The Proposal to Outlaw the Home Garden - HR 875 and S 425 - Page 12

WVTomatoMan · March 31, 2009

Speaking of retractions and/or clarifications consider the following:

An editorial in the March 18 Las Vegas Review-Journal stated Stanley Greenberg, husband of Connecticut Democratic Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, who has proposed legislation imposing new mandates on food producers, “is a leading Democratic political strategist and consultant with clients including pesticide and fertilizer giant Monsanto.” Both DeLauro’s office and a spokesman for Greenberg’s firm said Thursday that Monsanto has not been a client of Greenberg’s for more than 10 years.

Here is the link:
http://www.lvrj.com/news/41560737.html

The OpEdNews article by Linn Cohen-Clole contained the following:
...HR 875, was introduced by Rosa DeLauro whose husband Stanley Greenburg works for Monsanto...

That article is riddled with misinformation and exaggerations yet people still keep quoting it. When it turns out to be a newspaper they'll end up printing a retraction/clarification.

Randy

organichris · March 31, 2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by WVTomatoMan

The OpEdNews article by Linn Cohen-Clole contained the following:
...HR 875, was introduced by Rosa DeLauro whose husband Stanley Greenburg works for Monsanto...

That article is riddled with misinformation and exaggerations yet people still keep quoting it. When it turns out to be a newspaper they'll end up printing a retraction/clarification.

Randy

I'm all for clarification and retraction when necessary, but despite what may be misinformation or exaggeration, none of this changes my opinion of this bill.

And although some of us have been accused of scaremongering, I have yet to see (and I have looked for) a legal opinion that would refute the ones offered on Glen Beck's show, for instance. I'm no legal scholar and I'm not saying these "legal experts" didn't have an axe to grind, I'm just saying that if there is any possibility that this nascent law could be enforced in the authoritarian manner many of us suspect it would be, then we can chalk up the misinformation as being the side-effect of our zealous attempts to remain free.

feldon30 · March 31, 2009

We don't need more laws. We need more enforcement of existing laws and more workers.

The FDA budget was gutted and staff cut in half during the previous administration.

Oh, and while we're at it, let's rescind these ridiculous policies that prevent dairy farmers from advertising the safety of their milk by not using growth hormones. And let's allow anyone who wants to test thier cows for Mad Cow to be able to do so. It was cited as an unfair advantage. How can you prevent a farmer from testing his cows for Mad Cow and advertising that fact? But that is exactly what happened.

organichris · March 31, 2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by feldon30

Oh, and while we're at it, let's rescind these ridiculous policies that prevent dairy farmers from advertising the safety of their milk by not using growth hormones. And let's allow anyone who wants to test their cows for Mad Cow to be able to do so. It was cited as an unfair advantage. How can you prevent a farmer from testing his cows for Mad Cow and advertising that fact? But that is exactly what happened.

Well, the good news is that due to public pressure rBGH isn't being used anymore. That just goes to show that we really can defeat Monsanto. Here's a link to an article that talks about it:

http://www.organicconsumers.org/arti...icle_14008.cfm

dice · April 1, 2009

That foodandwaterwatch.org link posted above is useful.
Some of these other bills like HR 759 seem to be potentially
more painful for the small farmer than the De Lauro bill.

I don't see how electronic recordkeeping on small farming
operations and co-ops that only sell locally helps keep food
safer, while I can see how the cost of that recordkeeping
could become prohibitive if the "Food Safety Administration"
specifies specialized software for it.

WVTomatoMan · April 1, 2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by organichris

I'm all for clarification and retraction when necessary, but despite what may be misinformation or exaggeration, none of this changes my opinion of this bill...

I agree. I'm still against the bill, but I'm against the bill and that hasn't changed. But, I'm against the bill for the right reasons not a bunch of trumped up misinformation. When I read articles that have incorrect information IMHO it detracts from credibility from the whole article because I start to wonder what else is incorrect.

Randy

WVTomatoMan · April 1, 2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by feldon30

We don't need more laws. We need more enforcement of existing laws and more workers...

I suspect that is probably the best solution. I didn't phrase it exactly like that, but checkout the letter I am about to post (it's similar).

Randy

WVTomatoMan · April 1, 2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by dice

That foodandwaterwatch.org link posted above is useful.
Some of these other bills like HR 759 seem to be potentially
more painful for the small farmer than the De Lauro bill...

At last someone has seen the light (to coin a phrase). Obviously I agree.

Randy

WVTomatoMan · April 1, 2009

BTW, the following is a draft of the letter I intend to send to my elected officials:

I am writing in regards to Bill HR 875. Here are some example headings taken directly from the internet:

HR 875 Would Essentially Outlaw Family Farms In The United States
HR 875 Monsanto’s Dream Bill, This is scary folks
Bill HR 875 will outlaw your veggie patch
Bill HR 875 Can’t Sell home grown tomatoes anymore
Federal Bill H.R. 875 Would End Farmer’s Markets
HR 875, the final demise of the American Farmer
Food Safety Modernization Act (HR875): Criminalization of Organic Farms

I realize this is over-reacting hype and misinformation, but because I am a gardener it got my attention and I read the bill. I have issues with it. Of course, the language of the bill is vague and has ambiguities. These ambiguities probably led to some of the aforementioned rumors on the internet. Additionally, in this economic time the inherent cost of establishing a new agency concerns me. Another concern is the cost of food. The food industry is not going to absorb the registration fees and other costs associated with meeting the regulations outlined in the bill. Instead they will pass this on to the consumer.

Given the recent incidents involving peanuts, ground beef, and spinach I understand that legislators may feel the need to do something about food safety. However, the challenge is that you have to do so without putting an undue burden on small farms, producers of local food, or organic farmers.

As is HR 875 has issues and does not fully address food safety issues in an adequate fashion. Therefore, I oppose it and urge you to do the same. Perhaps the best solution is to enforce existing regulations and increase inspections. Maybe the best solution is to rework HR 875 or to come up with something new. I urge you to carefully examine proposed solutions, analyze the impact on West Virginia farms and orchards, and do the right thing.

Your comments are welcome.

Randy

organichris · April 1, 2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by WVTomatoMan

BTW, the following is a draft of the letter I intend to send to my elected officials:

I am writing in regards to Bill HR 875. Here are some example headings taken directly from the internet:

HR 875 Would Essentially Outlaw Family Farms In The United States
HR 875 Monsanto’s Dream Bill, This is scary folks
Bill HR 875 will outlaw your veggie patch
Bill HR 875 Can’t Sell home grown tomatoes anymore
Federal Bill H.R. 875 Would End Farmer’s Markets
HR 875, the final demise of the American Farmer
Food Safety Modernization Act (HR875): Criminalization of Organic Farms

I realize this is over-reacting hype and misinformation, but because I am a gardener it got my attention and I read the bill. I have issues with it. Of course, the language of the bill is vague and has ambiguities. These ambiguities probably led to some of the aforementioned rumors on the internet...

I agree that these headlines are ambiguous, but I wouldn't call them hype and misinformation. A good headline has to grab your attention. Could this bill potentially have the effect of outlawing family farms? I think so. Is this Monsanto's dream bill? Well, if they were personally writing it, it would have possibly benefited them a little more, but yeah, it sorta is. Could the bill prevent you from selling your homegrown tomatoes at the farmer's market? Potentially, if neither you nor the farmer's market were able to comply with the regulations. Would this criminalize organic farms? Well, not the big industrial ones who could afford to comply.

I understand that, in some peoples' minds, misinformation leading to the retraction of information from a particular article detracts from the article's credibility. I don't necessarily see it that way, though. I'd rather someone really dig in and investigate something and try to keep the public informed about something potentially detrimental to their livelihood, than someone trying to play it safe to be "balanced". There's really no such thing. Anything edited for content will end up having a perceived slant one way or the other. And frankly I want someone in the press looking out for me - the little guy. Are some of these articles alarmist? Perhaps, but no one really knows for sure until the bill passes into law and is enforced. Remember when Mr. Paulson and all the other government lackeys (including both mainline presidential candidates) were decrying the need of a bailout to free up liquidity so small businesses could get loans, etc.? What ended up happening? The banks took the money and either sat on it or acquired more banks; they didn't lend any more than they otherwise would have. We can debate a bill's intent, but when it is a law in the hands of a bureaucracy that's a whole different ballgame.

WVTomatoMan · April 2, 2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by organichris

I agree that these headlines are ambiguous, but I wouldn't call them hype and misinformation. A good headline has to grab your attention. Could this bill potentially have the effect of outlawing family farms? I think so. Is this Monsanto's dream bill? Well, if they were personally writing it, it would have possibly benefited them a little more, but yeah, it sorta is. Could the bill prevent you from selling your homegrown tomatoes at the farmer's market? Potentially, if neither you nor the farmer's market were able to comply with the regulations. Would this criminalize organic farms? Well, not the big industrial ones who could afford to comply.

I had thought about not including the headings in the letter because I'm resorting to sensationalism to get attention which is what the writers of those headings are doing.

If you believe any or all of those headings to be true that's cool. Here is what I believe:

It does not regulate backyard gardens.
It does not regulate seed.
It does not call for new regulations for farmers markets or direct marketing arrangements.
It does not apply to food that does not enter interstate commerce (food that is sold across state lines).

I took the above from a link I posted earlier from Food And Water Watch. Yes, it agrees with my interpretations from reading the bill.

Tom Philpott at Gist wrote the following concerning 875:
But effective opposition does not mean indulging in fictional rants about it. There's no evidence that the bill aims to end farming; insisting that it does destroys credibility.

When I read many of the articles I see (13) Food Extablishment with and without signifying (A) and (14) Food Production Facility quoted. However I don't see (B) Exclusions quoted. I ask myself why it isn't there. The reason is because it changes the meaning. That to me is taking things out of context. You might not have issues with taking things out of context and changing the meanings, but I do.

I still wonder why Bill HR 875 is getting all this attention while Bill HR 759 is more likely to pass and will have a more detremental affect on the small farm community.

Good luck.

Randy

organichris · April 2, 2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by WVTomatoMan

When I read many of the articles I see (13) Food Extablishment with and without signifying (A) and (14) Food Production Facility quoted. However I don't see (B) Exclusions quoted. I ask myself why it isn't there. The reason is because it changes the meaning. That to me is taking things out of context. You might not have issues with taking things out of context and changing the meanings, but I do.

I still wonder why Bill HR 875 is getting all this attention while Bill HR 759 is more likely to pass and will have a more detremental affect on the small farm community.

Good luck.

Randy

I wish there was more in-depth legal analysis available for the exemptions in 875, but the exemptions can only really change the meaning of the bill if your interpretations are correct. I suppose neither of us are legal scholars, but we have established that we have different interpretations. The only thing I can do is listen to what the legal experts say, and to date, I haven't heard a single one of them interpret the exclusions to mean that anyone who stores or transports produce is exempted; again, I think that would completely undermine the intent of the bill, if indeed the intent is food safety.

Would the law be enforced against backyard gardens? Probably not for the moment because the government doesn't have the resources, but the potential is there. And for me, that really isn't even the point. The mere fact that they would take this authoritarian approach in their construction of the bill is an affront to personal freedom.

I'm going to have to look into HR 759. I honestly don't know anything about it.

ctx00978 · April 2, 2009

I've been following this thread with much interest, and just have to say that we have some great analytical minds here at t'ville. Depending on who's post I'm reading, I come away with different and equally interesting perspectives. I'm learning a lot, so carry on!

Stacie

Frog · June 14, 2009

You are right to fear acts like this. In the EU, we have something called 'the common list' it is a list of all cultivars that may be grown commercially for sale as food for human consumption. If your cultivar is not on it, it is a crime to sell seeds or sell the produce. Amateurs can distribute the seeds free of charge and consume the produce at home but beyond that is a crime. Several organic breeders have been repeatedly taken to court for infringement, such as the genetic diversity organisation Kokopelli.

Now I breed tomatoes, if I breed a cracking new cultivar I cannot sell the produce at a farmers market without first registering it on the common list, but this costs big bucks and is well beyond my means.

The common list was created, in theory, to prevent the practice of renaming existing cultivars, of misleeding consumers. Seemingly a noble purpose, its affect has been the loss of scores of cultivars and the pushing of the smallholder breeder out of the market. Many ignore the law, but the risks of doing so are very real.

organichris · June 17, 2009

Well, there's a new bill of the same sort in the House. I haven't read it yet, but this is what http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/200...e-food-supply/ has to say:

* HR 2749 would give FDA the power to order a quarantine of a geographic area, including “prohibiting or restricting the movement of food or of any vehicle being used or that has been used to transport or hold such food within the geographic area.” [This - "that hasbeen used to transport or hold such food" - would mean all cars that have ever brought groceries home so this means ALL TRANSPORTATION can be shut down under this. This is using food as a cover for martial law.] Under this provision, farmers markets and local food sources could be shut down, even if they are not the source of the contamination. The agency can halt all movement of all food in a geographic area. [This is also a means of total control over the population under the cover of food, and at any time.]

* HR 2749 would empower FDA to make random warrantless searches of the business records of small farmers and local food producers, without any evidence whatsoever that there has been a violation. [If these bills cover all who "hold food" then this allows for taking of records of anyone at any time on no basis at all.] Even farmers selling direct to consumers would have to provide the federal government with records on where they buy supplies, how they raise their crops, and a list of customers.

[NAIS for animals and all other foods?]

* HR 2749 charges the Secretary of Health and Human Services with establishing a tracing system for food. Each “person who produces, manufactures, processes, packs, transports, or holds such food” [Is this not every home in the US?] would have to “maintain the full pedigree of the origin and previous distribution history of the food,” and “establish and maintain a system for tracing the food that is interoperable with the systems established and maintained by other such persons.” The bill does not explain how far the traceback will extend or how it will be done for multi-ingredient foods. With all these ambiguities, [with all these ambiguities, it is dangerous, period, separate from the money] it’s far from clear how much it will cost either the farmers or the taxpayers. [It is massive and absurd and burdensome beyond the capacity of people to comply - is this not fascism? - so it is a set up for being used to impose penalties endlessly and/or to eliminate anyone at will.]

* HR 2749 creates severe criminal and civil penalties, including prison terms of up to 10 years and/or fines of up to $100,000 for each violation for individuals. [Does it include judicial review, Congressional oversight, a defined and limited set of penalties and punishments for a defined set of "crimes"? Or is it entirely ambiguous and left to the whim and sole power of "the Administrator"? Who is that person set to be? Is it Michael Taylor, Monsanto lawyer and executive, as Food Democracy has said? That is, do these bills set up an agency by which the entire US food supply will be turned over to the control of a multinational corporation under WTO regulations (and not to US farmers and not to US laws under the Constitution), with boundless freedom to do what it wants, and one infamous for harm to farmers and lack of safety of food?]
If it was not clear before how frightening these bills were, this small section of provisions, should make their actual fascism clear now. It goes way beyond “food safety” to absolute control over farms, animals, food, and us, including our movements and access to food at all.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is this alarmist? I don't know, but be on the lookout. Its better to be safe than sorry.

March 31, 2009	#168
feldon30 Tomatovillian™ Join Date: May 2006 Location: Rock Hill, SC Posts: 5,346	We don't need more laws. We need more enforcement of existing laws and more workers. The FDA budget was gutted and staff cut in half during the previous administration. Oh, and while we're at it, let's rescind these ridiculous policies that prevent dairy farmers from advertising the safety of their milk by not using growth hormones. And let's allow anyone who wants to test thier cows for Mad Cow to be able to do so. It was cited as an unfair advantage. How can you prevent a farmer from testing his cows for Mad Cow and advertising that fact? But that is exactly what happened. __________________ [SIZE="3"]I've relaunched my gardening website -- [B]TheUnconventionalTomato.com[/B][/SIZE] * [I][SIZE="1"]*I'm not allowed to post weblinks so you'll have to copy-paste it manually.[/SIZE][/I]

April 1, 2009	#170
dice Tomatovillian™ Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: PNW Posts: 4,743	That foodandwaterwatch.org link posted above is useful. Some of these other bills like HR 759 seem to be potentially more painful for the small farmer than the De Lauro bill. I don't see how electronic recordkeeping on small farming operations and co-ops that only sell locally helps keep food safer, while I can see how the cost of that recordkeeping could become prohibitive if the "Food Safety Administration" specifies specialized software for it. __________________ -- alias

April 1, 2009	#174
WVTomatoMan Tomatovillian™ Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: West Virginia - Zone 6 Posts: 594	BTW, the following is a draft of the letter I intend to send to my elected officials: I am writing in regards to Bill HR 875. Here are some example headings taken directly from the internet: HR 875 Would Essentially Outlaw Family Farms In The United States HR 875 Monsanto’s Dream Bill, This is scary folks Bill HR 875 will outlaw your veggie patch Bill HR 875 Can’t Sell home grown tomatoes anymore Federal Bill H.R. 875 Would End Farmer’s Markets HR 875, the final demise of the American Farmer Food Safety Modernization Act (HR875): Criminalization of Organic Farms I realize this is over-reacting hype and misinformation, but because I am a gardener it got my attention and I read the bill. I have issues with it. Of course, the language of the bill is vague and has ambiguities. These ambiguities probably led to some of the aforementioned rumors on the internet. Additionally, in this economic time the inherent cost of establishing a new agency concerns me. Another concern is the cost of food. The food industry is not going to absorb the registration fees and other costs associated with meeting the regulations outlined in the bill. Instead they will pass this on to the consumer. Given the recent incidents involving peanuts, ground beef, and spinach I understand that legislators may feel the need to do something about food safety. However, the challenge is that you have to do so without putting an undue burden on small farms, producers of local food, or organic farmers. As is HR 875 has issues and does not fully address food safety issues in an adequate fashion. Therefore, I oppose it and urge you to do the same. Perhaps the best solution is to enforce existing regulations and increase inspections. Maybe the best solution is to rework HR 875 or to come up with something new. I urge you to carefully examine proposed solutions, analyze the impact on West Virginia farms and orchards, and do the right thing. Your comments are welcome. Randy

June 17, 2009	#180
organichris Tomatovillian™ Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Tulsa, OK Posts: 630	New Bill: HR 2749 Well, there's a new bill of the same sort in the House. I haven't read it yet, but this is what http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/200...e-food-supply/ has to say: * HR 2749 would give FDA the power to order a quarantine of a geographic area, including “prohibiting or restricting the movement of food or of any vehicle being used or that has been used to transport or hold such food within the geographic area.” [This - "that hasbeen used to transport or hold such food" - would mean all cars that have ever brought groceries home so this means ALL TRANSPORTATION can be shut down under this. This is using food as a cover for martial law.] Under this provision, farmers markets and local food sources could be shut down, even if they are not the source of the contamination. The agency can halt all movement of all food in a geographic area. [This is also a means of total control over the population under the cover of food, and at any time.] * HR 2749 would empower FDA to make random warrantless searches of the business records of small farmers and local food producers, without any evidence whatsoever that there has been a violation. [If these bills cover all who "hold food" then this allows for taking of records of anyone at any time on no basis at all.] Even farmers selling direct to consumers would have to provide the federal government with records on where they buy supplies, how they raise their crops, and a list of customers. [NAIS for animals and all other foods?] * HR 2749 charges the Secretary of Health and Human Services with establishing a tracing system for food. Each “person who produces, manufactures, processes, packs, transports, or holds such food” [Is this not every home in the US?] would have to “maintain the full pedigree of the origin and previous distribution history of the food,” and “establish and maintain a system for tracing the food that is interoperable with the systems established and maintained by other such persons.” The bill does not explain how far the traceback will extend or how it will be done for multi-ingredient foods. With all these ambiguities, [with all these ambiguities, it is dangerous, period, separate from the money] it’s far from clear how much it will cost either the farmers or the taxpayers. [It is massive and absurd and burdensome beyond the capacity of people to comply - is this not fascism? - so it is a set up for being used to impose penalties endlessly and/or to eliminate anyone at will.] * HR 2749 creates severe criminal and civil penalties, including prison terms of up to 10 years and/or fines of up to $100,000 for each violation for individuals. [Does it include judicial review, Congressional oversight, a defined and limited set of penalties and punishments for a defined set of "crimes"? Or is it entirely ambiguous and left to the whim and sole power of "the Administrator"? Who is that person set to be? Is it Michael Taylor, Monsanto lawyer and executive, as Food Democracy has said? That is, do these bills set up an agency by which the entire US food supply will be turned over to the control of a multinational corporation under WTO regulations (and not to US farmers and not to US laws under the Constitution), with boundless freedom to do what it wants, and one infamous for harm to farmers and lack of safety of food?] If it was not clear before how frightening these bills were, this small section of provisions, should make their actual fascism clear now. It goes way beyond “food safety” to absolute control over farms, animals, food, and us, including our movements and access to food at all. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is this alarmist? I don't know, but be on the lookout. Its better to be safe than sorry.

March 31, 2009	#166
WVTomatoMan Tomatovillian™ Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: West Virginia - Zone 6 Posts: 594	Speaking of retractions and/or clarifications consider the following: An editorial in the March 18 Las Vegas Review-Journal stated Stanley Greenberg, husband of Connecticut Democratic Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, who has proposed legislation imposing new mandates on food producers, “is a leading Democratic political strategist and consultant with clients including pesticide and fertilizer giant Monsanto.” Both DeLauro’s office and a spokesman for Greenberg’s firm said Thursday that Monsanto has not been a client of Greenberg’s for more than 10 years. Here is the link: http://www.lvrj.com/news/41560737.html The OpEdNews article by Linn Cohen-Clole contained the following: ...HR 875, was introduced by Rosa DeLauro whose husband Stanley Greenburg works for Monsanto... That article is riddled with misinformation and exaggerations yet people still keep quoting it. When it turns out to be a newspaper they'll end up printing a retraction/clarification. Randy

April 2, 2009	#178
ctx00978 Tomatovillian™ Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Missouri Posts: 82	I've been following this thread with much interest, and just have to say that we have some great analytical minds here at t'ville. Depending on who's post I'm reading, I come away with different and equally interesting perspectives. I'm learning a lot, so carry on! Stacie

June 14, 2009	#179
Frog Tomatovillian™ Join Date: May 2009 Location: Kent, UK Posts: 141	You are right to fear acts like this. In the EU, we have something called 'the common list' it is a list of all cultivars that may be grown commercially for sale as food for human consumption. If your cultivar is not on it, it is a crime to sell seeds or sell the produce. Amateurs can distribute the seeds free of charge and consume the produce at home but beyond that is a crime. Several organic breeders have been repeatedly taken to court for infringement, such as the genetic diversity organisation Kokopelli. Now I breed tomatoes, if I breed a cracking new cultivar I cannot sell the produce at a farmers market without first registering it on the common list, but this costs big bucks and is well beyond my means. The common list was created, in theory, to prevent the practice of renaming existing cultivars, of misleeding consumers. Seemingly a noble purpose, its affect has been the loss of scores of cultivars and the pushing of the smallholder breeder out of the market. Many ignore the law, but the risks of doing so are very real.