Skip to main content

"Please, Do Not Share, Forward, Discuss Nor Distribute My Previously Emailed Document"- George Ferguson Of North Carolina Department Of Agriculture

In recent files obtained via FOIA, George Ferguson of North Carolina shared his insights about his own state department's involvement in trying to privatize the term "human grade" via the private corporation AAFCO, of which his state would intern "adopt" via reference. In essence, Mr. Ferguson as a public employee involved with other employees in trying to privatize the regulation process for the pet food industry.

There are many moral questions surrounding public employees such as George Ferguson of North Carolina Department Of Agriculture. He has personally been involved in calling citizens foul names, and helping to "restrict access" to AAFCO meetings for certain citizens. This could also be called a ban. 

In one email, Mr. Ferguson states "I have also added a couple of pages of my own thoughts/comments that I believe the committee and any subsequent workgroup should consider if/when a decision is made to move forward with the AMS partnership." In a separate email, Mr. Ferguson follows up with other public employees stating, "Please, do not share, forward, discuss nor distribute my previously emailed document concerning our workgroup recommendations and my thoughts. As this document is in a draft form, sharing or discussing outside of our group at this time would be unacceptable."

When regulations are made in the dark, and at a high cost for citizens to attend, that is not "transparency" and it is not "for the public interest". Mr. Ferguson and other public employees are able to perform these same exact regulatory functions publicly, but they currently refuse to do so. 

Given that this public employee wishes to conduct his rule making privately, and away from the eyes of the public (even resulting to banning members of the public), Pet Schooled is making his previously emailed documents public in the name of transparency and the public record. 







Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How To Submit Comment Re: FDA (FDA-CVM) 2023 budget

FDA-CVM is continuing their refusal to properly address various longstanding, and rectifiable issues. In their " 2023   Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees ", FDA writes glowingly about FDA-CVM regulatory actions. (FDA-CVM related material starts on page 172 https://www.fda.gov/media/157192/download).  FDA-CVM has continuously stated it can't meet its obligations under FOIA law because of "resources". FDA-CVM has also stated it doesn't have the resources to hold regular, public meetings. In its request for " $43 million in additional investments in food safety modernization, including animal food safety oversight ", FOIA is not mentioned. Public meetings are not mentioned. FDA-CVM does not make it known that there is significant interest from the public in these areas. The agency simply ignores the issues.  Part of my argument over the years is that FDA-CVM doesn't want, nor do they care to fix these issues. I believe part ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Shocked But Not Shocked By Newest FDA-CVM Admission Re: Salmonella

A recent FOIA request has forced FDA-CVM to admit facts many already suspected. In 2020, records were requested from FDA-CVM for "all records from FDA for cases where dogs or cats are confirmed to have died from salmonella after eating raw dog or raw cat food." The date range for the request for records was January 2017 through December 2019. Three years later in May 2023, FDA responded stating, "The Center For Veterinary Medicine has conducted a search and did not locate any records responsive to your request."  Shocking. FDA-CVM has conducted an outright war against the raw pet food sector over the past five years. There are several issues with FDA-CVM's approach with a "zero tolerance policy." First, FDA-CVM considers even "non pathogenic" salmonella to be an "adulterant" for pet food. This means that even if the salmonella serotype is benign or known to be a serotype that will likely never cause a health issue to humans or pets,...
Post a Comment
Read more

FOIA Request Reveals Severe Lack Of FDA-CVM Records On HPP

Years ago, I had a back and forth with FDA where the media department refused to specific whether "raw" pet food that had been subjected to HPP (high pressure pasteurization) had been subjected to a kill step or not. The FDA stated "HPP can be a kill step when effectively done, however, it must be properly validated to confirm the effectiveness in a pet food product. " I then asked FDA: Please define or provide me documents on "when effectively done" means as per FDA.  What does FDA deem to be properly validated to confirm the effectiveness in a pet food product? Does FDA approve a pet food company's use as HPP as effective or non effective before they implement this in their foods? After FDA-CVM refused to provide me further information, I filed a FOIA request with the agency for records on this matter. I eventually had to sue the agency under FOIA law, and force the agency to comply with my FOIA request. Years later, I finally have what FDA-CVM is st...
Post a Comment
Read more