated, the distributor will need to prepare retailers for more returns,” he said.