WASHINGTON — Just today, I learned of several proposed amendments to standards related to nutritional yeast manufacturing, including revising the form of the fermented volatile organic compounds (V.O.C.) emission limits, changing the testing and monitoring requirements, and updating the reporting and record-keeping requirements. I call it Yeastgate! Yeast is causing Global Warming!
The weird thing is, current nutritional yeast manufacturing works just fine. So why the fuss? What force would cause our nation to do something so stupid? Here's a hint: It's the same force that from time to time gets a bee in its bloated federal bonnet and decides to spend billions of dollars on some scheme to convert us all to gas cans that don't work, toilets that must be flushed repeatedly to "save water", or give us all Swine Flu shots, or outlaw tricycles, or harp about global warming when there ain't any. You guessed it! Our government! More specifically, the Environmental Protection Agency.
Only in a world where bureaucratic bumblers get male & female bathrooms mixed-up can we expect to find those same pandected panic-peddling paper-pushers calling nutritional yeast a V.O.C. A V.O.C, for crying out loud! That means volatile organic compound--for the progressives who might be reading.
Now we expect to find V.O.C. labels and warnings on Lacquer thinner, Acetone, and Methyl Ethyl Ketone, but NUTRITIONAL YEAST? We put the stuff on popcorn! And love it!
In case your supply of misery isn't high enough, here is a smattering of the legalese that Braggs, Harmony House, and Mercola will have to sort through just to comply with the proposed additional EPA regulations:
The proposed amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Manufacturing of Nutritional Yeast source category are in the Dec. 28 issue of the Federal Register and may be found here.
The second stage in standard-setting focuses on reducing any remaining (i.e., ‘‘residual’’) risk according to CAA section 112(f). CAA section 112(f)(1) required that the EPA prepare a report to Congress discussing (among other things) methods of calculating the risks posed (or potentially posed) by sources after implementation of the MACT standards, the public health significance of those risks, and the EPA’s recommendations as to legislation regarding such remaining risk. The EPA prepared and submitted the ‘‘Residual Risk Report to Congress,’’ EPA–453/R– 99–001 (‘‘Risk Report’’) in March 1999. CAA section 112(f)(2) then provides that if Congress does not act on any recommendation in the Risk Report, the EPA must analyze and address residual risk for each category or subcategory of sources 8 years after promulgation of such standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d). Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires the EPA to determine for source categories subject to MACT standards whether the emission standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. Section 112(f)(2)(B) of the CAA expressly preserves the EPA’s use of the two-step process for developing standards to address any residual risk and the Agency’s interpretation of . . . . Asleep yet ??
Owners or operators must demonstrate compliance by using a V.O.C. continuous emission monitoring system (C.E.M.S.) to determine the V.O.C. concentration in the fermenter exhaust;
Owners or operators may not use a gas chromatographic C.E.M.S. to monitor V.O.C. concentration;
Owners or operators must have valid C.E.M.S. data from each hour of the entire batch monitoring period and report periods of missing data as deviations;
Owners or operators of V.O.C. C.E.M.S. must conduct annual performance tests; and
Owners or operators must provide regular compliance reports electronically.
The E.P.A.’s manufacturing of nutritional yeast source category includes any facility engaged in the manufacture of baker’s yeast by fermentation (both active dry yeast and compressed yeast). If that isn't enough, take heart, there are 38,896 more words in their document, as they save the American public from a horrifying fate at the hands of nutritional yeast. Yeast !
Ps. And not a word about corporate animal production and slaughterhouses that are grossly inefficient methods of 'food' production.
I checked this out with a health food store, who told me that the proposed E.P.A. regulatory burden could make nutritional yeast too expensive to manufacture, or outlaw it altogether by imposing huge fines on people making the dangerous stuff. Ironic! The irony is that you can buy drugs in many inner cities in America by simply opening your front door and yelling "Hey, I need some crack!"
Vegetarians, vegans and popcorn eaters around the globe... Unite! I urge you to stand up to these yeastophobes, write your congresshumans and tell them you are standing up for yeast. This is your chance to make a difference!
While you're at it, tell them you'd like to see a constitutional amendment stating that if any federal agency has so much spare time that it's over-regulating nutritional yeast, that agency will immediately be eliminated, and its buildings will be used for something productive, such as laser tag.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go make some popcorn and sprinkle it with Braggs yeast. While I still can . . .
ChurchMouse