Governor Terry McAuliffe Executive Order Number 2

 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

NUMBER TWO (2014)

 

PERSONNEL DIRECTIVE PROHIBITING

THE RECEIPT OF CERTAIN GIFTS;

ESTABLISHMENT OF EXECUTIVE BRANCH ETHICS COMMISSION

 

Part I – Importance of the Initiative

 

Every citizen of the Commonwealth is entitled to have complete confidence and the highest degree of trust in Virginia’s government. It is the intent of this Executive Order (the “Order”) to ensure that Virginians are governed and represented with integrity. This Order is initiated to establish an ethical framework for state Executive Branch officers and employees with regard to gifts that will enhance the public’s trust in the actions of such officers and employees by addressing the receipt of gifts that may result in, or create an appearance of, impropriety.

 

Therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me under Article V of the Constitution of Virginia and under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, including but not limited to, Chapters 1, 12, and 29 of Title 2.2 of the Code of Virginia, and as the Governor and Chief Personnel Officer of the Commonwealth, and subject to my continuing and ultimate authority and responsibility to act in such matters, I hereby establish (i) the following personnel policy, banning the solicitation and receipt of certain gifts by officers and employees of the state Executive Branch of the Commonwealth and (ii) an Executive Branch Ethics Commission to perform such duties and responsibilities as are specified below.  An officer's or employee's ethical duties and responsibilities under this Executive Order are in addition to those prescribed by law, primarily the State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, § 2.2-3100 et seq., and the Virginia Public Procurement Act, § 2.2-4300 et seq., of the Code of Virginia.

 

Part II – Definitions

 

As used in this Executive Order, unless the context clearly requires otherwise:

“Advisory agency” means any board, commission, committee or post of the state Executive Branch that does not exercise any sovereign power or duty, but is appointed by a governmental agency or officer or is created by law for the purpose of making studies or recommendations, or advising or consulting with a governmental agency.

 

 

“Anything of value” means:

 

1. A pecuniary item, including money, or a bank bill or note;

 

2. A promissory note, bill of exchange, order, draft, warrant, check, or bond given for the payment of money;

 

3. A contract, agreement, promise, or other obligation for an advance, conveyance, forgiveness of indebtedness, deposit, distribution, loan, payment, gift, pledge, or transfer of money;

 

4. A stock, bond, note, or other investment interest in an entity;

 

5. A receipt given for the payment of money or other property; 

 

6. A gratuity, favor, special privilege or exception;

 

7. The provision of services;

 

8. Lodging;

 

9. A meal, or other food or beverage, or both;

 

10. Entertainment, including a ticket to an event, or hospitality;

 

11. The provision of travel or the payment or reimbursement of travel expenses;

 

12. A right in action;

 

13. A tangible good, chattel, or an interest in a tangible good, or chattel;

 

14. A loan or forgiveness of indebtedness;

 

15. A work of art, antique, or collectible;

 

16. An automobile or other means of personal transportation;

 

17. Real property or an interest in real property, including title to realty, a fee simple or partial interest, present or future, contingent or vested within realty, a leasehold interest, or other beneficial interest in realty;

 

18. An honorarium or compensation for services;

 

19. A rebate or discount in the price of anything of value unless the rebate or discount is made in the ordinary course of business to a member of the public without regard to that person's status as an officer or employee, or the sale or trade of something for reasonable compensation that would ordinarily not be available to a member of the public;

 

20. A promise or offer of employment; or

21. Any other thing of value that is pecuniary or compensatory in value to a person.

 

“Anything of value” does not mean a campaign contribution properly received and reported pursuant to Chapter 9 (§ 24.2-900 et seq.) and Chapter 9.3 (§ 24.2-945 et seq.) of Title 24.2. 

 

“Dependent” means a son, daughter, father, mother, brother, sister or other individual, whether or not related by blood or marriage, if such individual receives from the officer or employee, or provides to the officer or employee, more than one-half of his or her financial support.

 

“Employee” means, unless otherwise limited by the context of its use, all individuals who are not officers of a component part of the state Executive Branch but are employed by a component part of the state Executive Branch on an at will basis or serve at the pleasure of the Governor, and all individuals who are employed by the component parts of the state Executive Branch and who are covered by the Virginia Personnel Act, Va. Code § 2.2-2900et seq.

 

“Fair market” value means the price that a good or service would bring between a willing seller and a willing buyer in the open market after negotiations.  If the fair market value cannot be determined, the actual price paid for the good or service shall be given consideration.

 

“Gift” means anything of value to the extent that a consideration of equal or greater value is not received by the donor. 

 

“Gift” does not mean:

 

1. Printed informational or promotional material;

 

2. A gift that is not used and, no later than sixty (60) days after receipt, is returned to the donor

or delivered to a charitable organization or to a state governmental or advisory agency and is not claimed as a charitable contribution for federal income tax purposes;

 

3. A gift, devise, or inheritance from an officer’s or employee’s spouse, child, nephew, niece, aunt, uncle, first cousin, or the officer’s or employee’s or his or her spouse’s parent, grandparent, grandchild, brother, sister, the spouse of any individual covered by this subdivision, or an individual to whom the officer or employee is engaged to be married; provided the donor is not acting as the agent or intermediary for someone other than an individual covered by this subdivision;

 

4. Anything of value provided by an individual on the basis of a personal friendship unless the officer or employee has reason to believe that, under the circumstances, the gift was provided because of the official position of the officer or employee and not because of the personal friendship.  In determining whether a gift is provided on the basis of personal friendship, the circumstances under which the gift was given shall be considered, including: (1) the history of the relationship of the individual receiving the gift with the individual giving the gift, including any previous exchange between them; (2) whether the individual receiving the gift knew that the individual giving the gift personally paid for the gift or sought a tax deduction or business reimbursement for the gift; and (3) whether the individual receiving the gift knew that the individual giving the gift also gave the same or similar gifts to other officers or employees;

 

5. Anything of value provided to an officer or employee, or an immediate family member of an officer or employee, by an individual on the basis of a private business relationship between them that is unrelated to the official duties and responsibilities of the officer or employee, unless the officer or employee has reason to believe that, under the circumstances, the thing of value was provided by the individual to the officer or employee or the immediate family member because of the official position of the officer or employee and not because of the private business relationship;

 

6. Any offer of a ticket or other admission or pass unless the ticket, admission, or pass is used   or unless it is a ticket, admission or pass to an event held by a team or organization that is an official team or organization of a public or private institution of higher education or elementary or secondary school located in the Commonwealth or held by another governmental or advisory agency, or by a local government or component part of a local government, or by a school board;

 

7. Honorary degrees;

 

8. Payment or reimbursement of reasonable legitimate travel and related expenses incurred by an officer or employee in order to engage in an activity that serves a legitimate public purpose;

 

9. Attendance by an officer or employee at a widely attended event that is attended by at least twenty (20) non-officers or employees, is open to the public or to a wide range of individuals, and where (i) such attendance serves a legitimate public purpose, or (ii) the officer or employee attends by virtue of being the spouse of an invited public official who attends without charge;

 

10. Attendance by an officer or employee at a political or inaugural event where the officer or employee is invited to attend by the elected official, the candidate, or their authorized representative;

 

11. Financial aid awarded by an educational institution or training institution or program, provided that the financial aid is awarded pursuant to the institution’s or program’s normal financial aid standards and procedures; 

 

12. Something of value given to an officer or employee by a governmental or advisory agency related to the officer’s or employee’s service as a public officer or employee or upon his or her retirement; 

 

13. A prize in a competition that was widely available, or an award from a charitable, religious, civic, or educational group; or

 

14. A gift with a value of $25 or less.

 

“Governmental agency” means each component part of the state Executive Branch, including each office, department, authority, post, commission, committee, and each institution or board created by law to exercise some regulatory or sovereign power or duty as distinguished from purely advisory powers or duties.     

 

“Immediate family” means (i) a spouse, regardless of whether he or she resides in the same household as the officer or employee, (ii) any individual residing in the same household as the officer or employee, who is a dependent of the officer or employee or of whom the officer or employee is a dependent, (iii) any individual who has a child in common with the officer or employee, whether or not the officer or employee and that individual have been married or have resided together at any time, as long as there is a legally enforceable financial relationship between them, or (iv) any individual who cohabits or who, within the previous 12 months, cohabited with the officer or employee, and any children of either of them then residing in the same household as the officer or employee.  With regard to the receipt of gifts, “immediate family” also shall mean an officer’s or employee’s child, grandchild, parent, grandparent, brother, sister, or brother’s or sister’s spouse or children, if such individual knew or should have known that the gift was given because of the officer’s or employee’s position as an officer or employee.

 

“Legitimate travel and related expenses” include reasonable expenses incurred by the officer or employee in order to engage in an activity that serves a legitimate public purpose, including, but not limited to, air, train, bus, and taxi fare, rental car charges, the cost of meals and lodging, and expenses related to attendance at an event that has a legitimate public purpose, including, but not limited to, costs of registration, admission, tickets, food, refreshments, instruction, and materials. 

 

“Legitimate public purpose” means an activity that is intended to promote the interests of the Commonwealth, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth, an advisory or governmental agency of the Commonwealth, or a component part of a political subdivision of the Commonwealth, including, but not limited to, activities that promote tourism, economic development, charitable, public health, environmental, or educational goals; attendance at training and educational events and conferences designed to improve the efficiencies and effectiveness of public service, or to enhance the knowledge and skills of public officers or employees, or both, relative to their official duties; and any purpose defined as a legitimate public purpose by the Commonwealth, the Governor, the governing body of a political subdivision of the Commonwealth, an advisory or governmental agency, or the Commission established by Part V of this Order. 

 

“Officer” means the Governor, his Cabinet, Deputy Secretaries, and any individual appointed or elected to any governmental or advisory agency who serves at the pleasure of the Governor or whose position may be affected “for cause,” whether or not he or she receives compensation or other emolument of office. 

 

“State Executive Branch” means every component part of the government of the Commonwealth of Virginia except any component part of the state Legislative or Judicial Branches, the Office of the Lieutenant Governor, the Office of the Attorney General, the State Corporation Commission, the Virginia Workers' Compensation Commission, the State Lottery Department, local governments and their component parts, and the offices of constitutional officers.

 

“Value” means the actual cost or fair market value of an item or items, whichever is greater.  If the fair market value cannot be determined, the actual amount paid for the item or items shall be given consideration.  For food and beverages, “value” includes a proportional amount of any tip, a portion of which was for the food item or beverage.

 

Part III – Personnel Directive – Prohibited Conduct

 

No officer or employee of the state Executive Branch or an immediate family member of such officer or employee shall (i) solicit anything of value, or (ii) accept, directly or indirectly, any gift from any lobbyist or from any principal or employee or agent of a principal, as the terms “lobbyist” and “principal” are defined in § 2.2-419 of the Commonwealth’s lobbying laws, §  2.2-418 et seq. of the Code of Virginia, or (iii) accept directly or indirectly, any gift valued at over $100, from any one source, singularly or in the aggregate over the course of  any given calendar year.  An officer or employee may receive or may be reimbursed for any legitimate travel and related expenses incurred while engaging in an activity that serves a legitimate public purpose.  The receipt of anything of value with a value of $25 or less does not count toward the $100 cumulative total set forth in this paragraph.

 

An officer or employee or an immediate family member of such officer or employee is not prohibited from accepting an unsolicited gift that is valued at less than $100, from one source, singularly or in the aggregate over the course of any given calendar year, unless a reasonable person, having knowledge of the relevant circumstances, would conclude that the officer or employee may unduly favor the source or be influenced by the source when performing the officer’s or employee’s official duties.

 

Part IV– Department of Human Resources Management

 

The Department of Human Resource Management is designated and directed to work with the Executive Branch Ethics Commission established by Part V of this Executive Order to implement this Order and, specifically, is authorized and directed:

 

(a) In cooperation and collaboration with the Executive Branch Ethics Commission, to develop and issue appropriate personnel guidelines implementing Part III of this Order, including, but not limited to, (i) any applicable discipline for a violation of Part III of this Executive Order and (ii) the procedures available to any officer or employee alleged to have violated Part III of this Order; and

 

(b) To recommend to the Governor, at least annually, such revisions to this Executive Order as may appear necessary to ensure the maintenance of high ethical standards within the state Executive Branch.

 

Part V –Executive Branch Ethics Commission

 

The Executive Branch Ethics Commission (the “Commission”) is hereby established and shall be comprised of three (3) members who shall be appointed by the Governor.  Members of the Commission shall serve without compensation, but shall receive reimbursement for reasonable expenses incurred in the discharge of their official duties.

 

The Commission shall be responsible for overseeing the execution of this Order. 

The Commission shall:

 

(a) Upon request from an officer or employee, provide a written opinion as to whether engagement in an activity, or receipt of a gift or other thing of value violates the provisions of this Executive Order, and whether payment or reimbursement for expenses related to that activity, gift, or other thing of value would constitute legitimate travel and related expenses.  Any officer or employee who is informed by the Commission that engagement in the activity or receipt of the gift or other thing of value would not violate this Order, and who in good faith relies on an interpretation by the Commission issued before the activity is undertaken or the gift or other thing of value is received and upon the full disclosure to the Commission by the officer or employee of all the relevant facts, shall not be subject to discipline under Part VI of this Order.  

 

(b) Enforce this Order as specified in paragraph (c) of Part VI of this Order.

 

(c)  Recommend to the Governor, at least annually, such revisions to this Executive Order as may appear necessary to ensure the maintenance of high ethical standards within the state Executive Branch.

 

The Commission may employ a professional staff of up to two (2) individuals to assist the Commission in the exercise of its duties and responsibilities specified in this Order.  The necessary staff shall be furnished by the Office of the Governor, the Virginia Department of Human Resources Management, and such other agencies and offices as are designated by the Governor.  An estimated 2000 hours of staff time per year will be required to support the Commission’s work

The Commission shall remain assembled for one full calendar year following the signing of this Executive Order, unless reauthorized by further Executive Order.

 

Part VI -- Enforcement

 

(a) The head of each advisory or governmental agency of the state Executive Branch (the “agency head”) shall enforce this Executive Order, receive any complaint that an officer or employee of his or her agency has violated this Executive Order, investigate such a complaint, and determine the need for and impose the appropriate discipline, using the normal, then-existing personnel policies, rules, and procedures of the officer's or employee's advisory or governmental agency, including the Virginia Personnel Act, Va. Code § 2.2-2900 et seq., where the officer or employee is covered by that Act.  If the officer or employee is not covered by the Virginia Personnel Act, the agency head shall use whatever normal, then-existing personnel policies, rules, and procedures that the agency normally uses for officers and employees who are not covered by the Virginia Personnel Act.  Disciplinary action may include any action up to and including suspension or termination. 

 

(b) With regard to an alleged violation by a Deputy Secretary, member of a Secretary's staff, or the head of an advisory or governmental agency of the state Executive Branch within a particular Secretariat, the Secretary shall be the “agency head” for purposes of the enforcement process set forth in paragraph (a) above.

 

(c) With regard to an alleged violation of this Order by the Governor or a member of the Governor's Cabinet, the Commission shall receive and investigate the complaint, and shall determine whether a violation occurred.  The results along with a recommendation for appropriate discipline shall be forwarded to the Governor or his designee.

 

(d) Each agency head who determines whether or not a violation of this Executive Order by an officer or employee in his or her agency has occurred shall, within thirty (30) days of making that determination, report the facts on which that determination was made, and the discipline, if any, that was imposed, to the Governor's Cabinet Secretary under whose Secretariat that advisory or governmental agency falls.  The Secretary shall forward such report, or a report prepared by him or her pursuant to paragraph (b) above, to the Commission within ten (10) days of receipt or completion.  The Commission shall report to the Governor, on a quarterly basis, the results of all investigations of officers and employees conducted pursuant to this Executive Order.

 

 

Part VII – General

 

The funding to support this Executive Order shall be provided from the budget of the Office of the Governor and of such other state agencies as are designated by the Governor.  The estimated direct costs for this Commission are $100,000.

 

Effective Date of the Executive Order

 

This Executive Order shall be effective upon signing and shall remain in full force and effect for one full calendar year following its signing, unless amended or rescinded, or reauthorized, by further Executive Order.

 

Given under my hand and under the Seal of the Commonwealth of Virginia on this 11th day of January, 2014.

Related articles

• ENDA run? House GOP leader warns McAuliffe over executive orders
• Governor Terry McAuliffe Executive Order Number 1
• Governor McAuliffe Announces Telos Corporation to Create 160 New Virginia Jobs
• Governor McAuliffe Announces Carnival Cruise Lines' Return to Virginia
• Governor McDonnell to Propose New Mental Health Funding and Issues Executive Order 68
• Governor Terence R. McAuliffe Inaugural Address

Governor McAuliffe Announces Two Appointments to ABC Board and Reappointment of 17 Agency Heads

 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Today Governor Terry McAuliffe announced the appointments of Boyd Marcus and Jeffrey Painter to the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board and the reappointment of  17 agency heads across his administration. The appointees will join an administration focused on finding common ground on issues that will grow Virginia’s economy and create jobs across the Commonwealth.

Alcoholic Beverage Control Board

Boyd Marcus

From 1998-2001 Boyd Marcus served as Chief of Staff to Governor James Gilmore III.  In 2002, Marcus served as Chief of Staff to Congressman Eric Cantor. He also served as Chief of Staff to Congressman Tom Bliley, 1981-1988. A native of Leesburg, Virginia, Boyd graduated from the University of Virginia in 1974.

Jeffrey Painter

Jeff Painter is a native of Page County and has over twenty years of senior executive leadership experience in the public and private sector.  His service includes: Executive Director of the Virginia League of Conservation Voters; Chief Administrative Officer of the Virginia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control Board; and owner of Property Partners, a small business managing and investing in vacation properties. Jeff graduated from Emory and Henry College.

Governor McAuliffe also announced today the reappointment of the following agency heads from across state government:

Randall Burdette, Executive Director of the Department of Aviation

Craig Burns, State Tax Commissioner, Department of Taxation

Colonel W. Steven Flaherty, Superintendent of Virginia State Police

Manju Ganeriwala, State Treasurer, Department of the Treasury

Richard Holcomb, Commission of the Department of Motor Vehicles

Raymond Hopkins, Commissioner of the Department for the Blind and Vision Impaired

Dennis Johnson, Director of the Division of Selected Agency Support Services in the Office of the Governor

Cynthia Jones, Director of the Department of Medical Assistance Services

Ronald Lanier, Director of the Department for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing

Samuel Nixon, Chief Information Officer, Virginia Information Technologies Agency

David Paylor, Director of the Department of Environmental Quality

James Rothrock, Commissioner of the Department for Aging and Rehabilitation Services

William Shelton, Director of the Department of Housing and Community Development

Richard Sliwoski, Director of the Department of General Services

Daniel Timberlake, Director of the Department of Planning and Budget

David Von Moll, State Comptroller, Department of Accounts

Sara Wilson, Director of the Department of Human Resource Management

Related articles

• Governor McAuliffe Announces Telos Corporation to Create 160 New Virginia Jobs
• Look Who's Getting a Job From Governor McAuliffe!
• Governor Terry McAuliffe Executive Order Number 1
• Governor McAuliffe Announces Carnival Cruise Lines' Return to Virginia
• Governor Terence R. McAuliffe Inaugural Address
• Governor McDonnell Announces Agreement to Create New State Park in Loudoun County

Governor McAuliffe Announces Initial Toll Rates Will Be Cut in Half for the Downtown/Midtown Tunnels Project in Hampton Roads

 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Reduced rates take effect when tolling begins Feb. 1

RICHMOND – Governor Terry McAuliffe announced today that initial tolls on the Midtown/Downtown tunnels in Hampton Roads will be lowered by half the level expected, with tolling beginning February 1. Toll rates, overall, will remain lower than what was originally planned for the construction of the $2.1 billion Elizabeth River Tunnels project. Construction includes building a new Midtown Tunnel tube, rehabilitating the existing Midtown and Downtown tunnels and extending the Martin Luther King Boulevard. 

“Lowering tolls on the Midtown/Downtown tunnels project is a significant priority of my administration and I pledged to act on it right away,” said Gov. McAuliffe. “I immediately directed Transportation Secretary Aubrey Layne to take the lead on reducing the tolls so they would lessen the financial burden on commuters and businesses who use the tunnels every day. Today, we have a plan in place to bring relief once tolling begins next month. This is a critical project that must be built to reduce congestion, improve safety and propel economic opportunities for the region. But we must execute it in a way that does not threaten business growth in the region or lessen the quality of life for Hampton Roads’ residents and our workforce.”

The Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) adopted a resolution that reduces the tolls through construction. The revised schedule is below:

·         From Feb. 1 through the end of this year, the off-peak rate for passenger vehicles will be 75-cents, down from $1.59; and the peak-hour toll rate will be $1, down from $1.84. 

·         In 2015, the off-peak toll rate will go up to $1, and the peak-hour rate will be $1.25.

·         In 2016, the off-peak toll rate will be $1.25, and the peak-hour rate will be $1.50.

·         In 2017 or upon substantial completion of the new Midtown Tunnel, the rates will be in accordance with the comprehensive agreement between the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and Elizabeth River Crossings (ERC).

·         Tolls for tractor-trailer trucks will be reduced in a similar manner. The off-peak rate will be $2.25 beginning Feb. 1, and the peak-hour rate will be $4.

Transportation Secretary and Chairman of the CTB Aubrey Layne said, “Reducing tolls is a critically important issue for the residents of Hampton Roads and has been my key priority. We’ve taken a hard look at all options and I am pleased that we have come up with a toll revision plan that the Commonwealth can afford, and that makes sense for Hampton Roads during the construction of this project.”

Implementing the toll revision plan will cost the Commonwealth $82.5 million.  This will come from a combination of bonds and other funds that have not been assigned to specific transportation projects.

“VDOT is working closely with ERC to develop this project so it will bring short- and long-term benefits to the region, including faster travel times, reduced congestion and improved safety,” said VDOT Commissioner Charlie Kilpatrick. “The Norfolk and Portsmouth area will have a better transportation system as a result, supporting jobs and economic opportunities.”

For more information on the project, go to www.driveert.com.

Related articles

• Governor McAuliffe Announces Carnival Cruise Lines' Return to Virginia
• Governor McDonnell Announces Major Step Forward in Widening I-64 from Richmond to Newport News
• Governor McAuliffe Announces Telos Corporation to Create 160 New Virginia Jobs
• Governor McDonnell Announces Work to Begin on Interstate 64 Upgrades in the Shenandoah Valley
• State of the Commonwealth Address Governor Robert F. McDonnell
• Governor Terence R. McAuliffe Inaugural Address

Merck Promoting Zilmax, Despite Cattle Losing Their Hooves

English: Logo of the . (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

By Dr. Mercola

While the beta-agonist drug Zilmax (Zilpaterol) has been used to promote muscle growth in American-grown cattle since 2007, news of the dramatic adverse effects of this drug didn't hit mainstream news—and hence public consciousness—until late last year.1

In early August, 2013, Tyson Food Inc issued a statement saying it would no longer purchase Zilmax-fed cattle for slaughter due to animal welfare concerns.2The company had noticed that many of the cows that had been fed the drug had trouble walking. The cattle also displayed other behavioral issues.

Since then, Cargill Inc. has also decided to reject Zilmax-fed cattle until it is confident that any animal welfare issues associated with the drug have been resolved.

Merck, the maker of the drug, initially said it would halt US and Canadian sales of Zilmax, pending company research and review. It wasn't long however before Merck announced it had no plans to discontinue the product,3 saying the company stands behind the safety of the drug.

At present, Merck does not need approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to return Zilmax to market, as the FDA has not taken any action against the drug.

Agricultural drug use has become a major health concern for animals and humans alike, and in my view, organic, grass-fed meat that is humanely raised and butchered is really the only type of meat worth eating, if you want to maintain good health. 

It is important to understand that grass-fed animals not only produce better eggs, milk & meat - but the return to native perennial grasses is key to future.  We destroyed most of the grasslands and replaced them with monocultures like corn and soy.   We then produce hydrogenated vegetable oil and high fructose corn syrup for human consumption, and use much of the remainder for feed in concentrated animal feeding operations.

The grasslands act very much like forests, while deforestation is very well known the destruction of grasslands have similar effects.  Perennial grass farming produces more nutritious products, while work in a perfect cycle with nature.

Special Report Reveals Shocking Side Effects of Zilmax

Beta-agonist drugs such as Zilmax belong to a class of non-hormone drugs used as a growth promoter in livestock. As a class, beta-agonist drugs have been used in US cattle production since 2003. 

They're fed to cattle in the weeks prior to slaughter to increase weight by as much as 30 pounds of lean meat per cow. Due to the short window between administration of the drug and slaughter, as much as 20 percent of it may remain in the meat you buy. A recent special report by Reuters4 revealed some of the more horrific effects Zilmax has on cattle:

"As cattle trailers that had traveled up to four hours in 95-degree heat began to unload, 15 heifers and steers hobbled down the ramps on August 5, barely able to walk. The reason: the animals had lost their hooves, according to US Department of Agriculture documents reviewed by Reuters...

The next day... two more animals with missing hooves arrived by truck... The animals' feet were 'basically coming apart,' said Keith Belk, a professor of animal science at Colorado State University."

Merck responded to Reuters with a statement saying that:

"Several third-party experts were brought in to evaluate the situation, review the data and identify potential causes for the hoof issue... The findings from the investigation showed that the hoof loss was not due to the fact these animals had received Zilmax."

It would not, however, disclose the identities of these third-party experts; nor would they release any more details on the investigation. According to Reuters, Tyson Foods had noticed "cattle mobility issues" prior to the August 5 and 6 events that spurred the company to refuse Zilmax-fed cattle, but none of them had been quite this severe.

Increased Use of Livestock Drugs Is Cause for Concern

Merck is required by federal law to report all deaths occurring in treated animals, and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) records show at least 285 cattle have unexpectedly died or been euthanized after receiving Zilmax since the drug's introduction in 2007. At least 75 cows lost their hooves and were euthanized within the past two years. Other reported adverse effects in cattle following the administration of Zilmax include:

Stomach ulcers	Brain lesions	Blindness	Lethargy and lameness
Bloody nose	Respiratory problems	Heart failure	Sudden death

According to the featured report, it still has not been determined whether Zilmax is responsible for causing all these side effects—some of them so severe that cattle have to be euthanized. Some of the statistics are telling, however. Within the first two years of Zilmax's introduction to market, the number of euthanized cattle skyrocketed; shooting up by 175 percent compared to the pre-Zilmax range.

One working theory is that the drug might compound the adverse effects of ailments associated with confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs), such as acidosis, which results when a cow eats too many grains or sugar. Excessive heat may be another compounding factor, as well as animal genetics.

"Regardless, the episode at the Tyson plant - which hasn't been publicly disclosed until now - is coming to light at a time of growing concern over risks to animal and human health posed by the increased use of pharmaceuticals in food production," Reuters5 says.

"Livestock pharmaceuticals use is expanding as part of the push to produce more meat at lower cost... The cases of hoofless cattle also raise ethical questions about whether the drive by modern agriculture to produce greater volumes of food, as cheaply as possible, is coming at the cost of animal welfare."

Zilmax Banned for Use in Horses Due to Side Effects

Zilmax is already banned for use in horses due to severe side effects, including muscle tremors and rapid heart rates.6 According to a 2008 veterinary case report7 involving three horses that were given Zilmax:

"Within 90 minutes the horses had muscular tremors which began in the skeletal muscles of the neck, shoulder, and foreleg and spread throughout the visible skeletal muscles. Intermittent visible muscular tremors continued for up to 1 week after the initial dose of zilpaterol. They also all had certain changes to their blood chemistry, such as elevated BUN, creatinine, and glucose and mild hyponatremia and hypochloremia... Liver and kidney changes were also noted."

Ractopamine, another beta-agonist, is yet another drug used in the US, even though it's been banned in 160 other countries due to its potential health hazards. The researchers also noted that Zilmax is about 125 times more potent than ractopamine, saying this may be why side effects were overlooked in connection with ractopamine studies.

It's worth noting that, in human medicine, the same class of drugs (beta-agonists) can be found in certain asthma medications, such as Advair. One long-acting beta-agonist called salmeterol was linked to an epidemic of asthma deaths in the 1960s. Weight gain is also a common complaint among Advair users—so much so that the manufacturer has added weight gain to the post-marketing side effects. Other adverse reactions to beta-agonist drugs include increased heart rate, insomnia, headaches, and essential tremor—eerily similar to those experienced by horses. So why wouldn't the drug affect cows in a similar fashion?

Might Beta-Agonists in Meat Pose Human Health Hazards?

According to Randox Food Diagnostics,8 which has created tests for Zilmax residue in beef, use of beta-agonists prior to slaughter is of particular concern "as this poses a risk to the consumer and may result in consumer toxicity." Research findings to this effect include:

• A 2003 study in Analytica Chimica Acta:9 residue behaviour of Zilmax in urine, plasma, muscle, liver, kidney, and retina of cattle and pig was assessed. Two heifers and 16 pigs were treated with Zilmax and slaughtered after withdrawal times varying from 1 to 10 days. The drug was detectable at each point of time examined in all matrices except plasma after a withdrawal period of 10 days. It's worth noting that in the US, the recommended market window is three to 10 days after discontinuing Zilmax10
• A 2006 study11 on residues of Zilmax  in sheep found detectable levels in liver and muscle tissues up to nine days after discontinuation of the drug

Even before it was approved, scientists expressed concerns that beta-agonists might result in increased cardiovascular risk for consumers.12 According to an article published in the Journal of Animal Science in 1998:13

"The use of highly active beta-agonists as growth promoters is not appropriate because of the potential hazard for human and animal health, as was recently concluded at the scientific Conference on Growth Promotion in Meat Production (Nov. 1995, Brussels)."

Not All Meat Is Created Equal

I believe the movement toward ethical and sustainable meat eating is an important one, both in terms of animal welfare and human health. Agricultural drug use is indeed becoming a major health concern for animals and humans alike, courtesy of factory farming methods where efficiency and low cost is the primary objective.

Besides beta-agonist drugs like Zilmax and Ractopamine (the latter of which, by the way, is banned in 160 countries), animals raised in American confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) are also typically given a number of other drugs, including antibiotics and hormones.

You are essentially getting a concoction of drugs in every piece of meat you eat. The routine use of antibiotics alone now poses a significant threat to human health, as it has spawned a dramatic rise in antibiotic-resistant disease. Instead of their natural diet, which is plain grass, CAFO cattle are also fed a wholly unnatural diet consisting of pesticide-laden and oftentimes genetically engineered (GE) grains—primarilyGE corn and soy.

Organic, grass-fed and finished meat that is humanely raised and butchered is really about the only type of meat that is healthy to eat. By purchasing your meat from smaller farms that raise their animals in a humane fashion, according to organic principles, you're promoting the proliferation of such farms, which in the end will benefit everyone, including all the animals.

I've also previously written about the atrocities that take place in some U.S. CAFOs, where filthy, crowded conditions are the norm, and I think most people would agree that such animal abuse is inexcusable, even if they're "only" being raised for food. It would be foolish to think that the end result—the meat from these animals—would have any major health benefits.

In fact, the differences between CAFO beef and organic grass-fed beef are so vast; you're really talking about two different animals, and two separate industries with entirely different farming practices and environmental impact. The latter also tends to favor far more humane butchering practices, which is also a very important part of "ethical meat."

Rethink Your Shopping Habits, to Protect Your Family's Health

Whether you do so for ethical, environmental, or health reasons — or all of the above -- the closer you can get to the "backyard barnyard," the better. Ideally, you'll want to get all your animal products, including meat, chicken and eggs, from smaller community farms with free-ranging animals that are organically fed and locally marketed. This is the way food has been raised and distributed for centuries... before it was corrupted by politics, corporate greed, and the blaring arrogance of the food industry.

You can do this not only by visiting the farm directly, if you have one nearby, but also by taking part in farmer's markets and community-supported agriculture programs. The following organizations can also help you locate farm-fresh foods in your local area, raised in a humane, sustainable manner:

1. Local Harvest -- This Web site will help you find farmers' markets, family farms, and other sources of sustainably grown food in your area where you can buy produce, grass-fed meats, and many other goodies.
2. Farmers' Markets -- A national listing of farmers' markets.
3. Eat Well Guide: Wholesome Food from Healthy Animals -- The Eat Well Guide is a free online directory of sustainably raised meat, poultry, dairy, and eggs from farms, stores, restaurants, inns, and hotels, and online outlets in the United States and Canada.
4. Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture (CISA) -- CISA is dedicated to sustaining agriculture and promoting the products of small farms.
5. FoodRoutes -- The FoodRoutes "Find Good Food" map can help you connect with local farmers to find the freshest, tastiest food possible. On their interactive map, you can find a listing for local farmers, CSAs, and markets near you.

Related articles

• Merck Continues Promoting Zilmax, Despite Cattle Losing Their Hooves from the Drug

Main Street Gloucester Preservation Trust Updated Jan. 2014

Based on new information, we have a correction to make about the Gloucester Main Street Preservation Trust, or as it is legally known, the "Main Street Gloucester Preservation Trust.  The correction we are making is that it appears that this organization is in fact a non profit organization.

  Now, here is where the news lies.  They are not a charitable organization.  They are legally considered a fraternity according to online legal status information.  They are also a Trust.  What they have to do with preservation, other than their own capital, we are not sure of.  In fact, that becomes a very good question according to the financial documents we pulled from the public domain.  Why they are involved with stating they are promoting Gloucester Main Street and business is really highly questionable in our view and the views of many people who have looked at this organization.

  This organization, the way it is structured as a Trust, one has an extremely difficult time finding exactly what assets they own.  Since it's all under a trust, it is not public information.  It's listed on their 2011 tax returns that it is real estate and that the real estate is commercial and some may be residential.  Since they are a fraternity, they are a secret organization that is not required to divulge any of it's information to the public.  What we found very strange is that the organization has over 5 million dollars in real estate holdings and for 2011 depreciated over 1.7 million dollars off of the little over 5 million in said holdings.

  We can not explain it, it's right there in the 2011 tax form, a copy is just below.  They have no money stated as going out to any organizations or businesses as grants.  Yet the local paper has reported grant money given out by this organization.  How is that?  The trust was formed in 2011 but the GMSPT has been in existence since 2005.  Thier financial statements show them in a steady downhill slide since it's inception.  All because of it's massive depreciation each year?

http://non-profit-organizations.findthebest.com/l/1791869/Main-Street-Gloucester-Preservation-Trust

Here is a link to the page showing their information.  Based in Norfolk, Virginia, they are supposed to be serving Gloucester, Virginia?  Again, we found that very strange.  The office phone number is a Gloucester extension, but again, the main office is listed in Norfolk.  Towards the bottom of the tax records, you will see a section where money should be listed as held for grants to be made by the GMSPT, yet there are no monies held in account for any grants.  So where is the grant money coming from?

  Salaries are mainly one to Jenny Crittendon, Executive Director for the GMSPT and listed as 50 thousand per year plus the costs of her employment are separated on the tax form.  Wages, some basic costs and then event expenses are the only reported liabilities of the GMSPT.

  Other similar, at least supposed to be, organizations are listed as charitable corporations.  That means pretty much everything they do is open to inspection.  But not the GMSPT.  Why is a fraternity so embedded into the Gloucester County government?  We are continuing to dig through all of this mess.

Gloucester Main Street Preservation Trust Financial Statement, 2011 from Chuck Thompson

To open the above document into full screen mode, right click the icon at the far bottom right of the above container.  To exit full screen mode, hit the escape button on your keyboard.  

Related articles

• Gloucester Main Street Preservation Trust, Secret Shadow Gloucester, VA Government Extended Into 2014?
• Gloucester, VA Animal Control Monthly Report Updates Way Out of Date, January 2014.
• Gloucester, VA Officials Circumvent Discovery Throughout The County
• Gloucester, VA County Services Outrageous Costs, $600 Per Cat and Dog In November
• Gloucester, VA Officials Violate Anti Trust Laws In Illegal Gun Fraud Scam?
• Gloucester, VA County Employees At Hardees December 10th, 2013