Healthy People 2010

What has not been publicly realized is the meaning of this initiative and the various components that are encompassed.

This governmental increase has been combined with non-governemental organizations and grant programs. These NGOs have been creating partnerships with existing governmental agencies and masking initiatives as Federal and State grant reward programs. They are not.

Here, at the CDC is an overview of what is called, Healthy People 2010. As you can see from this link, the initiative is driven with 28 different categories. All of these categories have grant award programs that are awarding monies through various agencies to promote 'a healthy intiative program'. Some of the programs alone, sound harmless. When they are tied together though, they are disturbing.

Former (EX!) President Clinton's budget for his NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE is fueled by funding from the National Nanotechnology Initiative, National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Energy and the Department of Defense in combination with private and nonprofit funds from non-governmental organizations.

These funds now make available monies for grant projects for:
Focus Areas at a Glance (28)
1. Access to Quality Health Services
2. Arthritis, Osteoporosis and Chronic Back Conditions
3. Cancer
4. Chronic Kidney Disease
5. Diabetes
6. Disability and Secondary Conditions
7. Educational and Community-Based Programs
8. Environmental Health
9. Family Planning
10. Food Safety
11. Health Communication
12. Heart Disease and Stroke
13. HIV
14. Immunizations and Infectious Diseases
15. Injury and Violence Prevention
16. Maternal, Infant, and Child Health
17. Medical Product Safety
18. Mental Health and Mental Disorders
19. Nutrition and Overweight
20. Occupational Safety and Health
21. Oral Health
22. Physical Activity and Fitness
23. Public Health Infrastructure
24. Respiratory Diseases
25. Sexually Transmitted Diseases
26. Substance Abuse
27. Tobacco Use
28. Vision and Hearing

When an association, state, or company applies for the grants to fund these initiatives, in turn they authorize a Freedom of Information Release to all their data. This is a sample of the data collected from a grant application. All the data requirements are the same, the only difference is the partnered agency that is acting as a liaison for relaying the data. Example, this one below is using the USDA as the partnered liaison. If this was a hospital application, it would say the CDC.

Several Federal statutes and regulations apply to proposals considered for review and to grants awarded by USDA. These include, but are not limited to:
7 CFR part 1.1--USDA implementation of the Freedom of Information Act.
7 CFR part 15a--USDA implementation of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
7 CFR part 3015--USDA Uniform Federal Assistance Regulations.
7 CFR part 3016--Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments.
7 CFR part 3017--Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (nonprocurement) and Governmentwide Requirements for drug-free workplace (grants).
7 CFR part 3018--New Restrictions on Lobbying.
7 CFR part 3019--Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Nonprofit Organizations.
7 CFR part 3052--Audits of State, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations.
The terms of the above parts will be incorporated in a grant made by the NSIIC.

(snip) 7. Further Provisions. This section establishes further provisions that must be understood and agreed to by the Grantee.
(a) All of the terms and provisions of the application submitted by the Grantee for this SGIGI, including any attachments, amendments or conditions that are otherwise not in conflict with this Agreement are attached to and incorporated into this agreement. Any changes to these documents or this Agreement must be approved in writing by the Grantor,
(b) Grantee certifies that it is in compliance with, and will comply in the course of the Agreement with grant conditions and all applicable laws, regulations, Executive Orders, or other applicable requirements,
(c) The provisions of the following are incorporated into this Agreement by reference: 7 CFR part 3015--``USDA Uniform Federal Assistance Regulations''; 7 CFR part 3016--``Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments''; 7 CFR part 3017--``Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) and Governmentwide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Grants)''; 7 CFR part 3018--``New Restrictions on Lobbying''; 7 CFR part 3019--``Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Nonprofit Organizations''; and 7 CFR part 3052--``Audits of State, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations,''
(d) The Grantee shall not encumber, transfer or dispose of any property, equipment or other asset, or any part thereof, acquired wholly or in part with Grantor funds without the written consent of the Grantor,
(e) Grantees shall adequately control and safeguard all assets associated with the grant to ensure that they are used solely for authorized purposes,
(f) Grantor shall monitor performance in accordance with the applicable terms of the Agreement. Grantor reserves the right to monitor meetings and request documents applicable to the terms of the Agreement.
8. Assurances. Grantee has executed.
(a) Form AD-1047, ``Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters--Primary Covered Transactions,'' to certify that your organization is not debarred or suspended from Government assistance,
(b) AD-1048, ``Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion--Lower Tier Covered Transactions,'' from anyone you do business with as a result of this Government assistance,
(c) AD-1950, ``Certification Regarding a Drug-Free Workplace Requirements (Grants)'' to certify you will provide a drug-free awareness program for employees,
(d) RD 400-1, ``Equal Opportunity Agreement,''
(e) ``Certification Regarding Lobbying--Contracts, Grants, Loans and Cooperative Agreement.''
9. Accounting, Audits and Reporting Requirements.
(a) Generally Accepted Accounting Principles: The Grantee agrees to account for all amounts associated with this grant using Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Records must at least include:
(i) financial records that identify the source of all funds used for grant-supported activities, including Grant Funds, any matching funds, other funds, and;
(ii) source documentation to support activities.
(b) Audit: The project will be audited by a Certified Public Accountant annually or as otherwise agreed to in writing by the Grantor. All audits will be in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. The audit for the years the Grantee receives this financial assistance will be conducted in accordance with 7 CFR part 3052. Audits are due within 90 days after September 30 of the respective year and the Grantor is to receive a copy of this audit,
(c) Reports: The grantee will provide periodic reports as required by the Grantor. A financial status report and a project performance report will be submitted by the Grantee on a semi-annual basis (due each March 31 and September 30). The financial status report must show how Grant Funds and any matching funds have been used to date and project the funds needed and their purposes for the next six-month period. A final report may serve as the last semi-annual report.

Grantees shall constantly monitor performance to ensure that time schedules are being met and projected goals by time periods are being accomplished. The project performance report and final report shall include at least:
(i) A comparison of timeline, tasks and objectives outlined in the proposal as compared to the actual accomplishments,
(ii) If report varies from the stated objectives or they were not met, the reasons why established objectives were not met,
(iii) Problems, delays, or adverse conditions which will materially affect attainment of planned project objectives,
(iv) Objectives established for the next reporting period, and
(v) Status of compliance with any special conditions on the use of awarded funds.
(d) Proposal Results: Grantee shall deliver the results of any study or activity to the Grantor upon completion of each task outlined in the proposal. These include, but are not limited to, feasibility studies, marketing plans, business operations plans, articles of incorporation and bylaws. All items delivered to the Grantor will be held as proprietary information to the extent provided by law.
(e)
Record Retention: Financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other records pertinent to the grant must be kept for a period of at least 3 years after grant closing, except that the records shall be retained beyond the 3-year period if audit findings have not been resolved. Microfilm or photocopies or similar methods may be substituted in lieu of original records. The Grantor and the Comptroller General of the United States, or any of their duly authorized representatives, shall have access to any books, documents, papers, and records of the Grantee's which are pertinent to the specific grant program for the purpose of making audits, examinations, excerpts, and transcripts.
10. Funding.
(a) Payment: Requests for cash advances should be for the minimum amount needed and timed to the actual, immediate cash requirements for carrying out the grant purpose. The funds will be reimbursed or advanced based on submission of Standard Form 270, ``Request for Advance or Reimbursement.''
(b) Distribution of Funds: Once the Agreement is entered into, grant funds will be transferred electronically to an account specified by the Grantee.
(c) Pre-award costs: The grantee may incur or claim no cost prior to the Effective Date as provided for in this Agreement.
11. Code of Conduct and Conflict of Interest.
Conflict of interest for the purpose of this Agreement is defined in 7 U.S.C. 2008j and Grantee agrees to disclose any conflict of interest to Grantor.
12. Other Parties. This Agreement is not for the benefit of third parties. Grantor shall not be under any obligation to any such parties, whether directly or indirectly interested in this Agreement, to pay any charges or expenses incidental to compliance by Grantee with any of the duties or obligations imposed hereby.
13. Event of Default and Remedies.
(a) Events of Default of Grantee. By delineation and not limitation, any of the following occurrences shall be an ``event of default''. Written notice of default shall be provided within 90 days of such occurrence of an event of default:
(i) Any representation or warranty made by the Grantee in connection with this Agreement shall prove to have been false or misleading in any material respect on or as of the date made or deemed made,
(ii) Failure, inability or unwillingness of Grantee to carry out or comply with the terms or conditions of this Agreement, or any applicable laws,
(iii) The Grantee becomes insolvent, or ceases being able, or admits in writing to its inability to pay its debts as they mature, suspends its business operations, become a debtor in a bankruptcy proceeding or makes a general assignment for the benefit of, or enters into any composition or arrangement with, creditors, proceeds with the appointment of a receiver, trustee or liquidator, or like action and is not dismissed within 90 days.
(iv) A judgement or other like order for payment is rendered against the Grantee or any material adverse change occurs in the Grantee's financial condition.
(v) Submission or making of any report, statement, warranty, or representation by Grantee or agent on its behalf to Grantor in connection with the grant hereunder which is false, incomplete or incorrect in any material respect.
(b) Remedies:
(i) Upon the occurrence and during the continuation of any event of default, Grantor shall have no obligation to continue funding the Grantee as contemplated in this Agreement. Accordingly, Grantor shall suspend operations contemplated by this Agreement until the declaration of default is cured and Grantor notifies in writing such acknowledgment of cure,
(ii) The Grantee shall have 60 days from the notice of default to propose remedies and cures to Grantor to remove the event of default,
(iii) Grantor reserves the right to waive any and all events of default. Exercise of this waiver shall not preclude Grantor from declaring a similar future event as an event of default.
14. Notice. All notices hereunder and for whatever purpose, including declaration of default, shall be in writing and shall be deemed to be duly given upon delivery if personally delivered or sent by telecommunication (facsimile or e-mail) or 3 days after mailing if sent by express, certified or registered United States Postal Service mail, to the parties. The grantees address and contact person shall be the one provided on SF 424 and the Grantor shall be the National Sheep Industry Improvement Center, USDA, PO Box 23483, Washington, DC 20026-3483, if using the U.S. Postal Service or Room 2117, South Agriculture Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250 if using other carriers.
15. Amendments, Termination and Changes. The Agreement may be amended, changed or terminated by mutual consent of the parties in writing.
(a) Amendment: This Agreement may be amended with the mutual written consent of the Parties.
(b) Scope of Work: Any changes in project costs, source of funds, scope of services, or any other changes in the project or applicant must be reported to and approved by the Grantor by written amendment of this Agreement. Any changes not approved by the Grantor shall be cause for deobligating grant funding.
(c) Termination: The Agreement may be terminated by either party upon 30 days' notice in writing to the other party.
16. Conflict. Nothing herein is intended to conflict with current USDA directives. If the terms of this agreement are inconsistent with existing law or agency directives, then those portions of this agreement which are determined to be inconsistent shall be invalid, but the remaining terms and the agreement will remain in effect. All necessary changes will be accomplished either by an amendment to this agreement or by entering into a new agreement, whichever is deemed expedient to the interest of both parties.
17. In witness whereof, Grantee has this day authorized and caused this Agreement to be executed by:

What the schools, states, associations, and hospitals are doing, when they take the grant money, they are turning over the data, your data.

Foodborne diseases have declined significantly, said the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention April 29. In its annual report on the incidence of infections from foodborne pathogens, CDC noted significant declines from 1996 to 2003 in illnesses caused by E. coli O157:H7 (42 percent), Salmonella (17 percent), Campylobacter (28 percent) and Yersinia (49 percent). Illnesses caused by Salmonella Typhimurium (typically associated with meat and poultry) decreased by 38 percent. Most significantly, between 2002 and 2003, illnesses caused by E. coli O157:H7, typically associated with ground beef, dropped by 36 percent. The reduction in E. coli O157:H7 illnesses brings the United States very close to achieving the “Healthy People 2010”goal of 1.0 case per 100,000 people. The data, while inclusive of all foods, generally tracks the trends revealed through random regulatory testing of meat, poultry and egg products by the Food Safety and Inspection Service. In addition to testing results, recalls for Salmonella, E. coli O157:H7 and Listeria in FSIS regulated products also dropped from 65 in 2002 to 28 in 2003.

· Framework for implementing animal ID was announced April 27 by Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman. The National Animal Identification System (NAIS) is designed to identify any agricultural premise exposed to a foreign animal disease so that it can be more quickly contained and eradicated. Implementation of a NAIS will be conducted in three main phases. Under Phase I, USDA would evaluate current federally funded animal identification systems and determine which system(s) should be used for a NAIS, further the dialogue with producers and other stakeholders on the operation of a NAIS, identify staffing needs, and develop any regulatory and legislative proposals needed for implementing the system. Phase II would involve the implementation of the selected animal identification system at regional levels for one or more selected species, continuation of the communication and education effort, addressing regulatory needs and working with Congress on any needed legislation. In Phase III, the selected animal identification system(s) would be scaled up to the national level.

It looks like it is being launched from the USDA; but it isn't. The receiving of the data is going through the USDA and the grant monies are being funneled out through the USDA. The the data isn't being stored with the USDA.

12 indicators of the “GLOBAL HEALTH FOR ALL”strategy that were to be assessed by all countries in the world

At least 5% of the Gross National Product to be spent on health; A reasonable percentage of the national health expenditure devoted to local health care; Equal distribution of resources;

Same with the Model School Nutrition Program which falls under 7. Educational and Community-Based Programs and 10. Food Safety programs listed above. Our state just mandated it. So what does that mean? Our state took the grant money. Now, agents of this program get to enter our school systems to gather data and have auditing rights to the schools records.

They have now criminalized the peanut butter and jelly sandwich so these agents can come in and gather information on our children in public and private schools.

Target-Setting Methods

One of the three overarching goals for the Healthy People 2000 prevention initiative was to reduce health disparities among Americans.1 The framework of Healthy People 2010 has taken this a step further by proposing to “eliminate health disparities” as one of the two primary goals for the next decade.

DATA2010 is a SAS database that contains one record (or observation) for each objective and subpart found in the 28 focus areas. The database will also contain records for the measures used to track the goals and the Leading Health Indicators.

Future Plans

In the future, DATA2010 will contain additional population groups, and include options for chart and map generation. State data are expected to be added to the database, and users will be able to select national and/or State data. There also will be links to the operational definitions in Tracking Healthy People 2010 and to the Healthy People 2010 Web site http://health.gov/healthypeople/. Where available, standard errors of the estimates will be included in the database

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1563271/posts?page=23#23

>>>University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ)

NOTE: Robert Wood Johnson is UMDNJ

Robert Wood Johnson Lays Food Cops' Foundation
From ConsumerFreedom.com
Oct 27, 2003

"Greetings, fat people," writes Jack Gordon in the Minneapolis Star Tribune. "It cannot have escaped your notice that you lately have been reclassified as not merely unsightly but an actual public health hazard and a menace to society." The chunky among us, he continues, are now being blamed for "oppressing the innocent and the svelte by exerting upward pressure on their health-insurance premiums." And America's public health activists "intend to put a stop to you."

How did we get here? Part of the answer can be found in Princeton, New Jersey, where the biggest health cop in the world, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), is headquartered. As we've told you before, RWJF is applying its anti-alcohol model to burgers, fries, and apple pie -- even proclaiming that our love-handles are "forcing what may be a cultural revolution" in which "ideas to cut obesity that once sounded extreme are gaining public attention and moving into mainstream thinking."

Thus far, RWJF's biggest contribution to this "cultural revolution" has been two studies it funded, published last year in the journal Health Affairs. Not surprisingly, RWJF lavished Health Affairs with nearly $2 million in 2002.

The first of these RWJF-funded studies, conducted by Rand Corporation researcher Roland Sturm, concluded -- through a tortured mess of statistical mumbo-jumbo -- that obesity is more expensive for our healthcare system than either alcohol dependence or tobacco. It's this kind of agenda-driven "research" that groups like the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) seize on to justify "solutions" like fat taxes and lawsuits against food companies. And as The Washington Post made clear in 2002, Sturm shares CSPI's agenda:

"Achieving lasting health behavioral change is difficult and rarely achieved by exhorting individuals to exercise more, eat healthier foods," writes Sturm. It takes changes in the environment to discourage overeating, he says. The narrow focus on diets "is not going to work," he says. "This is doomed to fail." He points to the tobacco analogy. Smoking rates have dropped not because the surgeon general exhorted individuals not to smoke, but because of higher taxes on cigarettes, the establishment of smoke-free buildings and work sites, limits on tobacco advertising, the isolation of smokers in restaurants and other public places, a broad public education campaign on smoking hazards and, finally, a legal attack on tobacco companies.

The second RWJF-funded study came out of a $36,801 grant it gave Brown University professor James Morone to analyze "the promises and pitfalls of government action, the varied roles of different political institutions, the coalitions of interest groups around obesity." Shortly thereafter, Health Affairs published Morone's article, "The politics of obesity: Seven steps to government action."

Morone begins by disparaging the "myths about individualism and self-reliance" in America:

[D]espite the enduring myths about American self-reliance, the U.S. government has a long tradition of intervening in what seems to be purely private behavior. From alcohol restrictions in the early Republic to the tobacco wars of recent years, personal behavior has regularly become subject to governmental intervention, regulation, and prohibition.

Three of Morone's "seven steps" deserve special attention. Regarding the concept of the "demon industry," he argues that "a growing literature slams fast foods, junk foods, and soft drinks":

With this trigger in cultural play, obesity begins to shift from being a private health matter to being a political issue. Scientific findings never carry the same political weight as does a villain threatening American youth. If critics successfully cast portions of the industry in this way, far-reaching political interventions are possible, even likely. When an industry becomes demonized, plausible counterarguments (privacy, civil liberties, property rights, and the observation that "everyone does it") begin to totter. [emphasis added]

Discussing the "mass movement" step, Morone quotes a New Republic profile of Twinkie-tax pioneer Kelly Brownell: "Brownell is not out leading a mass movement on the streets of New Haven and has no plans to do so." And Morone recognizes that "demonization generally precedes mobilization: The politics of the preceding trigger will affect the prospects for this one. If super-sizing a soft drink and fries begins to seem as dangerous as lighting up a cigarette, a movement may very well spring up." As it happens, Brownell predicted just such a mass movement last week.

Finally, describing the "self help" step, Morone writes: "Reformers frustrated by offenders' resistance to their message of uplift and self-improvement urge government sanctions." Here's where we get back to Jack Gordon and his hilarious column in the Minneapolis Star Tribune. The mindset that Gordon mocks perfectly reflects the RWJF-funded studies of Sturm and Morone:

[E]ven if you were perfectly aware that overeating is unhealthy, you kind of figured you had a right to go to hell in your own way, yes? Well, those days are over. You have drawn the losing ticket in the victimological sweepstakes.

Once the merchants of death have been properly chastised and the lawyers have cashed in, however, the Legions of Light and Splendor will turn their censorious gaze upon you. Personally. They will not long be satisfied merely to scold you for biggie-sizing the No. 3 Value Meal. Instead they will hunt for an excuse that entitles them, in the name of plain self-defense, to slap that double cheeseburger right out of your jaws. And they will find one ... The scolding phase is still underway, but the real war against the obesity epidemic is about to begin.

Bergen County Chief Of Police Jack Schmidig leads Regional Roll-Out of VeriChip by Receiving a VeriChip
Friday April 22, 8:30 am ET

With Hospital Emergency Room Infrastructure To Provide Secure ID and Medical Record Access For VeriChip Patients, Thought and Opinion Leaders to Play Key Role in Adoption of VeriChip(TM)

Yahoo Financial News
DELRAY BEACH, Fla.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--April 22, 2005-- VeriChip Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Applied Digital (NASDAQ: ADSX - News), announced today that the Bergen County, New Jersey Chief of Police has been implanted with the VeriChip. Chief of Police Jack Schmidig, a member of the police force for over 30 years, received a VeriChip as part of the Company's strategy of enlisting key regional leaders to accelerate adoption of the VeriChip. With hospital emergency room infrastructure forming, patients will have the ability to provide secure ID and medical record access in an emergency or clinical situation.

"High-profile regional leaders are accepting the VeriChip, representing an excellent example of our approach to gaining adoption of the technology," said Kevin H. McLaughlin, VeriChip Corporation's CEO. "The northern New Jersey area represents one of our early regional targets, and in a short time period we have secured a leading hospital in the region which has agreed to adopt the VeriChip System to scan patients; initiated efforts to educate the physician community in conjunction with one of our distribution partners Henry Schein Corporation, and implanted several high-profile members of the community with the VeriChip. We intend to employ this approach on a regional basis to accelerate acceptance of this Class II medical device."

VeriChip Corporation has adopted three key elements to its marketing strategy to develop regional acceptance for VeriChip. They include developing the infrastructure at regional hospitals to support the VeriChip System (scanner and database) in the Emergency Rooms; educating the medical community in the region in conjunction with Henry Schein and other distribution partners; and seeking high-profile members of the community to receive the VeriChip to raise awareness of the device.

Initially, the Company has identified several groups of patients that are likely to benefit from the VeriChip due to medical conditions. These include diabetics, chronic and cardiac care patients, memory impaired patients and patients with implanted medical devices. These patients would benefit from having a VeriChip as a result of medical conditions that increase the likelihood of an emergency room visit, which could require time-sensitive procedures where access to medical records would be critical.

Using the VeriChip System, the emergency room attendant could scan the VeriChip in the patient's arm, accessing a unique 16-digit ID number. This number would be linked to a medical records database, which would provide detailed information on implanted medical devices and patient medical records, which could provide valuable information allowing the hospital to quickly implement the appropriate procedures on patients who otherwise might not be able to communicate medical histories due to impaired conditions.

About VeriChip Corporation

VeriChip Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Applied Digital, provides leading-edge security solutions for people, their assets, and their environments. From the world's first and only FDA-cleared, human-implantable microchip to the only active RFID tag with patented skin-sensing capabilities, VeriChip leads the way in next-generation RFID technologies. Today, over 3,000 installations in healthcare, security, industry, and governments worldwide benefit from both the protection and cost savings that VeriChip Corporation's innovation delivers. For more information on VeriChip Corporation, please visit www.verichipcorp.com.

About Applied Digital

Applied Digital develops innovative security products for consumer, commercial, and government sectors worldwide. The Company's unique and often proprietary products provide security for people, animals, the food supply, government/military arena, and commercial assets. Included in this diversified product line are RFID applications, end-to-end food safety systems, GPS/Satellite communications, and telecomm and security infrastructure, positioning Applied Digital as the leader of Security Through Innovation. Applied Digital is the owner of a majority position in Digital Angel Corporation (AMEX: DOC - News).

For more information, visit the company's website at http://www.adsx.com.

Statements about the Company's future expectations, including future revenues and earnings, and all other statements in this press release other than historical facts are "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and as that term is defined in the Private Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties and are subject to change at any time, and the Company's actual results could differ materially from expected results. The Company undertakes no obligation to update forward-looking statements to reflect subsequently occurring events or circumstances.
Contact:

CEOcast, Inc. for Applied Digital
Ken Sgro, 212-732-4300
kensgro@ceocast.com

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

	n		Objective number
n		Objective text (abbreviated)
n			Baseline year
n			Baseline data
n		Tracking data for subsequent years (future)
n		2010 Target
n		Comments (definitions, clarifications, and explanations)
n		Data source(s)