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

[Tormato]

A choenix of wheat for a denarius?

[feldon30]

Originally Posted by organichris

Its better to be safe than sorry.

I find it funny that you use this expression at the end of your otherwise enlightening post because that is the very excuse these legislators use to write these bills. Oh, America will be safer if we regulate the heck out of the food industry.

I do not disagree with your points and concerns, but just realize that the expression "better safe than sorry" is usually at the root of the more absurd legislation. I NEVER use this expression and advise others to avoid it.

Taken to its extreme, "better safe than sorry" could be used to outlaw the automobile. After all 30,000 people are killed EACH YEAR in automobile accidents.

Just food for thought. I really do not think we need ANY kind of comprehensive food safety bill. We just need more FDA inspectors (the agency's budget and manpower was cut to the bone in the last administration) and more enforcement of existing laws.

[WVTomatoMan]

Here we go again. Again, I don't necessarily agree with further regulation. But, I really don't agree with misinformation, scare tactics, taking things out of context, and misrepresentation. I'm just going to pick one thing because I don't have the time to go through and pick things apart like I did before.

Originally Posted by organichris

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.]...

Here's what is really says:
‘(1) AUTHORITY TO QUARANTINE- If the Secretary determines that there is credible evidence or information that an article of food presents a threat of serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals, the Secretary may quarantine any geographic area within the United States where the Secretary reasonably believes such food is located or from which such food originated. The authority to quarantine includes 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.

So, obviously what they're trying to control here is the distribution of contanimated food that represents a health risk. They're not trying to halt the movement of all food and have no intent to do so.

Originally Posted by organichris

...Is this alarmist?

That would be my guess.

Oh and one more thing to keep in mind is these are amendments to the existing act.

Randy

[aninocentangel]

They're not trying to halt the movement of all food and have no intent to do so.

I wouldn't attempt to predict intent, loopholes are regularly exploited. I'd rather the option not be created.
I'm satisfied with the current system in regards to contaminated food, it just needs more man hours.

[z-man]

Does this mean carrot cops and pepper police? Oh Boy

[Blueaussi]

Originally Posted by z-man

Does this mean carrot cops and pepper police? Oh Boy

*shakes fist*


They can have my Naga when they pry it from my Hunan Hand!

[WVTomatoMan]

Originally Posted by mx4inpa

I don't see how the red interpretation wouldn't be possible. It's no more incorrect than the one you added.

Then why is stuff left out? Why not quote the verbage exactly as it appears in the proposed legislation? Why leave out the part about credible evidence and posing a serious health risk? Because it changes how it is perceived when read.

I really don't think I'd have issues or at least as many issues if people posted the exact text and then their interpretation.

As I said before you can take almost any piece of legislation we have in place today and do similar things.

Originally Posted by mx4inpa

As far as I know they can already halt contaminated food and force recalls. This addition seems unnecessary. When is the last time there was some big food-borne outbreak from local producers? Why is it when the factory farms mess up we get more laws?

I agree they can stop the distribution of contaminated food and obviously they can force recalls being that we've had some of the largest of all time in the last couple of years. As I have said all along I suspect all they really need to do is a better job of enforcing the current regulations which basically means more inspections and inspectors.

There can't be a a big food-borne outbreak from local producers can there? You don't hear about it nationally because well it's local. But, it does happen.

Again I ask how does one write legislation that affect the mass producers and not the local producers? Instead of complaining about their attempts sit down and write something yourself and see how difficult it and and if you post it somewhere see how it gets picked apart.

Originally Posted by mx4inpa

You should let me borrow those rose colored glasses sometime.

What rose colored glasses?

It seems to me that just because I disagree with how interpretations are presented or the interpretations themselves that I side with the government and/or that I think the legislation should be passed. That is not the case.

BTW, as I said before there are pieces of legislation (and I quoted them) that will have a far more detremental affect on the small farmer and no one seems to pay attention to them. I don't know why they aren't being discussed.

Randy

[WVTomatoMan]

Originally Posted by aninocentangel

I wouldn't attempt to predict intent, loopholes are regularly exploited. I'd rather the option not be created.
I'm satisfied with the current system in regards to contaminated food, it just needs more man hours.

Okey dokey so let's leave out the intent.

What happens when a loophole is discovered? Don't they generally amend the legislation? Aren't these amendments to the current legislation? Maybe they're trying to fix loopholes or maybe they want to become the food police. It seems like everyone wants to jump on the food police bandwagon and no one wants to jump on the fixing loopholes band wagon. Each seems just about as possible to me.

Again, while not an expert on the situation I still don't see a need for further legislation, but instead more inspectors and better enforcement of the current regulations. So, my question is why do you and others write similar things as if they're contradictory to what I'm saying?

Randy

[aninocentangel]

Originally Posted by WVTomatoMan

Okey dokey so let's leave out the intent.

What happens when a loophole is discovered? Don't they generally amend the legislation? Aren't these amendments to the current legislation? Maybe they're trying to fix loopholes or maybe they want to become the food police. It seems like everyone wants to jump on the food police bandwagon and no one wants to jump on the fixing loopholes band wagon. Each seems just about as possible to me.

I dislike the vague language all too often used in this and other legislative acts, in my opinion it creates more issues than it fixes. I think that the current system for food safety works well when fully funded and staffed. In weighing fixing existing loopholes with this new legislation against the potential for the problems that I believe that new legislation may create, I do not find the risk worth it.

Again, while not an expert on the situation I still don't see a need for further legislation, but instead more inspectors and better enforcement of the current regulations. So, my question is why do you and others write similar things as if they're contradictory to what I'm saying?

Randy

I thought that the second half of my opinion stated in my previous post supported the underlined text rather than contradicted it. If you felt that I was being contrary, I do apologize because I obviously was not clear.

[Blueaussi]

Are the current regulations on-line where we could read them?

[WVTomatoMan]

Originally Posted by aninocentangel

I dislike the vague language all too often used in this and other legislative acts, in my opinion it creates more issues than it fixes. I think that the current system for food safety works well when fully funded and staffed. In weighing fixing existing loopholes with this new legislation against the potential for the problems that I believe that new legislation may create, I do not find the risk worth it.

I thought that the second half of my opinion stated in my previous post supported the underlined text rather than contradicted it. If you felt that I was being contrary, I do apologize because I obviously was not clear.

I dislike the vague language which often contains ambiguities in legislation too.

Oh I realize that you supported the underlined text. What I was getting at is that I feel the same way, but people think that I'm siding with the government and/or legislation which is not the case.

Randy

[WVTomatoMan]

Originally Posted by mx4inpa

Why are you leaving out the part where it's one man deciding what is credible? It doesnt change any of the text.

I didn't leave it out, it's right there in the text I included from the bill. Two things, one you raise a valid issue. One person is being left to decide this. That can be a good thing or it can be a bad thing. The second thing is you can tell it is one person in my post because it is right there to read. Where is it in the original post? The only time I saw it mentioned was in passing later on not directly related to the quarentine part.

Originally Posted by mx4inpa

The legislation isnt needed thats why.

I agree and have said as much. But, I've also thought about how difficult it would be to write legislation that applies to large distribution suppliers while not affecting the local farmer. It's easy to say that legislation isn't needed or that it's poorly written. What I'm getting at is I suspect that there are aren't there any alternatives being presented because it's hard and people would pick apart their proposed legislation too.

Originally Posted by mx4inpa

There is legislation already passed in the form of a treaty that is far more damaging. But bring them up, I'll discuss them.

I already did. They're here in previous pages. Essentially there is a bill that would require electronic record keeping for food producers. Large ag producers already have electronic record keeping. Most small and/or local producers don't. It could effectively run small producers including farmer's market types out of business.

Originally Posted by mx4inpa

The glasses where you read some proposed legislation which isnt even needed, miss the one guy with all the power to decide whats credible and tell us all its benign.

I didn't say it was needed, I didn't miss the one guy situation, and I never said it was benign. What I'm saying is that there is enough in the legislation to be concerned about without speculation or twisting things. For instance why not discuss the issues instead of speculating about Michael Taylor. Geez they bring that guys name up every time and look how it's presented. To me, they make it seem as if though he is still a lawyer for Monsanto. Why didn't they say something like this? Michael Taylor, former USFDA Deputy Commissioner and former Monsanto counsel, is considered a forerunner for the position. Then go on to point out why you would be opposed to him being appointed to the position. I wouldn't have a problem with that.

So, I'm not buying the government crap, and I'm not buying this other crap either. Who is wearing the rose colored glasses.

Randy

[aninocentangel]

I'm wearing rose colored glasses in that I like to think that growing my own food will help protect me from problems that the food supply chain may have now and in the future. I'm more concerned about such threats as terminator and other patented genes invading my garden than food borne illnesses from purchased food products, and I had listeria as a child from being fed hot dogs straight out of the package. Horrible business, that was.
Unfortunately the thread is so long that your statements regarding your opinion may have been missed, and I believe that some people may have skimmed over some pages to get to the most recent posts. I had to remind myself that your opinions were more in line with mine than they appeared from current postings and I read the entire thread before posting, although it took several days due to having to wade through legislative language that crossed my eyes.

[feldon30]

I'm worried about laws that prevent me from slicing into a tomato at a farmer's market and allowing people to taste it. I thought this was America?

[WVTomatoMan]

Originally Posted by Blueaussi

Are the current regulations on-line where we could read them?

Yep, they sure are:
http://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInforma...ct/default.htm

Here is a summary on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal...d_Cosmetic_Act

Somethings I found interesting was that the original act was written in 1938 (there have been amendments).

Randy