PDA

View Full Version : Food Safety Bill Passes House/Senate, President to sign, Gardens illegal?




Patriotxi
12-25-2010, 10:56 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptUeglSvhAM
Organic Farms, Back Yard Vegetable Gardens and animal farming destroyed by "The Food Safety Modernization Act"

"[S 510] would preclude the public's right to grow, own, trade, transport, share, feed and eat each and every food that nature makes. It will become the most offensive authority against the cultivation, trade and consumption of food and agricultural products of one's choice. It will be unconstitutional and contrary to natural law or, if you like, the will of God." It is similar to what India faced with imposition of the salt tax during British rule, only S 510 extends control over all food in the US, violating the fundamental human right to food." ~ Dr. Shiv Chopra, Canada Health whistle blower.

"Section 3 which is the definitions portion of the bill-read in it's entirety. section 103, 206 and 207- read in it's entirety.
Legally binds state agriculture depts to enforcing federal guidelines effectively taking away the states power to do anything other than being food police for the federal dept.

Effectively criminalizes organic farming but doesn't actually use the word organic.
Effects anyone growing food even if they are not selling it but consuming it.
Effects anyone producing meat of any kind including wild game.

Legislation is so broad based that every aspect of growing or producing food can be made illegal. There are no specifics which is bizarre considering how long the legislation is.
Section 103 is almost entirely about the administrative aspect of the legislation. It will allow the appointing of officials from the factory farming corporations and lobbyists and classify them as experts and allow them to determine and interpret the legislation. Who do you think they are going to side with? [italics mine]
Section 206 defines what will be considered a food production facility and what will be enforced up all food production facilities. The wording is so broad based that a backyard gardener could be fined and more.
Section 207 requires that the state's agriculture dept act as the food police and enforce the federal requirements. This takes away the states power and is in violation of the 10th amendment."

S. 510 the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2010, may be the most dangerous bill in the history of the US.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptUeglSvhAM

AxisMundi
12-25-2010, 01:02 PM
As usual the usual suspects do not expect Americans to actually read the document.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-510

For example, from the summery page...

Exempts certain establishments that sell food directly to consumers, such as roadside stands, farmers markets or participants in a community supported agriculture program, from specified requirements of this Act.

This bill is designed to improve food safety inspection for domestic large scale operations already under the auspices of such laws, and to improve the safety of imported foods. The bill also addresses other concerns such as increasing manpower for the purpose of being able to adequately inspect said already effected production facilities, and provide protection for employee whistle blowers.

Beck has already proven himself nothing more than a media whore looking for ratings. He accomplishes this by spinning the most mundane bills generated by the Dems into some horrific Orwellian plot fantasy.

dannno
12-25-2010, 01:28 PM
As usual the usual suspects do not expect Americans to actually read the document.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-510

For example, from the summery page...

Exempts certain establishments that sell food directly to consumers, such as roadside stands, farmers markets or participants in a community supported agriculture program, from specified requirements of this Act.

This bill is designed to improve food safety inspection for domestic large scale operations already under the auspices of such laws, and to improve the safety of imported foods. The bill also addresses other concerns such as increasing manpower for the purpose of being able to adequately inspect said already effected production facilities, and provide protection for employee whistle blowers.

Beck has already proven himself nothing more than a media whore looking for ratings. He accomplishes this by spinning the most mundane bills generated by the Dems into some horrific Orwellian plot fantasy.

The exempt portion was added only a few weeks ago, originally the bill included small farms, roadside stands and farmer's markets. It would have destroyed these industries.

The fact is that it would be really easy to take this exemption away, all they need to do is manufacture a crisis involving a food stand or small farm and they can get congress to pass it in a day.

The second fact is GOVERNMENT CANNOT IMPROVE FOOD SAFETY.

Anti Federalist
12-25-2010, 01:43 PM
The exempt portion was added only a few weeks ago, originally the bill included small farms, roadside stands and farmer's markets. It would have destroyed these industries.

The fact is that it would be really easy to take this exemption away, all they need to do is manufacture a crisis involving a food stand or small farm and they can get congress to pass it in a day.

The second fact is GOVERNMENT CANNOT IMPROVE FOOD SAFETY.

That ^^^

As usual, AxisMundane is a day late and dollar short.

Although he does have this part right:


Beck has already proven himself nothing more than a media whore looking for ratings.

Bills like this popped up on a regular basis under the GOP regime, with nary a word of protest.

AxisMundi
12-25-2010, 02:22 PM
The exempt portion was added only a few weeks ago, originally the bill included small farms, roadside stands and farmer's markets. It would have destroyed these industries.

The fact is that it would be really easy to take this exemption away, all they need to do is manufacture a crisis involving a food stand or small farm and they can get congress to pass it in a day.

The second fact is GOVERNMENT CANNOT IMPROVE FOOD SAFETY.

Your point?

What is in the bill when it is signed into law is what matters.

And you freely indulge in the same Beck style hysterics as well in your reply above.

And yes, g'ment can indeed improve food safety by insuring that manufacturers adhere to certain standards for food safety.

Anti Federalist
12-25-2010, 02:29 PM
And yes, g'ment can indeed improve food safety transportation security by insuring that manufacturers citizens adhere to certain standards for food transportation safety.

Fixed that for you.

Once allowing the premise, then nothing falls outside government's authority.

dannno
12-25-2010, 03:10 PM
And yes, g'ment can indeed improve food safety by insuring that manufacturers adhere to certain standards for food safety.

Government can pass bills that say they will improve food safety, but they can't improve food safety. For one thing, the people who run government are the people who own the large food manufacturers. All they do is increase regulations that fit their business model so that more innovative, safer and better food manufacturers are forced to compete on the same business model rather than developing their own more innovative business model that might not adhere to the regulations set forth by the food manufacturers who write them. Regulations kill innovation, and they help keep together the large food monopolies.

The only thing that you mentioned that I liked at first was the whistleblower clause, but then I realized that was anti-free market so instead of thinking that the free market had a flaw, I thought about ways that the free market could combat corporations who are breaking the law and had employees who wanted to tell on them but did not want to lose their job. After a couple of minutes of thinking, I came up with a solution. First. Whistleblower laws are AWESOME when applied directly to government!! Nobody in government should ever be fired for whistleblowing on the government or on a government institution essentially run by private business (which should never happen, but this is a good protection against that). So we should definitely have whistleblower laws for government institutions. Second. Whistleblower magazine. You could have Whistleblower Food magazine, too!! You start off small.. You have a few thousand subscriptions. You offer anybody who wants to blow the whistle on their private corporation for breaking the law $5,000 or $10,000 and you do a whole write-up on the business and what laws they were breaking. So it has to be legitimate in order to receive the money. Innevitebly these people will probably be fired. Sure, a lot of people aren't willing to take $5,000 or $10,000 to lose their job and have to find a new one, but some people are. Then as it becomes more popular, soon you have hundreds of thousands of subscriptions and you can offer people a $50,000 to blow the whistle on their corporation, or more, or less depending on the offense of the corporation. Now you have all sorts of people coming out of the woodworks to blow the whistle on corporations.. and instead of getting a measly promise that you'll get to work for the same law-breaking corporation that you probably hate, and who now hates you, you get a years worth of salary and get to go find a new job.

dannno
12-25-2010, 04:49 PM
bump

speciallyblend
12-25-2010, 05:56 PM
I am a terrorist!! I grow my own food(working on that) and i will never pay a dime to private insurance or gov insurance(scum of the earth)!!

AxisMundi
12-25-2010, 08:50 PM
Fixed that for you.

Once allowing the premise, then nothing falls outside government's authority.

Did you have something of substance to add to this thread?

AxisMundi
12-25-2010, 08:56 PM
Government can pass bills that say they will improve food safety, but they can't improve food safety. For one thing, the people who run government are the people who own the large food manufacturers. All they do is increase regulations that fit their business model so that more innovative, safer and better food manufacturers are forced to compete on the same business model rather than developing their own more innovative business model that might not adhere to the regulations set forth by the food manufacturers who write them. Regulations kill innovation, and they help keep together the large food monopolies.

The only thing that you mentioned that I liked at first was the whistleblower clause, but then I realized that was anti-free market so instead of thinking that the free market had a flaw, I thought about ways that the free market could combat corporations who are breaking the law and had employees who wanted to tell on them but did not want to lose their job. After a couple of minutes of thinking, I came up with a solution. First. Whistleblower laws are AWESOME when applied directly to government!! Nobody in government should ever be fired for whistleblowing on the government or on a government institution essentially run by private business (which should never happen, but this is a good protection against that). So we should definitely have whistleblower laws for government institutions. Second. Whistleblower magazine. You could have Whistleblower Food magazine, too!! You start off small.. You have a few thousand subscriptions. You offer anybody who wants to blow the whistle on their private corporation for breaking the law $5,000 or $10,000 and you do a whole write-up on the business and what laws they were breaking. So it has to be legitimate in order to receive the money. Innevitebly these people will probably be fired. Sure, a lot of people aren't willing to take $5,000 or $10,000 to lose their job and have to find a new one, but some people are. Then as it becomes more popular, soon you have hundreds of thousands of subscriptions and you can offer people a $50,000 to blow the whistle on their corporation, or more, or less depending on the offense of the corporation. Now you have all sorts of people coming out of the woodworks to blow the whistle on corporations.. and instead of getting a measly promise that you'll get to work for the same law-breaking corporation that you probably hate, and who now hates you, you get a years worth of salary and get to go find a new job.

I agree with the whistle blower laws protecting g'ment employees, sounds grand.

As for the rest of your argument, you appear to adhere not to actual Free market ideals, but the Free-For-All Market pushed by the Republicans, along with their supply side economics, since the Reagen era, economic theories that have only served to drive the Nation nearly into the ditch.

This Free-For-All Market idea would see hundreds if not thousands, of people poisoned by "innovation" (read as corporate greed finding short cuts that cut food safety) before people realize that a certain company has unsafe practices.

Do companies let things slip through today? Certainly, and this legislation appears to be an attempt to plug a few glaring and wide holes, such as a lack of inspectors and imported foods.

Whether it works remains to be seen.

speciallyblend
12-25-2010, 08:56 PM
Did you have something of substance to add to this thread?

he did he fixed your post;) It said alot;) it is called common sense! He made his point perfectly clear you just choose to ignore it!

Anti Federalist
12-25-2010, 10:00 PM
Did you have something of substance to add to this thread?

LoL, nothing more than what I already posted, and to bust your balls.

AxisMundi
12-25-2010, 10:13 PM
LoL, nothing more than what I already posted, and to bust your balls.


he did he fixed your post;) It said alot;) it is called common sense! He made his point perfectly clear you just choose to ignore it!

Since when does unrelated garbage constitute "saying a lot"?

Besides the implied ad hominem by hinting that I support TSA policies.

Anti Federalist
12-25-2010, 10:21 PM
Besides the implied ad hominem by hinting that I support TSA policies.

You do.

I'd be hard pressed to find the constitutional authority for the fedgov to regulate food in any manner whatsoever.

You say they have a valid role to play.

Then I say they have a role to play in transportation "security" using your reasoning.

And I could certainly find more constitutional authority for the feds to do that than to regulate food.

AxisMundi
12-25-2010, 10:24 PM
You do.

I'd be hard pressed to find the constitutional authority for the fedgov to regulate food in any manner whatsoever.

You say they have a valid role to play.

Then I say they have a role to play in transportation "security" using your reasoning.

And I could certainly find more constitutional authority for the feds to do that than to regulate food.

Feel free to provide even ONE quote from myself stating that I support TSA policy.

TCE
12-25-2010, 10:26 PM
Feel free to provide even ONE quote from myself stating that I support TSA policy.

That's a stretch, fine, but with your argument, it is easy to take what you say to its logical conclusion. If government has a role to play in food safety even though it isn't authorized anywhere in the Constitution, then they probably have a role in everything. I mean, the government has to save everyone, right? This is another thread where you've toed the line about big government involvement, then when someone accuses you of it, you attack them by claiming you never said anything about that specifically. Patterns?

AxisMundi
12-25-2010, 10:47 PM
That's a stretch, fine, but with your argument, it is easy to take what you say to its logical conclusion. If government has a role to play in food safety even though it isn't authorized anywhere in the Constitution, then they probably have a role in everything. I mean, the government has to save everyone, right? This is another thread where you've toed the line about big government involvement, then when someone accuses you of it, you attack them by claiming you never said anything about that specifically. Patterns?

Slippery Slope Fallacy.

Firstly, all government levels have issued food safety measures since the 1800's. Nothing new, as some people here have been hinting.

Secondly, the Feds have been involved with airline safety regulations since commercial flight became commonplace. See the Airline Commerce Act of 1926.

The issue is not IF the federal government has the authority to create legislation concerning food and airline safety, but how far those powers extend, and how effective are those policies.

The current TSA policies of hysteria from the feds is an example of highly ineffective, costly, and simply way, way too far. The current TSA policies must be eliminated as they are invasive, too expensive, and simply counter productive to airline safety.

The bill in the OP seeks to expand not control, but increase inspectors, firm up existing food safety guidelines for domestic and imported foods, and provide protection for employees who report their employers for violations, violations that have led to the recent massive food recalls.

Don't know about you, but on those occasions that I have to buy hamburger from the supermarket, I would like to be reasonably sure it's edible and won't kill me.

amy31416
12-25-2010, 10:53 PM
Slippery Slope Fallacy.

Firstly, all government levels have issued food safety measures since the 1800's. Nothing new, as some people here have been hinting.

Secondly, the Feds have been involved with airline safety regulations since commercial flight became commonplace. See the Airline Commerce Act of 1926.

The issue is not IF the federal government has the authority to create legislation concerning food and airline safety, but how far those powers extend, and how effective are those policies.

The current TSA policies of hysteria from the feds is an example of highly ineffective, costly, and simply way, way too far. The current TSA policies must be eliminated as they are invasive, too expensive, and simply counter productive to airline safety.

The bill in the OP seeks to expand not control, but increase inspectors, firm up existing food safety guidelines for domestic and imported foods, and provide protection for employees who report their employers for violations, violations that have led to the recent massive food recalls.

Don't know about you, but on those occasions that I have to buy hamburger from the supermarket, I would like to be reasonably sure it's edible and won't kill me.

If you've ever worked with the FDA (and I have), you might just realize how ridiculous it is to promote their expansion and believe that they make things safer, except mostly by accident. They are quite effective in driving up the costs of everything from food to medicine to medical devices though. They do not deserve your faith or defense.

TCE
12-25-2010, 10:58 PM
Slippery Slope Fallacy.

Firstly, all government levels have issued food safety measures since the 1800's. Nothing new, as some people here have been hinting.

Secondly, the Feds have been involved with airline safety regulations since commercial flight became commonplace. See the Airline Commerce Act of 1926.

The issue is not IF the federal government has the authority to create legislation concerning food and airline safety, but how far those powers extend, and how effective are those policies.

The current TSA policies of hysteria from the feds is an example of highly ineffective, costly, and simply way, way too far. The current TSA policies must be eliminated as they are invasive, too expensive, and simply counter productive to airline safety.

The bill in the OP seeks to expand not control, but increase inspectors, firm up existing food safety guidelines for domestic and imported foods, and provide protection for employees who report their employers for violations, violations that have led to the recent massive food recalls.

Don't know about you, but on those occasions that I have to buy hamburger from the supermarket, I would like to be reasonably sure it's edible and won't kill me.

The bill has hundreds of pages and over 30 separate sections, no one knows what is in it. It expands funding for the FDA, which is easily the most criminal organization ever unleashed on America. Having worked in the fast food industry and in factories, the government has absolutely nothing to do with how safe food is, it is all the companies. The government politely asks the companies for a sample, they test it for effectiveness, and they are allowed to go on their merry way. Years can go by without safety inspectors entering a factory of food facility. The danger is, people think the government is protecting them, and it's not. You, for instance, expect your hamburger to be pure because the government supposedly inspected it. Dollars to donuts, the government has never been close to your hamburger and has no clue whether it is safe or not.

And our current food safety expenses are efficient and justified? The federal government has missed every single food outbreak in recent memory. The companies, lawsuits, and the media have uncovered every single one before the government has gotten knowledge of it.

There is absolutely an issue of the federal government having the authority to create legislation regarding something. Again, as has been pointed out, that argument can be attributed to anything. Sure, they don't have the authority, but it is effective, so go for it. Who decides what is effective? Who decided what is efficient?

AxisMundi
12-25-2010, 11:04 PM
The bill has hundreds of pages and over 30 separate sections, no one knows what is in it. It expands funding for the FDA, which is easily the most criminal organization ever unleashed on America. Having worked in the fast food industry and in factories, the government has absolutely nothing to do with how safe food is, it is all the companies. The government politely asks the companies for a sample, they test it for effectiveness, and they are allowed to go on their merry way. Years can go by without safety inspectors entering a factory of food facility. The danger is, people think the government is protecting them, and it's not. You, for instance, expect your hamburger to be pure because the government supposedly inspected it. Dollars to donuts, the government has never been close to your hamburger and has no clue whether it is safe or not.

And our current food safety expenses are efficient and justified? The federal government has missed every single food outbreak in recent memory. The companies, lawsuits, and the media have uncovered every single one before the government has gotten knowledge of it.

There is absolutely an issue of the federal government having the authority to create legislation regarding something. Again, as has been pointed out, that argument can be attributed to anything. Sure, they don't have the authority, but it is effective, so go for it. Who decides what is effective? Who decided what is efficient?

I've worked driving trucks for produce companies, in juice production factories, cheese factories, and several other food related production facilities. In some I was a simple day laborer, in others I had positions of authority. I've been a busy guy in my half century of life.

Yes, food production is indeed governed by federal guidelines.

I also offered the link to this legislation earlier in the thread. It is not that long, compared with other legislation, and it is quite readable. Beck and his guests rely on people not actually reading the legislation to further their hysteria, and Beck's ratings.

Who decides? We the People.

AxisMundi
12-25-2010, 11:05 PM
If you've ever worked with the FDA (and I have), you might just realize how ridiculous it is to promote their expansion and believe that they make things safer, except mostly by accident. They are quite effective in driving up the costs of everything from food to medicine to medical devices though. They do not deserve your faith or defense.

Since it is a past employment, perhaps you'd like to tell us exactly what you did in the FDA.

speciallyblend
12-25-2010, 11:11 PM
Since when does unrelated garbage constitute "saying a lot"?

Besides the implied ad hominem by hinting that I support TSA policies.

i was just referring to the slippery slope of gov regulations which is what i thought af was implying by fixing your post;)

dannno
12-25-2010, 11:18 PM
i was just referring to the slippery slope of gov regulations which is what i thought af was implying by fixing your post;)

Axis doesn't "get" the slippery slope analogy.

http://www.sirlin.net/storage/articles/slippery_slope.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1224 997598304

amy31416
12-25-2010, 11:31 PM
Since it is a past employment, perhaps you'd like to tell us exactly what you did in the FDA.

I did not work for the FDA, I worked for a medical device manufacturer, which is regulated by the FDA. They have numerous and massive problems internally, and a very poor grasp on science to boot. They stifle innovation and justify their existence with poor measures that can actually harm safety, efficiency and function in a manner that merely strikes fear into a business, but does not improve it in any way.

Perhaps this is too specific to be understandable, but two examples: 1. The auditor who was "investigating" the environmental lab that I ran at one point declared all of my samples to be contaminated with fungus--meanwhile it was stress on plastic, and I had to take a week from my regular duties to prove that it was not fungus. And this douchebag was allegedly a microbiologist...who couldn't tell the difference between stressed plastic and fungus. He was angry at being "humiliated" and targeted my lab for anything and everything after that.

In another round, I had changed the quality control procedure for testing an antibiotic cocktail used in the detection of tuberculosis. They shut down our production for a week because they didn't understand the statistics or the science behind it. The company went on backorder and the third-world countries who rely on the product couldn't get it, because they froze sales. I had to, yet again, take another week and dumb my research down so they could understand it. Who knows what effect that had on actual people--did people die because of their bullshit? I don't know...but they certainly didn't give a shit when I mentioned how many thousands of people relied on this testing in order to get treated.

Moral of the story is that they aren't actually looking to save lives, they're looking to justify their existence and "get" someone. Very much like cops....it's a "score" to harm a company--and I'm sure there's payoffs as well, for those companies who are operating unsafely.

In my experience, gov't agencies and facilities have to do these things so they don't end up on the chopping block when it comes to funding, whether you're the TSA, the FDA or the FBI--the structure needs to change dramatically.

Though I will say that NIST (for all their flaws in other areas) makes really good analytical sample standards to calibrate equipment with--but they're outrageously expensive, of course.

TCE
12-25-2010, 11:51 PM
Speaking from factory experience, in the pizza manufacturing industry, there must be a certified USDA agent on duty or else there is a penalty. The USDA inspector required us to start at 6:00 am everyday. 5:59 was not acceptable. We asked if we could start at 5:30 and he said no, he wanted sleep.

* One time, his parking spot (that he demanded be right up front, right next to the handicap spaces) was taken, and he ordered us to find the person and make them move their car or else he would find some rule we were breaking and report us.
* A separate time, we made a pizza with 18 pepperonis and he ordered we throw it out because there were only supposed to be 17. We said that was ridiculous, we were breaking the rules and it had to be disposed of. We said we could just take a pepperoni off and he said no, it had been tainted.
* Yet another time, there was one piece of plastic on our floor and he came out of his office, ordered we stopped every single machine in the factory, and then finally he told us the stoppage was because of that one piece of plastic.

I could go on and on, but there were insane, time wasting, money consuming rules we had to follow that increased the price of our product and killed our productivity. Did I mention this guy makes $100,000 a year plus benefits?

Anti Federalist
12-26-2010, 12:29 AM
Slippery Slope Fallacy

If you think that's a "fallacy", meaning a false premise, then we're just wasting our time here.

We're living the nightmare of the "slippery slope" and government "mission creep" every day.

It's a logical, linear progression that is very clear, you give government the authority to restrict and regulate air travel, and eventually, you'll have sweaty government goons feeling up pre pubescent children at airports, and coming soon to subways, buses, highways checkpoints, shopping malls and any large gathering of people.

And if not specifically mentioned in this bill, since people raised nine kinds of holy hell about it, rest assured, it will be in the next bill, if government has the authority to regulate food production, then why should it not regulate it right down to your backyard garden? That's food production, isn't it?

Twenty years ago, people like you were mocking people like me, when we told you that government would regulate your toilet or ban your light bulbs or ban smoking pretty much everywhere or setting up roadblocks to ticket and arrest people for not wearing seatbelts, among a hundred other things.

That's what government is, it's what it does, it's all it knows, growth and power for growth and power's sake.

speciallyblend
12-26-2010, 12:43 AM
I will make it easy for axis mundi;) I will follow just laws and i will not follow unjust laws! I think I can figure out the difference without any help from the domestic terrorists aka the us gov thanks to God/Higher Being/ or what ever makes you comfy in life!!! Stay the hell out of My Garden is all i can let the domestic terrorists know!!
I know the difference between right and wrong something the us gov lost credibility on years and years ago!!

AxisMundi
12-26-2010, 05:36 AM
I did not work for the FDA, I worked for a medical device manufacturer, which is regulated by the FDA. They have numerous and massive problems internally, and a very poor grasp on science to boot. They stifle innovation and justify their existence with poor measures that can actually harm safety, efficiency and function in a manner that merely strikes fear into a business, but does not improve it in any way.

Perhaps this is too specific to be understandable, but two examples: 1. The auditor who was "investigating" the environmental lab that I ran at one point declared all of my samples to be contaminated with fungus--meanwhile it was stress on plastic, and I had to take a week from my regular duties to prove that it was not fungus. And this douchebag was allegedly a microbiologist...who couldn't tell the difference between stressed plastic and fungus. He was angry at being "humiliated" and targeted my lab for anything and everything after that.

In another round, I had changed the quality control procedure for testing an antibiotic cocktail used in the detection of tuberculosis. They shut down our production for a week because they didn't understand the statistics or the science behind it. The company went on backorder and the third-world countries who rely on the product couldn't get it, because they froze sales. I had to, yet again, take another week and dumb my research down so they could understand it. Who knows what effect that had on actual people--did people die because of their bullshit? I don't know...but they certainly didn't give a shit when I mentioned how many thousands of people relied on this testing in order to get treated.

Moral of the story is that they aren't actually looking to save lives, they're looking to justify their existence and "get" someone. Very much like cops....it's a "score" to harm a company--and I'm sure there's payoffs as well, for those companies who are operating unsafely.

In my experience, gov't agencies and facilities have to do these things so they don't end up on the chopping block when it comes to funding, whether you're the TSA, the FDA or the FBI--the structure needs to change dramatically.

Though I will say that NIST (for all their flaws in other areas) makes really good analytical sample standards to calibrate equipment with--but they're outrageously expensive, of course.

I stand corrected, having reviewed your post and noticing "worked with the FDA" and not "worked for".

However, your personal anecdotes merely highlight the need for better trained investigators.

And yes, I have indeed worked with the FDA as well, one of the reasons I support this bill.

I sincerely hope it will result in better trained inspectors.

AxisMundi
12-26-2010, 05:42 AM
If you think that's a "fallacy", meaning a false premise, then we're just wasting our time here.

We're living the nightmare of the "slippery slope" and government "mission creep" every day.

It's a logical, linear progression that is very clear, you give government the authority to restrict and regulate air travel, and eventually, you'll have sweaty government goons feeling up pre pubescent children at airports, and coming soon to subways, buses, highways checkpoints, shopping malls and any large gathering of people.

And if not specifically mentioned in this bill, since people raised nine kinds of holy hell about it, rest assured, it will be in the next bill, if government has the authority to regulate food production, then why should it not regulate it right down to your backyard garden? That's food production, isn't it?

Twenty years ago, people like you were mocking people like me, when we told you that government would regulate your toilet or ban your light bulbs or ban smoking pretty much everywhere or setting up roadblocks to ticket and arrest people for not wearing seatbelts, among a hundred other things.

That's what government is, it's what it does, it's all it knows, growth and power for growth and power's sake.

You indulge freely in this fallacy exercise.

1. The Feds have been regulating air safety for nearly a century.
2. The current TSA policies were put in place due to terrorist activities, not some black helicopter, Catcher in the Rye buying conspiracy. And as long as the American public en large puts up with it, the policies will remain in place.

I've inundated my congress-critters with email and snail-mail. What have you done?

And once again you've put your skis on and zipped down the slippery slope fallacy.

People raised holy hell to get language removed from the food safety bill. What in your hell makes you think people won't raise hell again?

AxisMundi
12-26-2010, 05:45 AM
Axis doesn't "get" the slippery slope analogy.

If by your reply you mean I don't buy into every knee jerk media whore sensationalism that comes down the turn pike, and instead actually read the bills myself to form my own opinions instead of being force fed by said media whores, and then get proactive with contacting my congress-critters on stuff I don't agree with, well, you're spot on.

AxisMundi
12-26-2010, 05:45 AM
I will make it easy for axis mundi;) I will follow just laws and i will not follow unjust laws! I think I can figure out the difference without any help from the domestic terrorists aka the us gov thanks to God/Higher Being/ or what ever makes you comfy in life!!! Stay the hell out of My Garden is all i can let the domestic terrorists know!!
I know the difference between right and wrong something the us gov lost credibility on years and years ago!!

I will make it easy for you.

Beck lied.

amy31416
12-26-2010, 07:39 AM
I stand corrected, having reviewed your post and noticing "worked with the FDA" and not "worked for".

However, your personal anecdotes merely highlight the need for better trained investigators.

And yes, I have indeed worked with the FDA as well, one of the reasons I support this bill.

I sincerely hope it will result in better trained inspectors.

Has more money, power and authority made teachers better? Has it made the ATF better? The TSA? Can you name one governmental regulating authority that has become better when made larger?

Sincerely hoping that they'll be better trained is nice, but I don't see it happening. We already had a massive quality control department who were directly responsible for initial and periodic effectivity testing who actually knew the products and how they were supposed to function. To avoid recalls, we'd throw out an entire batch of product on the smallest cosmetic variations--even if it was still effective.

speciallyblend
12-26-2010, 09:16 AM
I stand corrected, having reviewed your post and noticing "worked with the FDA" and not "worked for".

However, your personal anecdotes merely highlight the need for better trained investigators.

And yes, I have indeed worked with the FDA as well, one of the reasons I support this bill.

I sincerely hope it will result in better trained inspectors.

so your solution is more gov basically!! lmfao

speciallyblend
12-26-2010, 09:19 AM
I will make it easy for you.

Beck lied.

i don't watch beck and you seem to love bigger ineffective gov by making more big ineffective gov! your like a dog chasing its own tail only to end up licking crap!!

AxisMundi
12-26-2010, 09:37 AM
Has more money, power and authority made teachers better? Has it made the ATF better? The TSA? Can you name one governmental regulating authority that has become better when made larger?

Sincerely hoping that they'll be better trained is nice, but I don't see it happening. We already had a massive quality control department who were directly responsible for initial and periodic effectivity testing who actually knew the products and how they were supposed to function. To avoid recalls, we'd throw out an entire batch of product on the smallest cosmetic variations--even if it was still effective.

Don;t get me wrong, merely throwing more money at a situation doesn't fix a damn thing.

Policies like No Child Left Intact is a "Band-aid" program, as I call it. It is akin to putting a band-aid on a gaping belly wound.

However, one of the reasons you HAVE a quality control department is legislation.

AxisMundi
12-26-2010, 09:38 AM
i don't watch beck and you seem to love bigger ineffective gov by making more big ineffective gov! your like a dog chasing its own tail only to end up licking crap!!

Is assigning the worst qualities to a person you disagree with the only, and simple ignorant insults the only ways you can debate?

There is a need for more inspectors, there is a need to protection for concerned employees.

amy31416
12-26-2010, 10:30 AM
Don;t get me wrong, merely throwing more money at a situation doesn't fix a damn thing.

Policies like No Child Left Intact is a "Band-aid" program, as I call it. It is akin to putting a band-aid on a gaping belly wound.

However, one of the reasons you HAVE a quality control department is legislation.

Actually, the reason that the QC department expanded was because they put out a batch of STD devices that gave false positives. The quality control department was more extensive than was required.

And I don't know if you've ever read 21 CFR Part 11, but it can be interpreted similarly to the bible--meaning in hundreds of different ways. Based on their whims (or perhaps a payoff by GE), we were forced to get all new chart recorders/controllers for our equipment, both industrial and validation) because it was more "traceable" than the current ones--the reality was that they didn't understand the programming on the older units, the new ones were no more "traceable" or difficult to fake data on.

So hey, nothing I say is going to change a person's mind when it's already made up, no matter how many times the gov't has shown that giving it more power and making it larger doesn't fix anything.

Lucille
12-26-2010, 11:02 AM
[...]

The bill in the OP seeks to expand not control, but increase inspectors, firm up existing food safety guidelines for domestic and imported foods, and provide protection for employees who report their employers for violations, violations that have led to the recent massive food recalls.

Don't know about you, but on those occasions that I have to buy hamburger from the supermarket, I would like to be reasonably sure it's edible and won't kill me.

This bill is another CPSIA. The megacorps, which are the ones responsible for the tainted food will get waivers (see Mattel), while the small producers and sellers get hosed.

FWIW, the FDA (http://www.thedailybell.com/1449/Now-FDA-Criminalizes-Chelation.html), which you obviously place so much trust in, has proclaimed Frito-Lay snacks to be heart healthy, while nuts are not. Like every other bureaucracy and all three branches of government, it has been completely captured by special interests. "Safety (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/63290.html)" is just an excuse to for Big Ag gain more control over the market, and for the government to gain more control over us.

agitator
12-26-2010, 11:02 AM
However, one of the reasons you HAVE a quality control department is legislation.



Whether it works remains to be seen.




However, your personal anecdotes merely highlight the need for better trained investigators.
...
I sincerely hope it will result in better trained inspectors.



I've inundated my congress-critters with email and snail-mail. What have you done?




Don't know about you, but on those occasions that I have to buy hamburger from the supermarket, I would like to be reasonably sure it's edible and won't kill me.

Would you like an apple pie with daaat?

Would you like an apple pie with daaat?

puppetmaster
12-26-2010, 12:02 PM
The fact is our gov IS ABSOLUTELY 100% controlled by Corporate interests and they have discovered many years ago how easy it is to buy every politicians vote. As long as this continues there will no beneficial governmental regulations as they are ALL written for the benefit of the corporation that sponsors the politician that votes for the bill.


They should all be tried and hung as treasonous scum!

forsmant
12-26-2010, 12:44 PM
I'll admit I haven't read every post but come on man. The example Amy gave you was of a man that was given power. It is hard for any man to admit he was wrong. I work as a carpenter and deal with inspectors quite frequently. THey are often emotionally motivated and can easily target companies he personally does not like. That is the tru purpose of inspectors. One inspector told me to tell my boss that he got beat up after a particularly poor inspection.

If the government were truly concerned about food safety they would focus on end product, not the proccess. A lot of the regulation in place is based on the assumption of a particular business model. I would recommend that you read http://www.acresusa.com/toolbox/reprints/Salatin_Sept03.pdf. It tells of the run ins a particularly safe farmer has had with the USDA and other food police. Its not about food safety, otherwise the factory farms wouldn't be in business. Its about market share.

http://www.amazon.com/Everything-Want-Do-Illegal-Stories/dp/0963810952


The FDA should have the power to recall food, but this power will be abused and focused on small farmers who do not follow strictly the guidelines written by the large producers and university professors on the doll from government grants.

pacelli
12-26-2010, 02:57 PM
I must apologize because I actually read the entire bill. Couldn't find "seed" or "garden" in the entire text. Please post sections of the bill which include these words. Otherwise, you are promoting errors.

CCTelander
12-26-2010, 05:04 PM
If you think that's a "fallacy", meaning a false premise, then we're just wasting our time here.

We're living the nightmare of the "slippery slope" and government "mission creep" every day.

It's a logical, linear progression that is very clear, you give government the authority to restrict and regulate air travel, and eventually, you'll have sweaty government goons feeling up pre pubescent children at airports, and coming soon to subways, buses, highways checkpoints, shopping malls and any large gathering of people.

And if not specifically mentioned in this bill, since people raised nine kinds of holy hell about it, rest assured, it will be in the next bill, if government has the authority to regulate food production, then why should it not regulate it right down to your backyard garden? That's food production, isn't it?

Twenty years ago, people like you were mocking people like me, when we told you that government would regulate your toilet or ban your light bulbs or ban smoking pretty much everywhere or setting up roadblocks to ticket and arrest people for not wearing seatbelts, among a hundred other things.

That's what government is, it's what it does, it's all it knows, growth and power for growth and power's sake.


This ^^^

Give government authority, ANY authority over ANYthing, and that authority WILL be abused. It's just a matter of time, and usually it doesn't take all that long.

But that's a lesson that some will NEVER learn. Makes you wonder about them, doesn't it?

agitator
12-26-2010, 05:10 PM
This ^^^

Give government authority, ANY authority over ANYthing, and that authority WILL be abused. It's just a matter of time, and usually it doesn't take all that long.

But that's a lesson that some will NEVER learn. Makes you wonder about them, doesn't it?

Next you 'll be saying the cops aren't there for our protection!

jmdrake
12-26-2010, 08:16 PM
I must apologize because I actually read the entire bill. Couldn't find "seed" or "garden" in the entire text. Please post sections of the bill which include these words. Otherwise, you are promoting errors.

So if a bill says "handheld firearm" and doesn't say "hand gun" does that mean it doesn't cover handguns?

The word "farm" is in the bill. What's the dictionary definition of farm?

a tract of land devoted to agricultural purposes

What is the dictionary definition of "garden"?

a plot of ground where herbs, fruits, flowers, or vegetables are cultivated

Both are parcels of land used to grow stuff. So what's the difference? Well it boils down to the word "agriculture".

the science, art, or practice of cultivating the soil, producing crops, and raising livestock and in varying degrees the preparation and marketing of the resulting products

So...the minute you try to sell something from your "garden" it becomes a "farm" and subject to all of these regulations. Also note that, as others have pointed out, the original version of this bill was far more expansive.

Oh, and to fall under the "Direct Farm" exemption, you have to sell more to "exempt" consumers than "non exempt" consumers AND you have to have < $500K of sales. So you have to fill out paperwork to avoid having to fill out paperwork.

AxisMundi
12-26-2010, 08:22 PM
Would you like an apple pie with daaat?

Would you like an apple pie with daaat?

Have you read the Bill itself?

AxisMundi
12-26-2010, 08:23 PM
So if a bill says "handheld firearm" and doesn't say "hand gun" does that mean it doesn't cover handguns?

The word "farm" is in the bill. What's the dictionary definition of farm?

a tract of land devoted to agricultural purposes

What is the dictionary definition of "garden"?

a plot of ground where herbs, fruits, flowers, or vegetables are cultivated

Both are parcels of land used to grow stuff. So what's the difference? Well it boils down to the word "agriculture".

the science, art, or practice of cultivating the soil, producing crops, and raising livestock and in varying degrees the preparation and marketing of the resulting products

So...the minute you try to sell something from your "garden" it becomes a "farm" and subject to all of these regulations. Also note that, as others have pointed out, the original version of this bill was far more expansive.

Oh, and to fall under the "Direct Farm" exemption, you have to sell more to "exempt" consumers than "non exempt" consumers AND you have to have < $500K of sales. So you have to fill out paperwork to avoid having to fill out paperwork.

Have YOU read the bill?

jmdrake
12-26-2010, 08:26 PM
Have YOU read the bill?

Ummmm....yeah! That should have been obvious. How else would I have been able to comment on the direct farm exemption?

AxisMundi
12-26-2010, 08:26 PM
This ^^^

Give government authority, ANY authority over ANYthing, and that authority WILL be abused. It's just a matter of time, and usually it doesn't take all that long.

But that's a lesson that some will NEVER learn. Makes you wonder about them, doesn't it?

And as long as We the People keeps gobbling up the hysteria generated by media and bloggers, instead of actually educating themselves by reading the Bills themselves, g'ment will always be able to abuse their powers simply due to the fact that a well educated voter is absolute anathema to an abusive government.

Read the Bills, ladies and gentlemen, DO NOT permit media and empty talking suits to spoon feed you your opinions.

jmdrake
12-26-2010, 08:29 PM
And as long as We the People keeps gobbling up the hysteria generated by media and bloggers, instead of actually educating themselves by reading the Bills themselves, g'ment will always be able to abuse their powers simply due to the fact that a well educated voter is absolute anathema to an abusive government.

Read the Bills, ladies and gentlemen, DO NOT permit media and empty talking suits to spoon feed you your opinions.

Why do you continue to assume that everyone that disagrees with you hasn't read the bill?

AxisMundi
12-26-2010, 08:49 PM
Why do you continue to assume that everyone that disagrees with you hasn't read the bill?

Because most haven't, or they would see that the entire hysteria concerning gardens is total fertilizer.

speciallyblend
12-26-2010, 08:55 PM
Ummmm....yeah! That should have been obvious. How else would I have been able to comment on the direct farm exemption?

axis has no argument . he is plainly endorsing more gov regulation and his answer to fix any problems is more gov regulation aka training is his term!! pacelli and axis seem to trust the us gov! i think jmdrake sets the record pretty straight along with all the rpf members except pacelli and axis!

axis and pacelli would be the same folks in colorado who would say a fee is not a tax so we can raise them and by pass the tabor laws that voters set!

axis seems to get it on the marijuana issue and the devil pat robertson. You would think he would apply some of the same reasoning to the house and senate on this food bill!!

AxisMundi
12-26-2010, 09:01 PM
axis has no argument . he is plainly endorsing more gov regulation and his answer to fix any problems is more gov regulation aka training is his term!! pacelli and axis seem to trust the us gov! i think jmdrake sets the record pretty straight along with all the rpf members except pacelli and axis!

axis and pacelli would be the same folks in colorado who would say a fee is not a tax so we can raise them and by pass the tabor laws that voters set!

Have you read the Bill?

Anti Federalist
12-26-2010, 09:04 PM
Have YOU read the bill?

I have, but I doubt that you have.

If you had, you would realize that the bill modifies thousands of pages of USCs and CFRs.

Therefore, to fully comprehend the bill, you must go back and cross reference each and every USC and CFR that the bill amends.

The summary says this:


Exempts certain establishments that sell food directly to consumers, such as roadside stands, farmers markets or participants in a community supported agriculture program, from specified requirements of this Act

The bill says this:


(2) USE OF OR EXPOSURE TO FOOD OF CONCERN- If the Secretary believes that there is a reasonable probability that the use of or exposure to an article of food, and any other article of food that the Secretary reasonably believes is likely to be affected in a similar manner, will cause serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals, each person (excluding farms and restaurants) who manufactures, processes, packs, distributes, receives, holds, or imports such article shall, at the request of an officer or employee duly designated by the Secretary, permit such officer or employee, upon presentation of appropriate credentials and a written notice to such person, at reasonable times and within reasonable limits and in a reasonable manner, to have access to and copy all records relating to such article and to any other article of food that the Secretary reasonably believes is likely to be affected in a similar manner, that are needed to assist the Secretary in determining whether there is a reasonable probability that the use of or exposure to the food will cause serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals.

Now, all it would take is next year's congress to strike that single exemption, and then roadside stands and farms would have to comply.

Furthermore, this is the text from the link you provided.

That is the bill as approved by the Senate, not the final bill passed by the House and on it's way to Obama for his signature.

If this is the bill that you claim to be reading, then it's not the bill that was passed, therefore, you have no idea what's in the final bill.

Anti Federalist
12-26-2010, 09:06 PM
Because most haven't, or they would see that the entire hysteria concerning gardens is total fertilizer.

So said the Soviet Georgians when wild eyed conspiracy theories started floating around that Stalin was going to run them off their farms and take over control of the food supply.

speciallyblend
12-26-2010, 09:10 PM
Because most haven't, or they would see that the entire hysteria concerning gardens is total fertilizer.

ok now that you clarified that ,get back to what jmdrake is saying your the only one ignoring the issue! everyone has plainly laid out what they said and they are making sense! you and pacelli are not so now that you have posted have you read the bill several times and ignored the very arguments folks have said . A summary of what you have said so far, what i heard you say is there is not enough gov regulation so lets make more so we can train them better for our food safety!! billions of dollars wasted already on inspectors and your answer more inspectors and better training? starting to think axis mundi might be bush or obama!!

now with all the gov regulations already they have missed many problems and folks have already died under the gov watch! you seem to imply we need more gov regulation aka training and more inspectors!! correct me if i am wrong!

speciallyblend
12-26-2010, 09:18 PM
Have you read the Bill?

haha lmfao

AxisMundi
12-26-2010, 09:40 PM
I have, but I doubt that you have.

If you had, you would realize that the bill modifies thousands of pages of USCs and CFRs.

Therefore, to fully comprehend the bill, you must go back and cross reference each and every USC and CFR that the bill amends.

The summary says this:


The bill says this:



Now, all it would take is next year's congress to strike that single exemption, and then roadside stands and farms would have to comply.

Furthermore, this is the text from the link you provided.

That is the bill as approved by the Senate, not the final bill passed by the House and on it's way to Obama for his signature.

If this is the bill that you claim to be reading, then it's not the bill that was passed, therefore, you have no idea what's in the final bill.

I am quite well aware of how Bills work.

I have been reading them for over 4 decades now.

What you do not realize is that...

1. This is indeed the Bill that would go to Obama.

2. Such language striking this from any future bill would likely be stuck itself.

You are merely engaging in the same hysteria as Fox News.

AxisMundi
12-26-2010, 09:41 PM
ok now that you clarified that ,get back to what jmdrake is saying your the only one ignoring the issue! everyone has plainly laid out what they said and they are making sense! you and pacelli are not so now that you have posted have you read the bill several times and ignored the very arguments folks have said . A summary of what you have said so far, what i heard you say is there is not enough gov regulation so lets make more so we can train them better for our food safety!! billions of dollars wasted already on inspectors and your answer more inspectors and better training? starting to think axis mundi might be bush or obama!!

now with all the gov regulations already they have missed many problems and folks have already died under the gov watch! you seem to imply we need more gov regulation aka training and more inspectors!! correct me if i am wrong!

read the Bill.


haha lmfao

Didn't think so.

jmdrake
12-26-2010, 09:44 PM
Because most haven't, or they would see that the entire hysteria concerning gardens is total fertilizer.

Except, I've carefully explained using the text of the bill why the "hysteria" is NOT "fertilizer". Again the only difference between a garden and this bill's definition of "farm" is if you sell any of the produce. You grow some tomatoes, decide to can and sell a few, you're a "farm". To be exempt you have to sell more to "exempt consumers" than to regular consumers and have < $500K in sales. The government could have avoided the "hysteria" by changing that "and" into an "or". They chose not to do that. So now the ball is in your court. Explain from the bill how I am wrong, instead of making conclusory circular arguments.

speciallyblend
12-26-2010, 09:51 PM
read the Bill.



Didn't think so.

well you didn't correct me so i assume my summary is spot on!!

Lucille
12-27-2010, 11:00 AM
And then there's supplements:


When the FDA investigates each of the supplements, some will be relabeled and might require a doctor’s prescription to purchase. Some will be viewed as unsuitable for human consumption and entirely removed from the market according to the FDA. Still others will get so caught up in the red tape, you might be pushing up daisies before you get your hands on more of it. Smart, informed patients who have been working with their health care professionals with the ingesting of supplements will lose that independence to choose a poultice for a sprain, but in fact will need to have a doctor order that for them instead.

Costs will soar with the regulations required, so expect to see your natural dietary supplement to be more costly. That of course does not include the cost of the doctor visit to actually acquire what you want. Even though these options are not medicine, the FDA will regulate them since they ARE making a difference in some peoples wellness and creating better health. Even naturopaths know there is a possibility of abuse by corporations and government agencies can abuse privileges given to them, so talk to your doctor to find out how this SB 510 will be impacting your health status.

Read more: http://newsflavor.com/opinions/sb-510-what-it-will-mean-to-you/#ixzz19KfD9AtT

AxisMundi
12-27-2010, 03:33 PM
Except, I've carefully explained using the text of the bill why the "hysteria" is NOT "fertilizer". Again the only difference between a garden and this bill's definition of "farm" is if you sell any of the produce. You grow some tomatoes, decide to can and sell a few, you're a "farm". To be exempt you have to sell more to "exempt consumers" than to regular consumers and have < $500K in sales. The government could have avoided the "hysteria" by changing that "and" into an "or". They chose not to do that. So now the ball is in your court. Explain from the bill how I am wrong, instead of making conclusory circular arguments.

The wording of the bill is right there for everyone to see.

Does it have the potential for abuse? Never claimed it didn't.

AxisMundi
12-27-2010, 03:34 PM
well you didn't correct me so i assume my summary is spot on!!

I did not correct you since you should do your own homework.

Americans have become lazy where our Elected Employees and their work is concerned, the reason why, IMHO, we are in the boat we are in now.

Read the bill, then we can have an adult conversation concerning our opinions of the bill.

freshjiva
12-27-2010, 03:38 PM
Haha, this bill is a joke. I think the American people should just start ignoring whatever our Masters in Washington come up with.

No way in hell could they possibly enforce the ban on growing your own food without moving towards a police state. They'd have to arrest millions of people.

puppetmaster
12-27-2010, 04:06 PM
And then there's supplements:


This is also a major concern....this bill is crap entirely.

AxisMundi
12-27-2010, 04:19 PM
And then there's supplements:

Your source fails to note specific parts of the bill.

Much like Beck and guests refuse to.

AxisMundi
12-27-2010, 04:20 PM
Haha, this bill is a joke. I think the American people should just start ignoring whatever our Masters in Washington come up with.

No way in hell could they possibly enforce the ban on growing your own food without moving towards a police state. They'd have to arrest millions of people.

The bill does not seek to control people's personal gardens, and as signed would also exempt road side stands and growers markets as well.

pacelli
12-27-2010, 04:28 PM
Ummmm....yeah! That should have been obvious. How else would I have been able to comment on the direct farm exemption?

So the simplest solution for all of the home gardeners on the forum would be to not accept FRNs for their food.

pacelli
12-27-2010, 04:28 PM
axis has no argument . he is plainly endorsing more gov regulation and his answer to fix any problems is more gov regulation aka training is his term!! pacelli and axis seem to trust the us gov! i think jmdrake sets the record pretty straight along with all the rpf members except pacelli and axis!

axis and pacelli would be the same folks in colorado who would say a fee is not a tax so we can raise them and by pass the tabor laws that voters set!

axis seems to get it on the marijuana issue and the devil pat robertson. You would think he would apply some of the same reasoning to the house and senate on this food bill!!

No problem Kenny, I'll leave quietly.

AxisMundi
12-27-2010, 05:22 PM
axis has no argument . he is plainly endorsing more gov regulation and his answer to fix any problems is more gov regulation aka training is his term!! pacelli and axis seem to trust the us gov! i think jmdrake sets the record pretty straight along with all the rpf members except pacelli and axis!

axis and pacelli would be the same folks in colorado who would say a fee is not a tax so we can raise them and by pass the tabor laws that voters set!

axis seems to get it on the marijuana issue and the devil pat robertson. You would think he would apply some of the same reasoning to the house and senate on this food bill!!

My answer is to form legislation that WORKS, not "more legislation".

Unlike some here, including yourself, I do not equate smaller government with NO government.

2young2vote
12-27-2010, 06:14 PM
How many people actually get sick because of the farm that a product is grown on? I'd bet that a huge majority of food borne illness is caused by undercooked, improperly stored, or improperly handled food. This bill will have no positive impact on food safety.

AxisMundi
12-27-2010, 07:03 PM
How many people actually get sick because of the farm that a product is grown on? I'd bet that a huge majority of food borne illness is caused by undercooked, improperly stored, or improperly handled food. This bill will have no positive impact on food safety.

Food born illnesses generated in the home do not cause the recall of millions of pounds of beef.

Most of what happens occurs during the production of food items. During slaughtering, packaging, etc.

Also of consideration is imported foods, where conditions are not regulated at all.

dannno
12-27-2010, 07:17 PM
Also of consideration is imported foods, where conditions are not regulated at all.

Lately I've been eating mostly Indian food, packaged and imported straight from India in pouches. That is some yummy unregulated goodness, let me tell you..

dannno
12-27-2010, 07:19 PM
Also most of these foodborne illnesses come from big food manufacturers which are regulated, whereas the unregulated small farms never seem to have any problems..

HOLLYWOOD
12-27-2010, 07:37 PM
The Tester Amendment to S.501, but it was watered down... Just how cozy are things in our Fascist state?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Awa0VmEmIoI

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?273372-S.510-Food-Safety-LIVES!&p=3035291&viewfull=1#post3035291

Monsanto Planting Seeds in the White House 2009?
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Mon...90324-445.html (http://www.opednews.com/articles/Monsanto-Planting-Seeds-In-by-Asher-Miller-090324-445.html)

FDA Website: Meet Michael R. Taylor, J.D., Deputy Commissioner for Foods (Formerly of MONSANTO corporation)
http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersO.../ucm196721.htm (http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OC/OfficeofFoods/ucm196721.htm)

http://www.fda.gov/ucm/groups/fdagov-public/documents/image/ucm197472.jpg
Michael R. Taylor was named deputy commissioner for foods at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in January 2010. He is the first individual to hold the position, which was created along with a new Office of Foods in August 2009.
Mr. Taylor is leading FDA efforts to


develop and carry out a prevention-based strategy for food safety
plan for new food safety legislation
ensure that food labels contain clear and accurate information on nutrition

"I am fully committed to working with my FDA colleagues to make the changes necessary to ensure the safety of America’s food supply from farm to table," said Mr. Taylor. Mr. Taylor again joined Monsanto as Vice President for Public Policy in 1998.

speciallyblend
12-27-2010, 08:28 PM
My answer is to form legislation that WORKS, not "more legislation".

Unlike some here, including yourself, I do not equate smaller government with NO government.

yeah tell that to my friend who has to sell goat shares and would be breaking the law if i even tasted the milk!

AxisMundi
12-27-2010, 11:08 PM
Also most of these foodborne illnesses come from big food manufacturers which are regulated, whereas the unregulated small farms never seem to have any problems..

Small farms are run by people who either have a good work ethic, or have an innate fear of being sued by someone they sold food to.

Food production plants are run by corporations whose biggest fear is loosing profits.


Lately I've been eating mostly Indian food, packaged and imported straight from India in pouches. That is some yummy unregulated goodness, let me tell you..

Only a matter of time.

But I wouldn't suggest doing that with food from China.

AxisMundi
12-27-2010, 11:09 PM
yeah tell that to my friend who has to sell goat shares and would be breaking the law if i even tasted the milk!

In English please, with links to the applicable law if possible.

Lucille
12-28-2010, 12:33 PM
AxisMundi lives in a constant state of fear. He craves authority and lusts after regulation (http://www.fredoneverything.net/Bob.shtml). I certainly hope he doesn't drive, considering the risks.


Food safety bill does nothing to address food imports

At the same time these huge regulatory burdens are thrust upon U.S. farmers, there are no new regulations required for food grown outside the United States.

This means that food coming into the USA from Mexico, Chile, Peru or anywhere else does not have to meet S.510 food safety regulations at all. The FDA, after all, doesn't inspect greenhouses in Mexico or grape farms in Chile which export their products to the United States.

Furthermore, many dangerous chemical pesticides that have been banned in the USA are legal to use elsewhere, and foods treated with those pesticides are perfectly legal to import into the United States. So instead of buying food grown in the United States on small, organic farms, more U.S. consumers are going to be buying food grown elsewhere that's treated with extremely toxic pesticides.

Here are some of the unintended consequences of all this:

• An INCREASE in the importation of fresh produce from other countries.

• A worsening of the agricultural trade imbalance between the U.S. and other nations.

• An INCREASE in the pesticide contamination of fresh produce sold at U.S. grocery stores.

• An INCREASE in agriculture jobs in Mexico, Chile, Peru and elsewhere, even while agriculture jobs are lost in the USA.

• A DECREASE in the overall safety of the food supply because now the proportion of foods imported from foreign countries with little or no regulatory oversight will greatly expand compared to U.S. grown foods.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/030808_food_safety_bill_American_farmers.html#ixzz 19QrfTkCr

With food safety bill, U.S. government will spend nearly $1 million per person to prevent food-borne illness deaths (http://www.naturalnews.com/030853_food_safety_government_spending.html)

fisharmor
12-28-2010, 12:58 PM
Small farms are run by people who either have a good work ethic, or have an innate fear of being sued by someone they sold food to.

Food production plants are run by corporations whose biggest fear is loosing profits.

I regret that I have only one negative reputation to give you for this farce of a discussion.
Small farms are worked strictly by strapping young men with good manners, spit curls, and blue pajamas under their clothes with a big S on them.
Corporations consist strictly of pale white hunchbacks with black goatees, top hats, and a penchant for tying young ladies to railroad tracks.

Get a life, statist.

dannno
12-28-2010, 01:01 PM
Small farms are run by people who either have a good work ethic, or have an innate fear of being sued by someone they sold food to.

Food production plants are run by corporations whose biggest fear is loosing profits.


Can you tell me why big food production plants aren't afraid of being sued?


Sing it with me:


Verse 1:

Food production plants have regulations.. regulations...

These regulations protect big corporations from being held liable for their mistakes...mistakes...

Regulations are written by big corporate food production facilities....facilities...

Why would they want to be held liable for their mistakes if they don't have to be?

So fuck regulations let's go back to the free market

Where individuals are held responsible for their actions, sometimes by contract but..

More often through the invisible hand of the market!!


Chorus:

Fuck regulations, fuck regulations, fuck regulations, horray!!


Verse 2

Everybody thinks food is safe and healthful because the government regulates it..

So nobody cares about the food they buy anymore..

This is called "moral hazard" because people think somebody else is watching

But the fox is watching the hen house

Because as mentioned before big food production corporations write the regulations!!

Now I like to pay attention to the food I buy..

But that's because I know the government sucks..

I blame the other statists who believe in government...

For our god damn crappy food supply where i have to go to India to have imported descent reasonably priced food!!


CHORUS




Only a matter of time.



Just ordered another big batch today!

dannno
12-28-2010, 01:06 PM
I regret that I have only one negative reputation to give you for this farce of a discussion.


I wonder if you can build up negative rep, is Axis going to have multiple red bars soon?

AxisMundi
12-28-2010, 02:52 PM
AxisMundi lives in a constant state of fear. He craves authority and lusts after regulation (http://www.fredoneverything.net/Bob.shtml). I certainly hope he doesn't drive, considering the risks.


With food safety bill, U.S. government will spend nearly $1 million per person to prevent food-borne illness deaths (http://www.naturalnews.com/030853_food_safety_government_spending.html)

Lucille lives in a constant state of hate for people who disagree with her, and feels she must insult them with lies.

AxisMundi
12-28-2010, 02:53 PM
I wonder if you can build up negative rep, is Axis going to have multiple red bars soon?

Hope so.

That means people are at least reading my posts.

"An idea heard cannot be unheard."

AxisMundi
12-28-2010, 02:55 PM
I regret that I have only one negative reputation to give you for this farce of a discussion.
Small farms are worked strictly by strapping young men with good manners, spit curls, and blue pajamas under their clothes with a big S on them.
Corporations consist strictly of pale white hunchbacks with black goatees, top hats, and a penchant for tying young ladies to railroad tracks.

Get a life, statist.

Ever work on a family farm?

Didn't think so.

Read the Bill?

Didn't think so.

pcosmar
12-28-2010, 03:06 PM
http://www.naturalnews.com/030136_Rawesome_foods_raid.html
http://offgridsurvival.com/familyfarm/
http://eatdrinkbetter.com/2010/08/31/armed-raid-of-raw-food-co-op/
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?241477-Amish-farmer-Dan-Allgyer-account-of-the-FDA-raid-of-his-farm

Expect to see a lot more of this "ain't gonna happen" kind of stuff.

:mad:
Oh yeah, More of this too,
http://www.rodale.com/genetically-modified-organisms-foods-0
:(

Lucille
12-28-2010, 03:15 PM
Lucille lives in a constant state of hate for people who disagree with her, and feels she must insult them with lies.

Project much? I have yet to read anything you have written here at RPF that didn't contain an insult. Why are you here exactly? Just to troll? Because it obviously isn't to win hearts and minds, and if it is, then you're doing it wrong.

Anyways, I don't hate people, but I seem to feel better when they're not around. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092618/quotes)

pcosmar
12-28-2010, 03:24 PM
"An idea heard cannot be unheard."

Perhaps,
But it can be rejected just the same.

AxisMundi
12-28-2010, 03:38 PM
Project much? I have yet to read anything you have written here at RPF that didn't contain an insult. Why are you here exactly? Just to troll? Because it obviously isn't to win hearts and minds, and if it is, then you're doing it wrong.

Anyways, I don't hate people, but I seem to feel better when they're not around. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092618/quotes)

You should get out more then.

You would notice that...

A. I don't insult first.
b. The plethora of posts where I have been insulted and ignored it.
3. The vast majority of my posts that do not contain insults, implied or open.

Lucille
12-28-2010, 03:42 PM
You should get out more then.

You would notice that...

A. I don't insult first.
b. The plethora of posts where I have been insulted and ignored it.
3. The vast majority of my posts that do not contain insults, implied or open.

So, why are you here exactly?

AxisMundi
12-28-2010, 03:48 PM
Perhaps,
But it can be rejected just the same.

Certainly you could.

It could also get your mind thinking along different lines, a small and necessary shifting of the gears, so to speak.

My main purpose in posting on forums such as these is to get people out of the habit of thinking with their media fed opinions and to think for themselves.

Certainly my views differ from others. Everyone does.

But if you will notice, I take the most heat on threads about 9/11 conspiracies, money and tire chips conspiracy threads, threads attempting to claim Rights are all encompassing and unlimited (like the pedo getting arrested) and threads containing neocon media hysteria and hype. Like this one, among others.

It is vitally important that we keep a sharp eye on our Elected Employees. I cannot emphasis this enough.

However, one cannot do this by running around like Chicken Little every time some bored blogger, neocon talking head, or media darling claims the sky is falling.

There is NO language in this Bill that would impact anyone but those under the auspices of federal food safety laws. Backyard gardens and even food stands and farmer's markets are not effected.

But you tell me, while people are going ape shit over the media hype, who is watching the next Bill to be sure there ISN'T language meant to impact small growers? And will those people merely look at the media hype and say "not again with this nutty crap?" because America becomes desensitized to the sensationalism?

AxisMundi
12-28-2010, 03:48 PM
So, why are you here exactly?

Why are you here, exactly?

Lucille
12-28-2010, 06:17 PM
It could also get your mind thinking along different lines, a small and necessary shifting of the gears, so to speak.

My main purpose in posting on forums such as these is to get people out of the habit of thinking with their media fed opinions and to think for themselves.

Certainly my views differ from others. Everyone does.

But if you will notice, I take the most heat on threads about 9/11 conspiracies, money and tire chips conspiracy threads, threads attempting to claim Rights are all encompassing and unlimited (like the pedo getting arrested) and threads containing neocon media hysteria and hype. Like this one, among others.

It is vitally important that we keep a sharp eye on our Elected Employees. I cannot emphasis this enough.

However, one cannot do this by running around like Chicken Little every time some bored blogger, neocon talking head, or media darling claims the sky is falling.

There is NO language in this Bill that would impact anyone but those under the auspices of federal food safety laws. Backyard gardens and even food stands and farmer's markets are not effected.

But you tell me, while people are going ape shit over the media hype, who is watching the next Bill to be sure there ISN'T language meant to impact small growers? And will those people merely look at the media hype and say "not again with this nutty crap?" because America becomes desensitized to the sensationalism?

So, you're here to set us all straight then! Hallelujah! We're saved!

Too bad you're not merely an arrogant statist prick troll, but absolutely wrong about COngress' food fascism (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-2751).

Will this be the final nail in the coffin of the small farm and ranch (http://www.activistpost.com/2010/12/why-tester-amendment-does-not-help.html)? Time will tell and, when it is finally revealed to be exactly that, you can trust that I won't be happy about saying "I told you so" to one AxisMundi.


Why are you here, exactly?

I'm here to congregate with like minds, and to find refuge from the statist storm that surrounds us. Alas...

dannno
12-28-2010, 06:29 PM
My main purpose in posting on forums such as these is to get people out of the habit of thinking with their media fed opinions and to think for themselves.


By pushing for more regulations?? Are you shitting me? The entire point of the whole god damn media is to push for government regulations.. My god.

AxisMundi
12-28-2010, 07:09 PM
So, you're here to set us all straight then! Hallelujah! We're saved!

Too bad you're not merely an arrogant statist prick troll, but absolutely wrong about COngress' food fascism (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-2751).

Will this be the final nail in the coffin of the small farm and ranch (http://www.activistpost.com/2010/12/why-tester-amendment-does-not-help.html)? Time will tell and, when it is finally revealed to be exactly that, you can trust that I won't be happy about saying "I told you so" to one AxisMundi.

I'm here to congregate with like minds, and to find refuge from the statist storm that surrounds us. Alas...

Well, so much for a honest, respectful attempt to debate.

And were you not just complaining about how I "insult" people all the time?

Like you, I am also here to share my opinions as well.

AxisMundi
12-28-2010, 07:11 PM
By pushing for more regulations?? Are you shitting me? The entire point of the whole god damn media is to push for government regulations.. My god.

This Bill fine tunes laws already in place, and I am sure even you would agree that that is a good thing, making legislation lean and mean, and actually do something, accomplish a necessary objective.

forsmant
12-28-2010, 07:17 PM
Does this bill shut down factory farming? Does this bill set an amount of acceptable contamination of meat? Does this bill force corporations to tell everyone where the original food came from? DOes this bill actually make food safer?

I believe the bill takes the assumption that factory farming is safe and monoculture is not inherently risky. No change will happen other than to squeeze out those who aren't doing business on the same level as the big players.

2young2vote
12-28-2010, 07:28 PM
http://blog.healia.com/00231/4-most-common-causes-foodborne-disease

Read this webpage. It lists 4 of the most common causes of foodborne disease. It lists the way they are caused. Two are most often caused by undercooked poultry, another is caused by undercooked meat (e-coli is stopped at 160 degrees), and the last is caused by poor hygiene. The thing that all of these have in common is that they are all avoidable on the consumer level (restaurants and home cooking). Regulating the producers isn't going to stop the majority of the reasons that people get sick from food. Nothing is going to stop that guy who wipes his butt and doesn't wash his hands then touches meat without gloves.

speciallyblend
12-28-2010, 07:38 PM
This Bill fine tunes laws already in place, and I am sure even you would agree that that is a good thing, making legislation lean and mean, and actually do something, accomplish a necessary objective.

all in the name of government salute! (sarcasm) it is amazing you cannot see what you just typed everything you just said is bigger government. amazing amazing. but very sad. beginning to think you are nothing but a troll. everything you just typed above is exactly why we are fighting the domestic terrorists aka the us gov!! you actually believe that which is very scary already knowing the us gov previous track record on" food safety" !

sipping my friends goat milk with out buying a share is illegal and you have the ability to say leaner and meaner for our safety wtf, necessary objective? wtf? seriously WTF! no wonder the gop is so screwed up!

AxisMundi
12-29-2010, 09:20 AM
all in the name of government salute! (sarcasm) it is amazing you cannot see what you just typed everything you just said is bigger government. amazing amazing. but very sad. beginning to think you are nothing but a troll. everything you just typed above is exactly why we are fighting the domestic terrorists aka the us gov!! you actually believe that which is very scary already knowing the us gov previous track record on" food safety" !

sipping my friends goat milk with out buying a share is illegal and you have the ability to say leaner and meaner for our safety wtf, necessary objective? wtf? seriously WTF! no wonder the gop is so screwed up!

Let me ask you something.

How, do you personally think, does legislation get removed?

In other words, how is a law canceled?

Lucille
12-29-2010, 11:15 AM
Yup! It's a libertarian's dream (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/63290.html)! CONgress only had to hire 17,000 new FDA bureaucrats for a mere $1.4 billion (for starters) to federalize food production and amass more arbitrary power.

Lean and mean, baby!

pcosmar
12-29-2010, 12:52 PM
This Bill fine tunes laws already in place, and I am sure even you would agree that that is a good thing,
I agree with none of it.

making legislation lean and mean, and actually do something, accomplish a necessary objective.

It is not lean. Though it could be considered mean.
And just what "necessary objective" is being accomplished? Necessary to who?

And before you even start with "it doesn't hurt small farmers" bullshit.
Small farmers are already being Hurt, Bankrupted and Jailed.

This does follow an agenda though. A Corporate agenda. A Globalist Agenda.
:mad:

dannno
12-29-2010, 01:11 PM
Axis won't even admit that it is the large food production corporations that are writing these regulations. And I've mentioned it dozens of times in this thread already. He obviously doesn't have any desire to understand how politics works.

Krugerrand
12-29-2010, 01:20 PM
I agree with none of it.


It is not lean. Though it could be considered mean.
And just what "necessary objective" is being accomplished? Necessary to who?

And before you even start with "it doesn't hurt small farmers" bullshit.
Small farmers are already being Hurt, Bankrupted and Jailed.

This does follow an agenda though. A Corporate agenda. A Globalist Agenda.
:mad:

it sure isn't coming to the rescue of those wishing to buy raw milk.

AxisMundi
12-29-2010, 05:07 PM
I agree with none of it.

It is not lean. Though it could be considered mean.
And just what "necessary objective" is being accomplished? Necessary to who?

And before you even start with "it doesn't hurt small farmers" bullshit.
Small farmers are already being Hurt, Bankrupted and Jailed.

This does follow an agenda though. A Corporate agenda. A Globalist Agenda.
:mad:

Is that the best you can come up with? Empty rhetoric?

AxisMundi
12-29-2010, 05:08 PM
Axis won't even admit that it is the large food production corporations that are writing these regulations. And I've mentioned it dozens of times in this thread already. He obviously doesn't have any desire to understand how politics works.

Prove it.

Considering that it ONLY effects Big Food and not small growers, the burden of proof is on you.

Lucille
12-29-2010, 05:16 PM
Prove it.

Considering that it ONLY effects Big Food and not small growers...

Stop saying that. It's not true. Read the bill already, then read between the lines (http://www.activistpost.com/2010/12/why-tester-amendment-does-not-help.html).

dannno
12-29-2010, 05:33 PM
Prove it.

Considering that it ONLY effects Big Food and not small growers, the burden of proof is on you.

LOL, whatever man, I didn't think I would have to prove that Monsanto runs the FDA around here.. Do you work for Monsanto by the way?

AxisMundi
12-29-2010, 05:41 PM
Stop saying that. It's not true. Read the bill already, then read between the lines (http://www.activistpost.com/2010/12/why-tester-amendment-does-not-help.html).

Read between the lines, where imagination rules.

AxisMundi
12-29-2010, 05:42 PM
LOL, whatever man, I didn't think I would have to prove that Monsanto runs the FDA around here.. Do you work for Monsanto by the way?

A Non sequitur is not proof.

Please show us where in the Bill it effects small growers and/or backyard gardeners.

dannno
12-29-2010, 05:50 PM
A Non sequitur is not proof.

Please show us where in the Bill it effects small growers and/or backyard gardeners.

It affects them because if they are good they won't be able to expand as easily because soon they will be affected by the regulations which are a lot more expensive for smaller competitors than for the big monopolies who write them.

AxisMundi
12-29-2010, 06:54 PM
It affects them because if they are good they won't be able to expand as easily because soon they will be affected by the regulations which are a lot more expensive for smaller competitors than for the big monopolies who write them.

So in other words you ahve no language from the bill that effects smaller growers and backyard gardeners, which the OP of this thread claims.

dannno
12-29-2010, 07:00 PM
So in other words you ahve no language from the bill that effects smaller growers and backyard gardeners, which the OP of this thread claims.

I think the language is vague enough that they'll be able to do whatever they want.

Pretty sure another poster pointed out earlier that there was contradicting language in the bill.

AxisMundi
12-29-2010, 07:09 PM
I think the language is vague enough that they'll be able to do whatever they want.

Pretty sure another poster pointed out earlier that there was contradicting language in the bill.

If, and I say "if", some over-zealous inspector in was to read to much into this law and bother someone, that someone has the right to petition the courts.

Or the guy's bosses, as happened recently with the bank/xmas decoration fiasco.

roho76
12-29-2010, 07:45 PM
So in other words you ahve no language from the bill that effects smaller growers and backyard gardeners, which the OP of this thread claims.

The problem is they only added that language after people started complaining about it and it received so much attention. We live in a society that has legislators making knee jerk reactionary laws that are 2000 pages thick that were written by big business and passes them in the middle of the night after nobody has had a chance to see them let alone read them. The fact that your sitting here defending this type of behavior from our government by repeating the same stupid "they added an exemption at the last minute" bullshit, is appalling. If nobody would have bitched, which I'm sure they would have preferred, it would have been disastrous. So the fact that they fixed this particular issue at the last minute because of peoples reaction does not all of a sudden make it an awesome bill. Also, please explain how the leviathan known as the federal government can protect your food when they fail at everything else and only react after major incidents (911, underwear bomber, shoe bomber, bailout)? These people can't even prepare for or coordinate and effort to clean up a disaster like Katrina which they knew was going to happen a week ahead of time.

silverhandorder
12-29-2010, 09:38 PM
If, and I say "if", some over-zealous inspector in was to read to much into this law and bother someone, that someone has the right to petition the courts.

Or the guy's bosses, as happened recently with the bank/xmas decoration fiasco.
I know you are a troll but here it goes. I rather not waste time and petition legislators to take away powers from regulators when I think I rather they not have those powers to abuse in the first place. People like you can't just leave others alone. You want to stick your nose in everyone's business.

puppetmaster
12-30-2010, 01:43 AM
Prove it.

Considering that it ONLY effects Big Food and not small growers, the burden of proof is on you.

the Tester Amendment clearly states that in order for a small producer to become a "qualified facility" for these exemptions, they must submit the following to the Secretary upon request:
3 years of comprehensive financial records indicating less than $500K in gross sales (Pg. 4, Line 11)
I. Documentation that the owner, operator or agent of the facility has identified potential hazards associated with the food being processed, is implementing preventative controls to address those hazards, and is monitoring the preventative controls to ensure that such controls are effective (Pg. 5 line 20).
II. Documentation (which may include licenses, inspection reports, certificates, permits, credentials, certification by an appropriate agency (such as the State Department of Agriculture) or other evidence of oversight), as specified by the Secretary that the facility is in compliance with state, local, county, or other non-Federal food safety law (Pg. 6, Line 5).

If Grandma wants to sell her famous raspberry jam at the county fair (within 275 miles of her canning kitchen) she will indeed be qualified for small producer exemptions, but not before she forks over 3 years of financials, documentation of hazard control plans, and all local licenses, permits, and inspection reports. She must submit this documentation to the satisfactory approval of the Secretary; and if she fails to do so, the entirety of S.510 can be enforced on her. That's hardly what I would call an exemption.

from: http://www.activistpost.com/2010/12/why-tester-amendment-does-not-help.html

now buzz off shill

CCTelander
12-30-2010, 02:09 AM
The problem is they only added that language after people started complaining about it and it received so much attention. We live in a society that has legislators making knee jerk reactionary laws that are 2000 pages thick that were written by big business and passes them in the middle of the night after nobody has had a chance to see them let alone read them. The fact that your sitting here defending this type of behavior from our government by repeating the same stupid "they added an exemption at the last minute" bullshit, is appalling. If nobody would have bitched, which I'm sure they would have preferred, it would have been disastrous. So the fact that they fixed this particular issue at the last minute because of peoples reaction does not all of a sudden make it an awesome bill.


Exactly. Also, the CONstitution, as written, doesn't allow for 90% or more of what the fed gov actually does, right now, on a daily basis. Sociopathic criminals don't give a damn about the "law." They use it when it suits their purpose, and conveniently ignore or circumvent it when it doesn't. Or just reinterpret it.



Also, please explain how the leviathan known as the federal government can protect your food when they fail at everything else and only react after major incidents (911, underwear bomber, shoe bomber, bailout)? These people can't even prepare for or coordinate and effort to clean up a disaster like Katrina which they knew was going to happen a week ahead of time.


The worst salmonella outbreak in US history was caused by pasteurized milk, from an FDA regulated dairy. That was back in the mid-1980s. They still aren't sure exactly how it happened.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1370/is_v20/ai_4119044/

So much for government ensuring "safe" food.

skyorbit
12-30-2010, 03:00 AM
the Tester Amendment clearly states that in order for a small producer to become a "qualified facility" for these exemptions, they must submit the following to the Secretary upon request:
3 years of comprehensive financial records indicating less than $500K in gross sales (Pg. 4, Line 11)
I. Documentation that the owner, operator or agent of the facility has identified potential hazards associated with the food being processed, is implementing preventative controls to address those hazards, and is monitoring the preventative controls to ensure that such controls are effective (Pg. 5 line 20).
II. Documentation (which may include licenses, inspection reports, certificates, permits, credentials, certification by an appropriate agency (such as the State Department of Agriculture) or other evidence of oversight), as specified by the Secretary that the facility is in compliance with state, local, county, or other non-Federal food safety law (Pg. 6, Line 5).

If Grandma wants to sell her famous raspberry jam at the county fair (within 275 miles of her canning kitchen) she will indeed be qualified for small producer exemptions, but not before she forks over 3 years of financials, documentation of hazard control plans, and all local licenses, permits, and inspection reports. She must submit this documentation to the satisfactory approval of the Secretary; and if she fails to do so, the entirety of S.510 can be enforced on her. That's hardly what I would call an exemption.

from: http://www.activistpost.com/2010/12/why-tester-amendment-does-not-help.html

now buzz off shill

Thank you for that. I was under the impression that because of the tester amendment I won't be a criminal when this is signed. I guess I was wrong.
Tracy

Captain Shays
12-30-2010, 09:25 AM
Codex Alamantarius

jmdrake
12-30-2010, 09:36 AM
So in other words you ahve no language from the bill that effects smaller growers and backyard gardeners, which the OP of this thread claims.

I've already proven you wrong on this and given you the language from the bill. You just pretend the language doesn't exist. Here it is again, this time as a direct quote.

`(f) Exemption for Direct Farm Marketing-

`(1) IN GENERAL- A farm shall be exempt from the requirements under this section in a calendar year if--

`(A) during the previous 3-year period, the average annual monetary value of the food sold by such farm directly to qualified end-users during such period exceeded the average annual monetary value of the food sold by such farm to all other buyers during such period; and

`(B) the average annual monetary value of all food sold during such period was less than $500,000, adjusted for inflation.

So you don't fall under the exemption if your annual sales to "qualified end-users" is less than your annual sales to "unqualified end-users" even if your sales are < $500K.

And what's the definition of a "qualified end user"?

(A) QUALIFIED END-USER- In this subsection, the term `qualified end-user', with respect to a food means--

`(i) the consumer of the food; or

`(ii) a restaurant or retail food establishment (as those terms are defined by the Secretary for purposes of section 415) that is located--

`(I) in the same State as the farm that produced the food; or

`(II) not more than 275 miles from such farm.

`(B) CONSUMER- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the term `consumer' does not include a business.

So if Granny Smith can't get to the farmers market to sell her turnip greens and she instead sells them to Farmer Jones who sells them on his vegetable stand, Granny Smith is not exempt even if she only sold $50.00 worth of turnip greens to Farmer Jones. Get it now?

BarryDonegan
12-30-2010, 10:40 AM
These types of bills are the most threatening as they seem the most innocuous to the uninformed.

dannno
12-30-2010, 12:34 PM
These types of bills are the most threatening as they seem the most innocuous to the uninformed.

Ya, I invite Axis to stick around. When a thread goes for more than 10 pages with Axis being the only person arguing the non-liberty perspective, we'll know what to focus on defeating.

AxisMundi
12-30-2010, 02:17 PM
The problem is they only added that language after people started complaining about it and it received so much attention. We live in a society that has legislators making knee jerk reactionary laws that are 2000 pages thick that were written by big business and passes them in the middle of the night after nobody has had a chance to see them let alone read them. The fact that your sitting here defending this type of behavior from our government by repeating the same stupid "they added an exemption at the last minute" bullshit, is appalling. If nobody would have bitched, which I'm sure they would have preferred, it would have been disastrous. So the fact that they fixed this particular issue at the last minute because of peoples reaction does not all of a sudden make it an awesome bill. Also, please explain how the leviathan known as the federal government can protect your food when they fail at everything else and only react after major incidents (911, underwear bomber, shoe bomber, bailout)? These people can't even prepare for or coordinate and effort to clean up a disaster like Katrina which they knew was going to happen a week ahead of time.

Why is it a problem that the legislation was changed to reflect the will of the people? Are you not aware of how much legislation is changed before it reaches any sitting president to be signed into law? Are you aware of the volumes of legislation that gets shot down completely?

The fact that this "last minute language" was added at all shows how effective paying attention to the legislation, and not the hysteria built up around it (which was developed, apparently AFTER said changes) is.

AxisMundi
12-30-2010, 02:34 PM
the Tester Amendment clearly states that in order for a small producer to become a "qualified facility" for these exemptions, they must submit the following to the Secretary upon request:
3 years of comprehensive financial records indicating less than $500K in gross sales (Pg. 4, Line 11)
I. Documentation that the owner, operator or agent of the facility has identified potential hazards associated with the food being processed, is implementing preventative controls to address those hazards, and is monitoring the preventative controls to ensure that such controls are effective (Pg. 5 line 20).
II. Documentation (which may include licenses, inspection reports, certificates, permits, credentials, certification by an appropriate agency (such as the State Department of Agriculture) or other evidence of oversight), as specified by the Secretary that the facility is in compliance with state, local, county, or other non-Federal food safety law (Pg. 6, Line 5).

If Grandma wants to sell her famous raspberry jam at the county fair (within 275 miles of her canning kitchen) she will indeed be qualified for small producer exemptions, but not before she forks over 3 years of financials, documentation of hazard control plans, and all local licenses, permits, and inspection reports. She must submit this documentation to the satisfactory approval of the Secretary; and if she fails to do so, the entirety of S.510 can be enforced on her. That's hardly what I would call an exemption.

from: http://www.activistpost.com/2010/12/why-tester-amendment-does-not-help.html

now buzz off shill

Perhaps you should read the bill instead of cherry-picked quotes from a biased source.

Sec 103, the section your source references, adds to an already existing law, 21 USC 341.

AxisMundi
12-30-2010, 02:37 PM
I've already proven you wrong on this and given you the language from the bill. You just pretend the language doesn't exist. Here it is again, this time as a direct quote.

`(f) Exemption for Direct Farm Marketing-

`(1) IN GENERAL- A farm shall be exempt from the requirements under this section in a calendar year if--

`(A) during the previous 3-year period, the average annual monetary value of the food sold by such farm directly to qualified end-users during such period exceeded the average annual monetary value of the food sold by such farm to all other buyers during such period; and

`(B) the average annual monetary value of all food sold during such period was less than $500,000, adjusted for inflation.

So you don't fall under the exemption if your annual sales to "qualified end-users" is less than your annual sales to "unqualified end-users" even if your sales are < $500K.

And what's the definition of a "qualified end user"?

(A) QUALIFIED END-USER- In this subsection, the term `qualified end-user', with respect to a food means--

`(i) the consumer of the food; or

`(ii) a restaurant or retail food establishment (as those terms are defined by the Secretary for purposes of section 415) that is located--

`(I) in the same State as the farm that produced the food; or

`(II) not more than 275 miles from such farm.

`(B) CONSUMER- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the term `consumer' does not include a business.

So if Granny Smith can't get to the farmers market to sell her turnip greens and she instead sells them to Farmer Jones who sells them on his vegetable stand, Granny Smith is not exempt even if she only sold $50.00 worth of turnip greens to Farmer Jones. Get it now?

I get the fact that some people just don't understand the terminology, certainly.

Stands are exempt from this bill, therefor your Granny example is moot.

forsmant
12-30-2010, 02:38 PM
http://www.mindfully.org/Farm/2003/Everything-Is-Illegal1esp03.htm

puppetmaster
12-30-2010, 03:49 PM
Perhaps you should read the bill instead of cherry-picked quotes from a biased source.

Sec 103, the section your source references, adds to an already existing law, 21 USC 341.

So are you saying that this text is not in the bill?


the Tester Amendment clearly states that in order for a small producer to become a "qualified facility" for these exemptions, they must submit the following to the Secretary upon request:
3 years of comprehensive financial records indicating less than $500K in gross sales (Pg. 4, Line 11)
I. Documentation that the owner, operator or agent of the facility has identified potential hazards associated with the food being processed, is implementing preventative controls to address those hazards, and is monitoring the preventative controls to ensure that such controls are effective (Pg. 5 line 20).
II. Documentation (which may include licenses, inspection reports, certificates, permits, credentials, certification by an appropriate agency (such as the State Department of Agriculture) or other evidence of oversight), as specified by the Secretary that the facility is in compliance with state, local, county, or other non-Federal food safety law (Pg. 6, Line 5).

it is an easy question.
Yes or No

Bottom line is this is another attempt to take rights away from Americans. It will undoubtedly cost local and "very small businesses" money and cost consumers the freedom to choose. They will use these types of laws as they have in the past. They will abuse it and generate tax revenues for their coffers and to further the corporate agendas tied to each bill.

I did read the bill and it is a corporate sponsored POS as usual.

Governments purpose is to protect the freedoms of the American people and that is it.

AxisMundi
12-30-2010, 04:05 PM
So are you saying that this text is not in the bill?



it is an easy question.
Yes or No

Bottom line is this is another attempt to take rights away from Americans. It will undoubtedly cost local and "very small businesses" money and cost consumers the freedom to choose. They will use these types of laws as they have in the past. They will abuse it and generate tax revenues for their coffers and to further the corporate agendas tied to each bill.

I did read the bill and it is a corporate sponsored POS as usual.

Governments purpose is to protect the freedoms of the American people and that is it.

Yes, the language is indeed in the bill, and not as your source claims it is.

Your source is using spin, not truth.

dannno
12-30-2010, 04:54 PM
Yes, the language is indeed in the bill, and not as your source claims it is.

Your source is using spin, not truth.

No, that's just your perspective. We're actually all standing still, you're the one spinning.

dannno
12-30-2010, 05:01 PM
I think it's intellectually dishonest to say that small farmers, backyard gardeners and food producers are exempt from the bill when they have to jump through so many hoops just to meet that exemption.

Captain Shays
12-30-2010, 05:19 PM
Earlier I mentioned Codex Alimentarius which is a global effort by the WTO (the international bankers) to control EVERYTHING that goes into our bodies. This "food safety" Bill is actually tied to the health care Bill whether there is any obvious connection or not or whether there is any obvious wording in either Bill connecting the two.
This is yet another reason for me to HATE the United Nations. This Bill is being facilitated outside our borders folks.

jmdrake
12-30-2010, 05:57 PM
I get the fact that some people just don't understand the terminology, certainly.

Stands are exempt from this bill, therefor your Granny example is moot.

Fine. Granny sells her peaches to Bertha who cans them and then sells them to the stand. Bertha isn't exempt. Same problem.

TC95
12-30-2010, 06:27 PM
I am a terrorist!! I grow my own food(working on that) and i will never pay a dime to private insurance or gov insurance(scum of the earth)!!

Oh, my goodness! We have a real terrorist on this forum! A REAL HARDCORE TERRORIST!! Someone, please ban this creepy person!! :eek:

puppetmaster
12-30-2010, 10:47 PM
Yes, the language is indeed in the bill, and not as your source claims it is.

Your source is using spin, not truth.

my source is the fucking bill.......gawd your a pawn

puppetmaster
12-30-2010, 10:53 PM
Yes, the language is indeed in the bill, and not as your source claims it is.

Your source is using spin, not truth.

and besides even if the author was spinning....this spin will pale in comparison to how the politicians and officials will spin it

AxisMundi
12-31-2010, 01:01 AM
No, that's just your perspective. We're actually all standing still, you're the one spinning.

Your source takes the bill's language out of context.

AxisMundi
12-31-2010, 01:05 AM
my source is the fucking bill.......gawd your a pawn

You mean post #119? This one, that has a link to a website, and not the Bill itself?...


the Tester Amendment clearly states that in order for a small producer to become a "qualified facility" for these exemptions, they must submit the following to the Secretary upon request:
3 years of comprehensive financial records indicating less than $500K in gross sales (Pg. 4, Line 11)
I. Documentation that the owner, operator or agent of the facility has identified potential hazards associated with the food being processed, is implementing preventative controls to address those hazards, and is monitoring the preventative controls to ensure that such controls are effective (Pg. 5 line 20).
II. Documentation (which may include licenses, inspection reports, certificates, permits, credentials, certification by an appropriate agency (such as the State Department of Agriculture) or other evidence of oversight), as specified by the Secretary that the facility is in compliance with state, local, county, or other non-Federal food safety law (Pg. 6, Line 5).

If Grandma wants to sell her famous raspberry jam at the county fair (within 275 miles of her canning kitchen) she will indeed be qualified for small producer exemptions, but not before she forks over 3 years of financials, documentation of hazard control plans, and all local licenses, permits, and inspection reports. She must submit this documentation to the satisfactory approval of the Secretary; and if she fails to do so, the entirety of S.510 can be enforced on her. That's hardly what I would call an exemption.

from: http://www.activistpost.com/2010/12/why-tester-amendment-does-not-help.html

now buzz off shill

Lucille
12-31-2010, 10:42 AM
Via FTCLDF email:

Congress Passes FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) (http://www.ftcldf.org/congress-passes-fsma-kennedy.htm)


On Sunday night, December 19, the Senate passed FSMA by unanimous consent without a recorded vote after substituting its language in H.R. 2751 (originally titled, “Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act”–one of the “Cash for Clunkers” bills originating in the House in 2009). This maneuver, cynical and underhanded even by Washington standards, could have been stopped by a single Senate Republican but all were silent.

Have any Senate Republicans made a statement on this yet?


FDA will now have mandatory recall power; the agency’s treatment of farmstead cheese operations, Estrella Family Creamery and Morningland Dairy, shows the potential damage the agency can do with mandatory recall to those that have injured no one with their products. FMSA also will lower the standard for the administrative detention of food. Currently, an agency official can’t detain an article of food unless the official has “credible evidence or information that such article presents a threat of serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals.” Under FSMA the official only needs “reason to believe that such article is adulterated or misbranded.”
[...]
The Tester amendment which exempts from FSMA’s burdensome food safety plan requirement and national produce safety standards those producers selling either processed food or fruits and vegetables with under a half million dollars in gross annual sales who generate more than one half of their sales from direct transactions with either consumers, restaurants, and retail stores. To qualify for the exemption, those producers must either show they are implementing a modified food safety plan or provide documentation showing that the facility is “in compliance with state, local, county or other applicable non-Federal food safety law.” FMSA provides that the exemption is withdrawn if an active investigation links the “qualified facility” to an outbreak of foodborne illness or “if the Secretary determines that it is necessary to protect the public health and prevent or mitigate a foodborne illness outbreak based on conduct or conditions associated with a qualified facility that are material to the safety of the food manufactured, processed, packed or held at such facility.”
[...]
The next battle will be the appropriations process in the next session of Congress which will determine how much funding the FDA will get to enforce the requirements of FSMA. Forty years ago, former FDA Commissioner Herbert Ley said of the agency shortly after he left it, “The thing that bugs me the most is that people think the FDA is protecting them - it isn’t. What the FDA is doing and what the public thinks it is doing are as different as day and night.”[3]

Hopefully, the new Congress will pay attention to the agency’s long track record of doing the bidding of the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries at the expense of public health; and will limit the agency’s funding to enforce the mandates of FSMA to the greatest extent possible. There should be no other result for an agency that has publicly stated that the American people have no ”fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health” and “do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish”.[4]

In related news: Banning Herbs for Health (http://www.thedailybell.com/1647/Banning-Herbs-for-Health.html)


Codex Alimentarius-type legislation continues to grind ahead. The net result of this worldwide health initiative will be to regulate and license all products that have anything to do with health and nutrition. The upcoming ban on herbal remedies in Europe is just one element of what is to be comprehensive group of laws regulating every type of product that has some health or dietary impact.
[...]
In reality, Codex initiatives favor big pharmaceutical companies that synthesize medications from plants and herbs – which are not available for patent. The powers-that-be control the large pharmaceutical companies and reap enormous profits from these patented "medicines," though sooner or later most of them reveal troublesome and even deadly side-effects. But by then, often, the substances have been generally introduced and tremendous profits have been reaped.
[...]
Writing in the UK Telegraph, well-known libertarian politician and EU critic Daniel Hannan explains that three factors are in play when it comes to the ban. Eurocrats he points out, love regulating. "To the EU official, ‘unlicensed' is synonymous with ‘illegal', he writes. Second, he explains, the Eurocrats actively practice "the precautionary principle" when it comes to regulation. They seek to anticipate difficulties, though, as Hannen points out, you cannot prove a negative.

But the real reason, of course, for the ban has to do with the interests of Big Pharma. Big-selling herbal remedies will be licensed by Big Pharma, which will have something close to a monopoly. But herbs that are not huge sellers will fall by the wayside. They will not be licensed, nor offered by the big pharmaceutical chains.

Traditional health substances, not-so-coincidentally, are also coming under further attack in America. The recent Food Safety Modernization Act, gives the FDA the authority to move forward with Codex Alimentarius. Codex basically favors Western surgical traditions of medicine over natural remedies, and the law mandates that the FDA should try to sterilize food entering the US, which often destroys much of the food's nutritive qualities.

The law gives also mandates that the FDA inspect small farmers and even gardeners – as they may sell to farmers' markets. Those who wish not to be subject to FDA scrutiny must apply for an exemption, a process that includes onerous paperwork and no guarantee that the FDA will provide the exemption.

Conclusion: It is perfectly possible that sooner or later vitamins themselves will be regulated and licensed. The impetus is always to harmonize regulations worldwide, and the goal is world government, run by the Anglo-American elites that have put these systems in place and continually adjust and expand them. Such regulations will ultimately be detrimental to people's health worldwide, but from the point of view of the powers-that-be, the costs are worth the price of harmonization – which continues to be pursued relentlessly.

puppetmaster
12-31-2010, 12:17 PM
You mean post #119? This one, that has a link to a website, and not the Bill itself?...

Like I said...I read the bill, that is my source. I have all my facts correct and do not post BS deflective posts like you are doing....did I read the bill.....FO

AxisMundi
12-31-2010, 12:39 PM
Like I said...I read the bill, that is my source. I have all my facts correct and do not post BS deflective posts like you are doing....did I read the bill.....FO

If that is also the source for your reading the bill, you've failed.

Lucille
12-31-2010, 12:57 PM
http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/7849/dontfeedthetrollky3.jpg (http://img187.imageshack.us/i/dontfeedthetrollky3.jpg/)

puppetmaster
12-31-2010, 01:17 PM
http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/7849/dontfeedthetrollky3.jpg (http://img187.imageshack.us/i/dontfeedthetrollky3.jpg/)

true

AxisMundi
12-31-2010, 01:46 PM
The last recourse of those who have no basis for argument.

"You're a troll!"

jmdrake
01-09-2011, 09:57 PM
The last recourse of those who have no basis for argument.

"You're a troll!"

The last recourse for someone like you...keep repeating the same falsehood over and over again and hope that it sticks. People have shown you conclusively from the bill that you are wrong. This bill does cover small farmers. The original bill covered gardens but those have now been exempted. But if you have a small commercial operation and you sell more stuff to "non qualified" buyers than you do to "qualified" buyers you fall under the bill. And even if you don't fall under it you have to keep track of the "qualified" versus "non qualified" sales to make sure that you don't fall under it.

AxisMundi
01-10-2011, 03:10 AM
The last recourse for someone like you...keep repeating the same falsehood over and over again and hope that it sticks. People have shown you conclusively from the bill that you are wrong. This bill does cover small farmers. The original bill covered gardens but those have now been exempted. But if you have a small commercial operation and you sell more stuff to "non qualified" buyers than you do to "qualified" buyers you fall under the bill. And even if you don't fall under it you have to keep track of the "qualified" versus "non qualified" sales to make sure that you don't fall under it.

What has been "shown me" is pure hysterical speculations concerning small farms.