The Tester-Hagan Amendment was supposed to be the savior of S510, giving smaller producers an exemption from the worst requirements of the so-called food safety legislation. Now, it turns out, the amendment may be the great black hole of the entire food safety steamroller. ?
While the lawyers are trying to figure out ways to finagle around the U.S. Senate’s error in venturing into the U.S. House’s territory by initiating revenue-generating legislation, another hole has opened in the crumbling dike that is S510. (Even The Wall Street Journal, normally a supporter of the FDA, has come out against it, stealing some of my lines, it seems.)
On close reading, the Tester-Hagan Amendment looks to be doing a lot of the things that the discredited National Animal Identification System (NAIS) tried to do and failed when it was pulled by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in the face of vehement farmer opposition last year. In other words, Tester-Hagan might well be seen as a wolf in sheep’s clothing, as it were.
Congrats to Eric Blair, of Activist Post for combing through the actual text, and launching the vetting process. A little late, perhaps, but better late than never.
As Blair sees it, the big problem with the amendment is that it doesn’t exempt small producers as easily, or completely, as suggested in the media reports. The small producers need to make the case to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that they qualify. One path to qualify would be for a food producer to show it has “identified potential hazards associated with the food being produced” and is “implementing preventive controls to address the hazards, and is monitoring the preventive controls to ensure that such controls are effective.” These are similar to what larger food producers must do.
Now, I’d go further and say that those are just the beginning of the problems. For years, the USDA tried to implement NAIS to force farmers to register their farms and each and every animal–known as the National Animal Identification System.
Well, Tester-Hagan may wind up accomplishing the NAIS goals. I had assumed, in offering advice to farmers in my previous post, that to qualify for the Tester-Hagan protections, a small food producer would simply stay away from FDA offices, or tell an inspector they didn’t qualify. Presumably, if the FDA felt differently from information it might have, it could audit a small producer to make sure it qualified. Absolutely not so. Under Tester-Hagan, small producers that don’t have documentation that they have “identified hazards” and are “monitoring preventive controls,” (presumably equivalent to a HACCP plan, which very few small producers have) need to produce for the FDA “documentation (which may include licenses, inspection reports, certificates, permits, credentials, certification by an appropriate agency (such as a State department of agriculture), or other evidence of oversight)…”
That’s not all. They will be required to show additional as yet unspecified “documentation” specified in a “guidance document” to be produced by the FDA within a year of passage of S510.
You don’t have to have a very fertile imagination to conjure up what might be in that “guidance document.” How many cows, chickens, pigs, and goats do you have? How is your land being apportioned to different crops, by exact acreage or square footage?
Still skeptical about where I’m going? Then consider this requirement under the Tester-Hagen Amendment: That within 18 months of implementation of the new law, the FDA and U.S. Department of Agriculture “shall conduct a study of the food processing sector regulated by the Secretary to determine—(i) the distribution of food production by type and size of operation, including monetary value of food sold; (ii) the proportion of food produced by each type and size of operation; (iii) the number and types of food facilities co-located on farms, including the number and proportion by commodity and by manufacturing or processing activity; (iv) the incidence of foodborne illness originating from each size and type of operation and the type of food facilities for which no reported or known hazard exists; and (v) the effect on foodborne illness risk associated with commingling, processing, transporting, and storing food and raw agricultural commodities, including differences in risk based on the scale and duration of such activities.”
As I read this, the FDA and USDA will need to send out an army of inspectors to each food production facility and farm that qualifies as a food production facility (once you package food, you’re generally considered to be in the food production business) in the country and conduct a detailed analysis of the business of each. Not to mention a detailed assessment of the “incidence of foodborne illness” and “the effect of foodborne illness”–whatever that means.
And this is all on top of the requirement that all farms, including those that might be exempted under Tester-Hagan, need to conform with “Good Agricultural Practices”. This is the program originated by the United Nations that involves the government in farm operations.
Tester-Hagan isn’t just bad news. It’s awful news. If it passes, I suspect Violet Willis is going to have a lot of company for any march on Washington she helps organize.
my neighbor grows enough tomatoes and lettuce to sell on a table in front of her house.
To be legal she will now have to APPLY for an exemption.
The application requires nearly as much info as the she wants to be exempted from, and we still don't know all that might be required.
Is there an application Fee? How long will it take to get an answer? Can you sell while you wait for "approval"?
Where will our food come from in the beginning, when everyone is waiting for approval?
If you must apply, then apparently you can be turned down.
What criteria will be used to deny someone?
What appeals process would there be? How long would that take and who would mediate?
And the penalties were 10 years in jail, you said in previous post?
Congratulations!
Please go to this story I wrote on the Huffington Post
and make a comment. You are really a great researcher. Honored to have crossed paths with you
through #S510 bringing a national conversation and
allies into place.
Leslie
Your Enchanted Gardener
On the Huffington Post
Chewing on Food Safety:
A National Conversation is needed
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lesliex/chewing-on-food-safety-a-_b_750967.html
For more links by Leslie Goldman
Your Enchanted Gardener
http://www .google.co m/search?c lient=safa ri&rls=en& q=chewing+ on+food+sa fety&ie=UT F-8&oe=UTF -8
Liora Leah, of MOTHER EARTH CUREZONE BLOG
visited La Milpa Organica Farm,
as Barry Logan Micro-Farm er, grieving and emotionall y hurt,
was loading up his remaining things as part of the take down
of this Micro–Far m. The farm was a successful experiment in growing
Food as Medicine for seven years in San Diego County.
http://cur ezone.com/ blogs/fm.a sp?i=17310 18
FOR MORE VIDEOS ON THE ELOQUENT BARRY LOGAN
MICROFARME R GO HERE
http://pr4 progress.o rg/plantyo urdream/?p age_id=50
TO BE IN THE CONVERSATI ON ON
CHEWING ON FOOD SAFETY,
PLEASE JOIN THE DIALOGUE ON SCIENCE,
ETHICS, AND FOOD ON FACEBOOK
http://www .facebook. com/group. php?gid=34 8831351129
What in HECK has happened to us? Our legislators blithely spend OUR money to kill innovation, kill opportunity, kill community relationships, channel every man into a job rather than a living (often dramatically de-valuing manual skills) and most devastatingly, destroy our God-given right to self-determination.
Central control has taken us a very long way down a very ugly road in America. We can only hope that in trying to make farmers think and act like agency bureaucrats, the power brokers have finally reached their Waterloo.
In other words, we cannot seperate the problem of big government from the problem of big business.
Great analysis David. Let's keep up the pressure against SB510.
The premise underlying proving a negative is that there is an all-encompassing something which always applies (in this country, this premise is functionally the interstate commerce clause, which basically sweeps everything under federal control if the tiniest part of your local operation happened to travel over a state line). The interstate commerce blanket then further suffocates localities by "preemption," which is the federal wave of a wand saying that the federal law controls over even state law.
Generally under western jurisprudence, unless there is a law restricting an activity, the activity is lawful (this is the basis under which cow shares are legal in many states). When the law is omni-present, however, as Alice did we walk through the looking-glass, into a world where many, many, many things are illegal or regulated tightly (tight regulation essentially equals making something illegal due to economic, paperwork, time and other burdens placed on the individual). Then, we need to prove that we are not regulated.
Pernicious things have been known to happen when the ordinary citizen is required to prove a negative. Fill in the blank: "But officer, I can prove that I'm not __________________."
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-1202-food-safety-20101202,0,2930596.story
The state run farms were inefficient and unable to feed the country.
I have a bit of a bone to pick with you.
I understand that you may have a loved one who is in the Armed Forces. That is all the more reason to support what Julian Assange is doing.
It is not Assange who is putting them in danger, it is the government and U.S. foriegn policy. If you don't want your loved one being killed, then you should be supporting an unconditional end to all U.S. military intervention abroad.
I recall you saying in the past that you are a libertarian. Is this accurate?
I find it very hypocrtical that you can be against state power on issues like local food regulation, but when it comes to military power (which is without question a far more egregious and oppressive form of state power than food regulation) you are gung-ho about supporting the power of the state.
This to me speaks volumes about the problem with American-style "libertarianism." It is fundamentally a conservative and nationalistic ideology, no matter how much it is cloaked in anti-government rhetoric. American libertarians are very short-sighted. They oppose state power only when it fits into their narrow short-sighted self-interest.
The people who need to be arrested and prosecuted are the war criminals at the highest echelons of the U.S. government and military-industrial complex — the people who Julian Assange is exposing. Assange is a whistleblower who should be protected from the powerful state and corporate interests he is undermining.
You are free to disagree about the nobility of what Assange is doing. But he has the right to do it without harrasment and prosecution.
And please acknolwedge that by calling for Assange's arrest and prosecution, you are opposing the very fundamental human rights which you are excersising by disagreeing with me about Assange.
In other words, you are free to disagree about whether we should be free or not.
There is no comprimise about freedom of speech and freedom of the press. They are the basis for a free and democratic society. Much more fundamental than regulation of food and agriculture.
David, surely being a journalist, you must come out stronger on this question!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There is no evidence that requiring farms to fill out more paperwork will make their food safer. The real cause of produce contamination is the existence of factory animal farms whose effluent output (huge rivers of cow feces, basically), end up in the water supply, soils and equipment that comes into contact with fresh produce.
The food contamination problem is an UPSTREAM problem where you've got to reform the factory animal operations that now dominate the American meat industry. S.510, however, does absolutely nothing to address this. Factory animal farms aren't even addressed in the bill!
The truth is that Americans are dying from processed food laced with toxic chemical additives, not from fresh, raw produce. Partially-hydrogenated oils, white sugar, aspartame, MSG and artificial food colors almost certainly kill far more people than bacterial contaminations.
The American public is also dying from pharmaceuticals — anywhere from 100,000 to 240,000 people a year are killed by FDA-approved drugs, most of which have been approved under the guise of blatantly fraudulent science and drug company trickery.
To think that the FDA — the very same agency responsible for the Big Pharma death machine — is now going to "save us" by controlling food safety is highly irrational.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Exactly said.
Our opinion is obvious….it sucks.
We address the issue of more of the bad stuff will get even more of the bad stuff. How can more of something bad bring something better or good.
To quote ( well sort of and close enough ) Joel Salatin….about Science…. "Science is when the answers come from pasteurization, irradiation, cloning, GMO, Killer genetics in seeds, "Kill Steps" in the middle of each and every food chain, more processing of our foods, antibiotics being abused, eliminating cows, goats, sheep or chickens from any vegetable farm. Making an enemy of manure. Thats science.
This type of PMO CAFO based food system has brought you Food Inc and: autism at 1 in 80 kids, diabetes rates at 1 in 3 kids, obesity and immune depression that kills thousands per year. That is what science does. That is the gift of more technology and Kill Steps in the middle of our food systems. That is HACCP.
So we must press on…teaching…but now we must teach those that govern us. They are out of control "money drunk" with their payments from Big Ag and Pharma lobbyists. To those that say that we disregard science…I say to them….no.
We are the ones with the real science. The Universities are filled with research that has been suppressed and ignorred because of repression and political will…the grant system.
What gets studied gets promoted. The people know better.
Lets continue to feed the people so the people can know better….then lets go teach the legislature as well.
Mark
"I Told You so".
Keep reading everyone . . . . it just gets better.
Bill, I think you need to enlist in the military and then come back and tell me if Julian is a hero or not when you see your buddy beside you blown to bits by a roadside bomb . . . that could have been prevented if your hero had not blown your "Taliban Source's Cover".
Our government is bad right now . . . I don't believe we should still be in Afghanistan or Iraq . . . but it is what it is . . . . I would hate to see where you would be right before D – Day during WW2 expousing your beliefs.
The bill has not passed yet – but if it does ~ let us start the protest now.
Kind regards,
Violet
This is not World War II. And lest we forget that:
1) The first front against Fascism was in Spain during the 1930's. That battle was not fought by "Old Right" American isolationist nationalist "libertarians." It was fought by leftists.
2) Socialist Presidential Candidate Eugene Debs was among many leftists who was imprisoned for urging draft resistance during World War I. If the U.S. hadn't gotten involved in WWI, it would have prevented WWII from ever happening.
You don't think we should "still" be in Iraq or Afghanistan? I was organizing protests against these wars before they began, Violet! I can't tell you how many people thought I was crazy for saying "TROOPS OUT NOW!"
If you are in favor of civil disobediance, here are a few groups to take a look at, that have been on the front lines of civil disobediance for years. Instead of blaming Julian Assange, you should be supporting these groups.
http://www.ivaw.org/
http://www.warresisters.org/
I am totally against SB510, but I recognize that this local foods and agriculture issue is only part of the equation — a part that is often undervalued.
Let me know when the civil disobediance begins! I'm all for it!
Here is the OPDC position. I am reading all 480 pages of this tree killing document over the weekend.
Mark
Today is Day 5 of the NY Times series on "State's Secrets", and the focus is on corruption in Afghanistan. Yesterday was about how mob bosses control Putin. You could say the NY Times and other media are using all the confidential info to sell papers, and make money, over the dead bodies Violet is aware of. But they're also informing American citizens and taxpayers, who are footing the bill for much of the Afghan corruption. Invariably, a more open society makes more informed decisions and, conversely, a more closed society makes more uninformed and regrettable decisions.
Violet's upset about people she is close to being endangered by release of intelligence reminds me of Mary McGonigle Martin's upset about pathogens in food stemming from her son's illness. The upset is understandable in both cases. But there are larger issues in both situations. Focusing obsessively on stamping out pathogens has been at the expense of confronting larger problems with our food system, and resulted in ever-more-limits on our food choices. Similarly, trying to make Julian Assange a scapegoat for informing and educating the public about secret wars is misguided. There are obviously some true patriots still within the Defense and State Depts who felt compelled to let their fellow citizens know about lots of shenanigans. Maybe some of those same people exist at the FDA and will perform a similar service some day.
David
http://www.npr.org/2010/12/02/131753267/eat-your-worms-the-upside-of-parasites
A point of clarification I am not attempting to separate the problem of big government from the problem of big business, but certainly we must recognize that the commodification of food is a means, not an end. It is simply another of the instruments employed to exert control, and thereby gain power and money (standing alongside commodification of money, communication, travel, education, and most important, commodification of labor, which is the driveshaft connected to so many odious schemes, allowing them to function together to direct and absorb the fruits of every mans work.)
We sometimes wail that government should not be manipulated by big, special interests, noting (correctly!) that our government was designed to do the opposite, that it was, after all, entrusted originally to the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker, and not to the king. But in making that complaint we tend to bypass the fundamental truth that evil resides in the hearts of men, and only by extension in their creations. We ought instead to view ourselves as the enemy, and consider all governmental acts that centralize power to be inherently evil.
Arguing the details of this or that legislation is therefore unproductive at least, because to argue the detail is to accept the premise (that centralized control is acceptable). Centralized control increases the potential for damage to others because it endows men with agency-sized, or army-sized, or business-sized, (name your poison here) power. All of it is dangerous, but when we make that power unaccountable, we have virtually guaranteed despotism.
IMHO, when we morphed from a nation of laws to a nation of regulations we killed a philosophical underpinning of America. By giving the power to make law to unaccountable agents of legislators, we started up the machinery that would turn us eventually into a land where, as Steve Bemis noted, law is omnipresent, where essentially nothing is legal. With that, we ceased to be a free country.
An important barometer for determining the rightness of any legislation concerns the legislations tendency to increase or limit damage. One could fairly put it this way: Does it centralize, or decentralize, power? Or more pointedly: Does it give any man more power than he was given by God?
It took another year of research to accept that animals evolved to cope with parasites and that parasites actually perform a function by stimulating the immune system. I stopped deworming my livestock and started selecting those that thrived with low wormloads, selling those which needed regular deworming. The other corollary is, land rotation and proper mineralization, with copper for goats especially, help prevent worm overloads.
Since then I've saved a lot of money (dewormers are very expensive!!) and my animals have never been healthier. They all easily birth strong kids that stand up and suckle immediately without assistance, neither of which happened while I was regularly poisoning them… imagine that. And I no longer need to vaccinate, even for tetanus; haven't needed a vet since either, as my animals no longer get mastitis, pneumonia, or even snotty noses or coughs, things that happened regularly when I gave them everything I was supposed to, to be considered a "good" breeder.
And THAT'S what scares me most about things like S510… being forced to vaccinate and do whatever TPTB thinks I need to do, to be considered fit to raise animals.
I think you had better dig deeper into the reasons why your state Representative oppose the Food Safety Bill. They are fuming about the Tester Amendments and the so-called small farm exemptions and claim that it "makes no sense".
"But Cardoza, echoing Costa, denounced as an "abomination" a Senate amendment that exempts certain small farms from new food safety standards. That exemption sparked objections from the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the California-based Western Growers Association and United Fresh, which represents fresh produce growers."
Sounds like your Democratic Reps are very much pro Big-Ag.
Here's the entire article:
http://www.modbee.com/2010/12/01/1453890/valley-lawmakers-criticize-bill.html
Alice
1) "Good Agricultural Practices" – the concept behind GAPs (although not the term) is found in Section 105 of the bill, which directs FDA to issue "produce safety standards" telling farmers how to gro and harvest their crops. The Tester-Hagan amendment exempts farmers that gross under half a million (adjusted for inflation) and that sell more than half of their products directly to consumers, local restaurants, and local retail establishments from these requirements. The exempted farmers are NOT required to register with FDA or produce paperwork to qualify. See pages 51-53 of the bill.
2) "Facilities" (i.e. businesses that do any processing or manufacturing of food) are ALREADY required to register with FDA under the 2002 Bioterrorism Act. S510 would impose extensive HACCP-type requirements on any facility that is curently required to register. The Tester-Hagan amendment does two things:
a) clarifies that facilities selling more than half their products directly to individual consumers through farmers markets, farm stands, and CSAs are NOT required to register (and therefore not required to do the HACCP) (see pages 11-12 of the bill, combined with FDA's existing regulations under the 2002 Bioterrorism Act)
b) creates a new category of "qualified facilities," which are those that gross under half a million dollars and that sell more than half their products directly to consumers, local restaurants, and local retail establishments combined. This category of facilities is already required to register with FDA under existing law, but are exempted from the new HACCP requirements by submitting documentation to the agency showing (i) that they meet this tst and (ii) that they comply with applicable state or local laws OR that they have the dort of documentation you quote in your post. (See pages 19-24 of the bill)
And none of this applies to producers selling meat because that is under USDA's jurisdiction, not FDA's. It does cover eggs and dairy. (Note that Senator Tester has been one of our best allies in Congress in fighting NAIS. He introduced an amendment last year, which succeeded, to cut funding for NAIS in half.)
None of this is a perfect solution S510 and the Tester-Hagan amendment involved very ugly sausage making. The Tester-Hagan amendment fixes some of the existing problems caused by the 2002 Bioterrorism Law and a very significant part of the problems that would be caused if S510 passes. But not all. The bottom line is that the amendment is damage control. That isn't the fault of Senators Tester or Hagan or any of the people who advocated for this amendment. It's due to the Agribusiness capture of FDA and much of Congress, a problem that has developed over decades and that we will need to spend the next decade fighting.
I have a more detailed discussion posted at
http://farmandranchfreedom.org/Tester-Hagan-explanation
I appreciate your effort at clarification. I know many individuals committed to sustainable agriculture like yourself have spent a lot of time working to negotiate the Tester-Hagan provisions in the interests of small enterprises. I hope it provides greater protection than I was able to glean in my reading of it.
Part of the problem is interpreting what Tester-Hagan really provides. When I read through Tester-Hagan, I couldn't find any reference to Good Agricultural Practices, so assumed if not mentioned, then not exempted. I just read your explanation at the Farm and Ranch Freedom site, and my head is spinning. Maybe that's because I'm not a lawyer, but I think small enterprises are going to need a lawyer to figure which "or" applies to them and which "and" doesn't. And perhaps that's part of the intent here.
A key statement in your analysis, though, is this: "'Facilities' are any business that processes, manufactures, holds, or stores food. .. 'Farms. are not 'facilities.' But if the farm processes or manufactures food, it becomes classified as a facility. " How about if it holds or stores food? I presume it's also a facility, and many farms package, hold, and store food. Once you're classified as a facility, as I understand it, you have to go through the process of submitting data that I described . And your explanation seems to say as much:
"…businesses that gross less than half a million dollars (adjusted for inflation) and that sell more than half of their products directly to consumers or to local restaurants and retail establishments…must submit paperwork showing that they qualify for the exemption and that they comply with state and local laws in order to be exempt from the new HACCP-type requirements."
A big part of what happens clearly depends on how the FDA decides to interpret the provisions of Tester-Hagan. In the past, the FDA has never been a friend of smaller enterprises, so I have trouble assuming the agency, with more power and money, will suddenly change its stripes. Take the study FDA must carry out of small producers, that I described in my post, and you allude to in your analysis. I worry FDA will misuse the study as a huge data-gathering mission and you see it as an opportunity. to prove food from smaller producers is very safe. I hope you're right.
I guess I wish Sens. Tester and Hagan had used their influence to block this thing entirely. I have to think they would have had enough allies to make a good run at blocking cloture. As you say, there was a lot of "sausage making." I think it's more a pig in a poke.
David
To continue trying to clarify the "facilities" issue, the Bioterrorism Act states that facilities do NOT include farms or retail food establishments. FDA then got to define those terms. FDA did so in a guidance document, not a rulemaking, which meant the public had no chance to comment on the definitions and impact them.
From the FDA guidance document (http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/FoodDefenseandEmergencyResponse/ucm121288.htm):
"Farms, which are establishments devoted to the growing and harvesting of crops, the raising of animals (including seafood), or both. Washing, trimming of outer leaves of, and cooling produce are considered part of harvesting. The term "farm" includes:
1.Facilities that pack or hold food, provided that all food used in such activities is grown, raised, or consumed on that farm or another farm under the same ownership; and
2.Facilities that manufacture/process food, provided that all food used in such activities is consumed on that farm or another farm under the same ownership."
So, as far as holding or packing food, a farm remains a "farm" — and does NOT have to register OR submit paperwork– if all the food it is packing or holding is either grown or raised or consumed on the farm. But if it manufactures or processes food, then it becomes a facility if it sells any of it. At which point it, under current law, is required to register under the Bioterrorism Act. And that's where Tester-Hagan would kick in, if S510 passes.
Yes, we're going to need to help the farmers figure this out. And we certainly can't rely on FDA to do so. I've already talked with several others who have worked on this amendment about getting geared up, both to provide comments to FDA during rulemaking and to present our own guidance documents.
There are no guarantees in politics, but I seriously doubt that Tester and Hagan could have blocked cloture. It's one thing to argue for protections for local producers, it's very different politically to say "no" to a food safety bill. S 510 may or may not do a lot to help mainstream food safety — it relies too much on paperwork and FDA action, and dodges issues such as the feedlots and E. coli 0157 — but, in politics, perception often becomes reality. Tester and Hagan could have chosen to oppose the bill, but that would have left us with the significant likelihood that the bill would pass without the protections they were able to negotiate.
No, FDA is not likely to change its stripes — it is firmly captured by Agribusiness. And whether S510 passes or not, our movement needs to get serious about being involved, not just when bills come to a vote, but at every stage — particularly, appropriations, when Congress decides what money FDA will have and how it is spent.
Notably, Agribusiness has not made this kind of a protest against the provisions in the bill that urge FDA to provide flexibility and consider small, sustainable farm concerns. Agribusiness only got upset when Tester-Hagan created a specific, non-discretionary carve-out. FDA can cause problems in the implementation of the amendment, but it does not have the discretion to simply ignore it.
Thanks for your indepth commentary . . . . but I really hope this bill just dies.
Bill Anderson:
Please let us take our political discussion private . . . we can continue this via my personal email address: http://www.violetjwillis@yahoo.com. This blog is about raw milk and farming issues related to this.
David,
I am nothing like Mary . . . . I had the opportunity to sue for a great deal of $ when my son was born with a very, very severe birth injury due to MAS. Luckily, there have been no adverse affects (he is 11 now). My son's pulmonologist predicted he would have a 90% chance of having severe asthma . . . because of his farm exposure and a diet that incluldes raw milk . . . . this has not been the case. And since our insurance paid for his care ~ we decided not to clog up our legal system with another "Tort Case".
Julian Assange should have never exposed names of Afghan informants several weeks ago. This is my beef with his journalistic methods and can get innocent people killed ~ including friends and family members who are now in country or are soon to be deployed.
Hugh Betcha . . . Peak oil can be nullified if all workers who are white collar and work in a cubicle and on a computer simply work from home. Long commutes from the suburbs would be extinct . . . people could actually LIVE and form cohesive and strong communities. Can you imagine the traffic in urban areas then ~ the oil that could be saved:) My husband VPN's from our very rural location in Maine to his job. . . . this should be happening all over the country by now. . . but it is not happening ~ why not? Give companies a huge tax break if they do this. Day care can then be eliminated (we have two small children and between the two of us parent them while working). It would mean such a better way of life for everyone who has this opportunity.
Now let us get back to the problem at hand S 510. Let us all hope it is killed.
Kind regards,
Violet
http://www.kilbyridgefarmmaine.blogspot.com
S510 makes all farming fall under international governance.
Judith, you do not speak for me and I wish you would stop trying to 'fix' things in the world when you are obviously all about compromising everything.
I'm sorry, David, all the rest of you, but Judith just takes the cake.
Sharon
Kind regards,
Violet
And how many so called allies turned and announced support for the amended version? And the exemptions are certainly not enough protection nor what they were advertised to be. Its seems these organizations just needed political cover to declare victory and support this abomination.
What groups betrayed us and supported final passage of 510?
What groups stayed true and opposed this, even with the Tester exemptions?
You can find this all out by who was involved in this bill when it was in Committe over a year ago.
They took testimony from who? And who lobbied for it?
Call the Sponsor of the Bill's office on Monday to find out . . . . Lame duck is over I think Friday of next week. If it does not pass by then I think it is dead (for now).
Kind regards,
Violet
http://www.kilbyridgefarmmaine.blogspot.com
My husband found out about this bill over a year ago. He posted all the info on Walter Jeffries site (nonais.org) at that time. . . . Dick Durban was the sponsor of this bill . . . . and of course . . . . he is a Democrat.
Kind regards,
Violet
http://www.kilbyridgefarmmaine.blogspot.com
I was amazed at lyyke's rudeness, that behavior only widens the gap and closes any doors for conversation. I wonder what the response would have been had someone said the same to/about any other poster?
Exposing informants? There was Plamegate-many were exposed to a greater potential to death.Why? because her husband ticked off bush? Ousting a CIA agent condemned many informants. Who went to jail? Who stayed in jail? The White House did not initiate an investigation after the security breach as they are supposed to- there is some order that says they are supposed to. What was the sentence knocked down to? 30 months? Wow what a Big deal! Lets not to forget; Enron, Watergate, etc.
Lets keep the American people's heads in the sand, They cannot make informed decisions if they are NOT informed. I am a widow of a veteran. I have a very good idea and a lot of experience on how the "system" works.
The Tester Amendment is exactly the picture David used to illustrate. By compromising with food dictatorship, you do nothing to increase food freedom and therefore are antithetical to the foundations of this nation.
510 affords no protection to the vast majority of farmers and ranchers. And the USDA DOES cover meat, but not the animals meat is made from. The FDA has authority of live food animals on the farm. Just search for it, and you will find I am speaking the truth. Should the live food animals have a disease, then the USDA authority comes in—-over the disease. So, how many ranchers do you know that are registered as a facility and sell their cattle directly to consumers within 275 miles???
Just in case people are curious, the exact definitions of the FDA regarding Farm and Facility are here:
FDA title 21 sec 1.227 def of facility and farm:
(2) Facility means any establishment, structure, or structures under one ownership at one general physical location, or, in the case of a mobile facility, traveling to multiple locations, that manufactures/processes, packs, or holds food for consumption in the United States. Transport vehicles are not facilities if they hold food only in the usual course of business as carriers. A facility may consist of one or more contiguous structures, and a single building may house more than one distinct facility if the facilities are under separate ownership. The private residence of an individual is not a facility. Nonbottled water drinking water collection and distribution establishments and their structures are not facilities.
(3) Farm means a facility in one general physical location devoted to the growing and harvesting of crops, the raising of animals (including seafood), or both. Washing, trimming of outer leaves of, and cooling produce are considered part of harvesting. The term farm includes: (i) Facilities that pack or hold food, provided that all food used in such activities is grown, raised, or consumed on that farm or another farm under the same ownership; and (ii) Facilities that manufacture/process food, provided that all food used in such activities is consumed on that farm or another farm under the same ownership.
Read more: http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/1-227-what-definitions-apply-this-subpart-19703879#ixzz0xBBIP6CX
According to the FDA a LUNCHBOX could be a facility and a farm, by definition, IS a facility. IF they eat everything they grow and process.
Now, it does state that the private residence is NOT a facility, and that's mighty broadminded of them. However, a home, with a garden, or food animals, is a farm, and if they want to sell some of their excess, they fall under the jurisdiction of the FDA by the letter of the law in this bill even if you include Tester.
Just ask yourself if historically any of the federal agencies have been small enterprise friendly? We have the pleasure of waiting to see what the regs the HHS will promulgate under this authority they are being granted in 510. Their regulations are generally destructive to family farms and small processing. Even if they promise to define :very small" businesses, we get to wait and see what their definition is.
The most logical position for people in favor of the right to choose your own food is against 510. The FDA and USDA already have enough authority. They just need to do their jobs and leave the rest of us alone. People don't deserve to be misled about how wonderful something is by groups they look to for information. 510 is NAIS for everything.
If this should pass, even with the massive Constitutional procedure problem, we will have some time before the regs hit, but fighting regs is much more difficult than fighting the bill. Just look at Plum Island. (12000 plus comments against moving it to Kansas, and they are going to move it to Kansas) Hopefully, they won't be able to pass 510 and then the groups that were either misled or misleading others can be brought to see the light for the next battle on the same deal next session.
Sharon
I fear this legislation would also suck in private contracts.
I'm very much not legalese savvy, but the line that blows my mind is this:
"Facility means any establishment, structure, or structures under one ownership at one general physical location, or, in the case of a mobile facility, traveling to multiple locations, that manufactures/processes, packs, or holds food for consumption in the United States."
Notice it does not say food for "sale". It says food for "consumption".
Does that not open a can of worms?
Before we get too stressed out about all of this we need to remember that all of these regulations exist only in the world of commerce.Don't confuse common law with corporate rules.There is a world where we are bound only by common law.Since the people who administer the world of commerce have done such a good job of convincing us all that there is just one world,the world of commerce,it seems like we are completely under their rules.WE can choose which world we want to act in,and WE can move back and forth between these two worlds.A good analogy is when we are playing the game of monopoly(the commerce game) and when we are at home with our family and friends(the real world).
Any time you are required to be recognized by a legal name you are acting in the commerce game.There are many things you cannot do without the legal name.In the world of commerce contracts set the rules.You cannot participate in commerce without the legal name.Any activity that you can take part in without using a legal name is not part of that game.People in the game are always trying to make us believe that we are always in the game,but that is certainly not true.If you believe that you ARE the legal name then you are always in the game of commerce.The key is to know that you cannot be required to be recognized by the legal name.It is your choice.Your consent to being recognized by a legal name is consent to a contract.You need to understand the contract before you give your consent.When you refuse to consent to being recognized by the legal name the rules of the game of commerce do not apply to you.You ARE NOT the legal name .It is a name that is the property of the government(the people).You are entitled to use the legal name for purposes of identification in the game of commerce. There are benefits to participating in the world of commerce ,that is why we give up our freedom while we are acting in commerce.The rules are supposed to protect the public interest.
We can "produce,process,etc" food without being bound to those regulations as long as we don't agree to be recognized by the legal name.The corporation can only act on the legal name.Of course the corporation is going to act outside of the law in an attempt to intimidate us back into it's commerce game.As long as we deal with each other without legal names and social security numbers we are acting properly within the law.We are not violating any contract because we are not acting under contract.This is the reason that attempts to connect illnesses to raw milk are so common.When harm is done by one of us to another no contract has to be produced.We are all governed by common law in that we agree not to do harm to each other.
"The Crown Attorney actually said that they cannot proceed without
juristiction and the have had no sucess in getting George Hugh to
consent to being BOTHWELL,GEORGE as he did not answer to the name nor
would he cross the "imaginary line". The Crown Attorney also said
this: "This is a well crafted Ideological Subversion of the Justice
sysytem"
All charges withdrawn by Judge Thompson (acting as a judge finally &
not a Corporate Administrator). Geordie proved to everyone today that
IDENTITY IN CHRIST is your Key to Victory. My hats off and respect to
a very brave man who stood his ground on principle & would not let or
consent to the courts identifing him as a DEAD FICTICIOUS ENTITY.
This is a HUGE VICTORY and PRECEDENT SETTING CASE. I am sure they
will not mess with George Hugh in Owen Sound after this. "
S510 and more!
Im not sure how I got brought into this conversation. You stated, I am nothing like Mary . . . . I had the opportunity to sue for a great deal of $ when my son was born with a very, very severe birth injury due to MAS.
Violet, you know nothing about me.my value system or my moral integrity. Your statement implies that you are superior to me. It really is quite nauseating. After your child spends 2 months in the hospital with HUS, then we can have a conversation that you could comprehend. Until then, do not judge me.
Violet, if you were comfortable with your grown child being disabled and not being able to support himself, then more power to you. I guess that means tax dollars would be supporting him instead of him being able to provide for himself. I dont judge you for your decision to allow your child to mooch off the people in America who pay taxes, so dont judge me for my choice to allow my child to be financially self-sufficient.
There are life long consequences to the illness my son suffered from. THE MONEY IS FOR HIM WHEN HE IS DISABLED DUE TO A KIDNEY TRANSPLANT. I owe no apologies to anyone for taking care of my son financially. When I die, I can go in peace knowing that my son has the financial means to support himself when he can no longer work.
This study was just released. http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2010/12/ten-years-later-theyre-still-haunted-by-e-coli/ Long term risk for hypertension, renal impairment, and cardiovascular disease after gastroenteritis from drinking water contaminated with Escherichia coli O157:H7: a prospective cohort study. For those of you who still think that an E.coli 0157:H7 infection without suffering for HUS does not have life long consequences, then you may want to read it.
And now, a 10-year study of 1,977 Walkerton residents suggests that foodborne illness has consequences that last far beyond a mere tummy ache and a bout of diarrhea. Conducted by doctors in London, Ontario, the study published in the British Medical Journal concluded that those who were sickened in 2000 experienced "an increased risk for hypertension, renal impairment and cardiovascular disease."
Also, nice video on raw milk. Im sure you will all hate it. http://www.realrawmilkfacts.com/how-good-does-raw-milk-have-to-taste-to-risk-your-life/
Mary
I brought you into the conversation via my comment reacting to a comment from Violet Willis about WikiLeaks…only to suggest that there was some similarity between the attitudes of you and Violet in letting a personal trauma color your approaches to larger issues. I didn't intend to make any judgments about the approaches either of you took to resolve those personal traumas. In retrospect, probably not a great comparison on my part, especially now that I see the path this is taking. I really don't want to encourage a discussion about the individual value judgments you each made.
David
Compare the 2 options:
Consume sterilized food that carries some risk of food poisoning
OR
consume living food that may carry a fraction greater risk of food poisoning.
Given that we know that the sterile, dead food of the western diet will destroy your health eventually, and kill you through chronic illness
and that living foods keep you healthy and vital –
focusing on the slight extra risk of raw milk becomes foolish when thinking in the long term.
Why are tptb trying to take away peoples choices of what they wish to consume?
It doesn't take a scientist with a fancy degree to figure out that adding hormones to cows to increase milk supply has a huge potential to be hazardous to both the cows and the people consuming the dairy. Cancers, very early physiological development, early death of the cows….the list is long yet the govt "allows" this. And by doing so, they again prove that they are sleeping in the beds of the corporations. Bought and paid for.