The Associated Press reported this week that, “President Donald Trump will allow year-round sales of renewable fuel with blends of 15 percent ethanol as part of an emerging deal to make changes to the federal ethanol mandate.

“Republican senators and the White House announced the deal Tuesday after a closed-door meeting, the latest in a series of White House sessions on ethanol.

“The Environmental Protection Agency currently bans the 15-percent blend, called E15, during the summer because of concerns that it contributes to smog on hot days. Gasoline typically contains 10 percent ethanol. Farm-state lawmakers have pushed for greater sales of the higher ethanol blend to boost demand for the corn-based fuel.”

The AP article stated that, “The EPA oversees the decade-old Renewable Fuel Standard, commonly known as the ethanol mandate, which sets out how much corn-based ethanol and other renewable fuels refiners must blend into gasoline. The program’s intent was to address global warming, reduce dependence on foreign oil and bolster the rural economy by requiring a steady increase in renewable fuels over time.”

And the article added, “Environmental groups criticized the deal, saying it would worsen air pollution during summer months.”

The Associated Press reported yesterday that, “A Maine congressman says he plans to go forward with a proposal to include frozen and canned foods in the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program despite criticism from the program’s founder.

“The proposal by Republican U.S. Rep. Bruce Poliquin is part of the federal Farm Bill that’s wending its way through approvals. Poliquin cites Maine blueberries as an example of a frozen food that could help the program. The proposal also opens it up to dried and pureed foods.”

The AP article noted that, “Retired Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin, of Iowa, initiated the program in 2002. He has criticized Poliquin’s plan to alter the program, saying, ‘once you start whittling away at it, it’s no longer a Fresh Fruit and Vegetable program.'”

MacKenzie Elmer reported earlier this week at The Des Moines Register Online that, “The Des Moines City Council put a proposition to ban roosters on hold after urban farmers cried fowl Monday night.

“The city’s chief humane officer suggested the change due to complaints over the crowing birds. After hearing arguments both for and against chicken farming in the capital city, council members halted a decisive vote, opting instead to spend more time tweaking the town’s pet ordinance.

“Martha Swanson, who lives on East 28th Street, told the council her neighbor’s rooster crows every 20 seconds from ‘4:30 in the morning until well past evening.'”

The article added that, “Tanya Keith, an urban farmer in the Riverbend neighborhood who’s against the ban, said she doesn’t want roosters to ‘torture’ fellow citizens. But Des Moines already has an ordinance that addresses nuisance noise and smell, she said.

“The proposed ordinance would also have required property owners to keep shelters, pens, coops and cages for fowl, rabbits, ferrets and other small animals a minimum of 25 feet from other residential and commercial buildings. Owners would have been required to keep coops in a ‘sanitary condition’ to ‘prevent odors perceptible at the property boundaries.'”

“Enforcement of the rooster ban would have been complaint-based. The ordinance would have allowed any animal that’s been on a property since 2009, though one urban farmer noted that since roosters only live about eight years, the proposed ordinance would have effectively banned all roosters.”

Des Moines Register writer MacKenzie Elmer reported recently that, “Des Moines leaders on Monday will consider a ban on keeping roosters within the city limits.

“Sgt. Jim Butler, the city’s animal control officer, said the crowing birds are causing ‘a big problem’ for Des Moines neighbors. But residents with backyard hen houses say roosters provide necessary protection for their urban flocks.

“Des Moines animal control officers responded to 79 rooster-specific calls between August and December last year. Barking dogs were the only animals that generated more noise complaints, Butler said.”

The Register article noted that, “Banning roosters would ‘free an enormous amount of time (our officers) spend going on rooster calls,’ [Butler] said.

“Tanya Keith, an urban chicken farmer who lives in the River Bend neighborhood, says roosters serve as a ‘natural security system.'”

Ms. Elmer added that, “Back in October, the city council discussed cutting the number of legal fowl per property from 30 to 15 and banning roosters. Those plans were met with push back from urban farmers and the proposed changes never made it to council vote.

“The changes being considered Monday would keep the 30-fowl limit in tact, but it does suggest other restrictions.

“It would require property owners to keep shelters, pens, coops and cages a minimum of 25 feet from other residential and commercial buildings. Owners would be required to keep coops in a ‘sanitary condition’ to ‘prevent odors perceptible at the property boundaries.'”

Omaha World-Herald writer Paul Hammel reported recently that, “At least one legal expert expects a lawsuit to be filed in connection with last Sunday’s fatal accident that occurred in a curtain of dust near the Hampton exit on Interstate 80.

“About 30 vehicles were involved in the chain-reaction crash, about 120 miles west of Omaha.

Washington Post writer Caitlin Dewey reported today that, “Foodmakers will soon be required to disclose when their products contain genetically modified ingredients — but those labels may not be as obvious, or as comprehensive, as consumers expected.

“Food products may be exempted from labeling if they are made with some refined GM sugars and oils, or if a product contains GM ingredients in amounts that fall beneath a predetermined threshold, according to a proposed rule released by the Agriculture Department on Thursday.

“The proposed rule also instructs foodmakers to use the term ‘bioengineered‘ to label GM foods instead of ‘genetically modified,’ a more recognizable phrase.”

Ms. Dewey noted that, “The proposed rule, which will now undergo a public comment period and could be finalized as early as this summer, represents a major milestone in the complicated, years-long process to regulate the labeling of GM foods. Congress passed a mandatory-labeling law in 2016, but implementation has been delayed by questions about which foods should be covered and what types of labels foodmakers should use.

“Food and consumer groups said they were happy to see the rules move forward, though some expressed concern about provisions they say could leave many products excluded and many shoppers confused.”

The Post article added that, “Food companies will have three options for disclosing GM ingredients, the USDA said: a one-sentence label declaration, such as ‘contains a bioengineered food ingredient;’ a standardized icon, like that used in the National Organic Program; or a QR code or other digital marker that directs shoppers to a website for more information. In a statement, the Grocery Manufacturers Association praised the flexible standard, pointing out that it has already put QR codes on 25,000 products through its SmartLabel program.”