Thursday, March 5, 2009

HR 875 Would Essentially Outlaw Family Farms In The United States

I get a lot of e-mails each day and one today (hi Cheryl!) pointed my attention to HR 875, a bill introduced into the 111th Congress. SO, I went and did something that members of Congress rarely do and actually read the bill.More accurately, I glanced through it which is still more than they ever do. It was introduced by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT 3rd) and, as of this writing, has around 36 co-sponsors including my Congressman, Andre Carson (D-IN 7th). It immediately strikes me as being terribly bad legislation.

Under a heading described as protecting the public health and ensuring the safety of food it creates a "Food Safety Administration" within Health and Human Services. Oddly, it doesn't just add regulations to the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) which is also under HHS. And don't we have the USDA as well? The bill applies to all manner of "Food Establishments" and "Food Production Facilities" (note the following excerpt).

(14) FOOD PRODUCTION FACILITY- The term ‘food production facility’ means any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined animal-feeding operation.

The bill would appear to even cover some fishing boats and potentially your downtown hot dog street vendors. "Transportion" of food also could be covered. In fact, the bill probably would also apply to your family garden since no exemption is apparent.

What it essentially does is place a tremendous regulatory burden on all of these organizations and individuals by requiring them to have "food safety plans", consider all relevant hazards [note: I wish Congress would consider all "relevant hazards" or unintended consequences of everything THEY did], testing, sample keeping and to maintain all kinds of records. The bill also allows the government to dictate all manner of standards related to fertilizer use, nutrients, packaging, temperature controls and other items.

This massive bloat in government regulation (and taxpayer expense to support it) would add additional cost and headache to every farm, some fishing boats, slaughterhouse, processing plant, CO-OP and anyone else associated with growing, storing, transporting or processing food. The bill authorizes fines of up to $1,000,000 (one million) dollars for "each act" and for "each day" of a violation.

We'll skip over the concern over how important food production and distribution, largely recession proof, could be if our economy continues to decline and inflation takes hold and just address this on the apparent lunacy that it is. As those familiar with history know, large dominant corporations often will use government to demand industry regulations that force the small competitor out of business or introduce barriers to entry that prevent new companies from starting up to compete. In the early part of the 20th century a tremendous amount of regulation was written by the industries themselves to be enacted into law.

In this case, I think this bill could do tremendous harm to family farms or independent food operators. Only massive companies have the ability to meet these regulations and imagine the legal expenses that could be incurred to defend oneself? Never forget, the government has near unlimited resources where you might have to cough up $200 to $500 an hour for a good attorney to defend yourself, your farm, boat, truck, restaurant, orchard, vineyard or hot dog stand. And what about the increased cost of food associated with the cost of compliance, it's not unreasonable to think that many places would have to hire staff or outside assistance just to comply with the law.

We have an excellent history in the United States of safe food, but as Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel suggested recently, "You should never want a serious crisis to go to waste." He spoke those words relative to looking for opportunities to do things that people would not otherwise accept without some crisis. We should be very careful not to let the very rare instance of something like the recent peanut problem be used as such a "crisis". There is no impetus to point the bureaucrats of government and the guns they control, their ability to not only deprive someone of life or freedom but to destroy whole families, careers and reputations, at everyone in the country who might be involved in ensuring we have stuff to eat.

We're doing just fine without this legislation.

UPDATE: Friday, March 6 - 10:50 PM EST

This video clip was included in a news update that went out to supporters of Congressman Ron Paul (R - TX) this evening. Also - If you're wanting to keep up on news related to government encroachment of our freedoms or the continued erosion of our economy please consider visiting The Liberty File and subscribing to the RSS Feed there.


Anonymous said...

Don't you understand it is about control. They do not care if you starve to death because of the regulations. All you have to do is die. Get it. wake up!

Tracy said...

Sean, thank you for bringing this to my attention. I agree this bill is a horrible idea. I've discussed your post on my blog. It doesn't have a huge number of readers, but every person counts. Let's make some noise before it is too late.

Anonymous said...

Control the oil you control the country. Control the food you control the people.Henry Kissinger

Anonymous said...

Soylent Green

Anonymous said...

I see a time coming soon where freedom loving people will have had enough of this type of legislation..and will unite to fight against tyranny.

Sean Shepard said...

Anonymous 6:36PM:

Now would be good.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Read "Deuteronomy 28" in the NIV-The 2nd half explains what is beginning to happen to America NOW!!!

Holli said...

Evil God Damned Monsanto Bastards! We can fight them - Buy Local, Eat Organic and save heirloom seeds. Avoid GMO(genetically modified organism) products! Don't buy from these companies:
Monsanto products like "Weed be gone" contain 2,4-D Sign the Millions
Against Monsanto Petition: organicconsumers(dot)org/monlink.cfm
Watch The Future of Food pt. 1 of 9: youtube(dot)co/watch?v=ku2YErUoUMA

AvenueOfLight said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sean Shepard said...

The last comment was deleted as it was a massive advertisement for someone's religious affiliation or material. If it hadn't been pamphlet length it might have been better tolerated.


Anonymous said...

"(13)(B) EXCLUSIONS- For the purposes of registration, the term ‘food establishment’ does not include a food production facility as defined in paragraph (14)"

The significance of that definition is that it is an EXCLUSION. In other words, the bill says the *opposite* of what you claim.

Maybe you should try actually reading the bill instead of merely "glancing" at it before you start your uninformed scaremongering.

I mean, it should have been common sense that this bill didn't "outlaw family farms," but it's more fun to sound the alarm that the sky is falling, isn't it?

I would love it if more people paid more attention to the text of the bills debated in Congress, but it's actually worse to have people pay only just enough attention to spread a bunch of misinformation about them.

Sean Shepard said...

Anonymous 10:48:

Let's look at it in detail, because I saw that clause but it can be subject to interpretation.

(A) IN GENERAL- The term ‘food establishment’ means a slaughterhouse (except those regulated under the Federal Meat Inspection Act or the Poultry Products Inspection Act), factory, warehouse, or facility owned or operated by a person located in any State that processes food or a facility that holds, stores, or transports food or food ingredients.CommentsPermalink

(B) EXCLUSIONS- For the purposes of registration, the term ‘food establishment’ does not include a food production facility as defined in paragraph (14), restaurant, other retail food establishment, nonprofit food establishment in which food is prepared for or served directly to the consumer, or fishing vessel (other than a fishing vessel engaged in processing, as that term is defined in section 123.3 of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations).

(14) FOOD PRODUCTION FACILITY- The term ‘food production facility’ means any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined animal-feeding operation.

It does appear to have an exclusion for basic restaurants but any fishing vessel where food is 'processed' would still be subject. So if we look at that code, simple things like beheading, gutting and storing the fish would be excluded.

123.3-2 from the above:

(2) The regulations in this part do not apply to: (i) Harvesting or transporting fish or fishery products, without otherwise engaging in processing.

(ii) Practices such as heading, eviscerating, or freezing intended solely to prepare a fish for holding on board a harvest vessel.

(iii) The operation of a retail establishment.

So, you are correct that it would ensnare fewer businesses, but there is still no exclusion for family farms or even a garden if they wanted to be silly with enforcement. It also would put massive regulations regarding requirements to use fertilizers, pesticides and who knows what else on natural foods producers and organic farms.

It does appear to cover the transport of food so anyone engaged in "transporting" of food, however a court might define that could open up a problem for SOME retail outlets in their role as a transporter rather than as a restaurant.

I appreciate your taking a critical look, very much but those exclusions or gray areas do not suddenly make this good legislation.

Remember RICO was only for gangsters.

Anonymous said...

"they" want to do just like the soViets did in the Ukraine in the 30s.

Sean Shepard said...

This article was cross posted at another BLOG and in the comment section there I found from Amy:


This is tremendously bad. There are currently 39 cosponsors and Rosa DeLauro (the sponsor) is buddies with Rahm Emanuel (he stayed in their house for free when he went to DC, there’s a little tax scandal surrounding that, but I digress.)

1. DeLauro’s husband has Monsanto as a client.
2. DeLauro receives large contributions from agribusiness.

Follow the money. She has practically a direct line to DC, this law may very well pass unless we seriously do something about it.

--end comment--

I don't have anything to support or refute the claim made in that comment, but it was interesting to read and worth an investigation I think.

Anonymous said...

Are you kidding me? My kids can't eat peanut butter anymore because it's been a game of russian roulette to see if you get a jar full of shit salmonella for the last two years. It's about time for this, and like another poster pointed out, the 'family farm' is specifically excluded.

Give me a break, if you don't think these industries should be regulated, I'm going to put two unmarked jars of peanut butter in front of you. Choose one, and you have to eat the whole thing. We'll see how well the free market is doing at regulating itself.

Anonymous said...

The point is, we don't need another three letter agency wasting yet even more tax dollars. If the FDA and the USDA would simply enforce the laws that already exist, there would not be a problem.

Sean Shepard said...

LOL @ Anon 12:55.

But wait, government already proved they can't do a good job doing this stuff. The Peanut Butter thing you refer to was already part of their charter to try and prevent.

BUT, notice how you take a one-time thing that only got caught AFTER the government should have caught it (just like police can't really 'prevent' the crime, they just respond to it after you call them).
The person with overall responsibility for that situation is going to jail.

One, isolated incident out of many tens of thousands of food products and 300 million people in our country is not cause to have knee-jerk reactions that will only favor big business and major corporations .

And if you read the article, the bill and the two previous comments that are associated, the bill DOES NOT exclude family farms, just most fishing boats and restaurants.

Actually, your comments are such that I suspect you probably work or lobby for one of the big interests that would benefit from putting the traditional family farm or the newer natural/organic foods folks out of business... do you work for Monsanto or ADM?

Anonymous said...

There is no exclusion in this bill for small farms. The "exclusion" bit
mentioned earlier is just a definitional issue to separate them from factories and slaughterhouses that have different regulations.

The bill considers farms, ranches, orchards, etc. "FOOD PRODUCTION FACILITIES" and then goes on to set requirements, prohibited acts, etc. for them.

Bottom line, if you keep chickens, have an apple tree or raise some goats, this bill allows "inspectors" to come on your property at will.

ashok said...

The bill may be OK if it is strictly restricted to large food establishments and large farms only. A definition of a large farm maybe one that is more than 100 acres.
It should definitiely not be applicable to small family farms, particularly now in the recession when urban corporate and manufacturing jobs are disappearing and many individuals are considering living off small farms. It would be a disaster if life is made more difficult for the small farmer.

Anonymous said...

How would this relate to "religious rights", i.e., I want to grow totally organic food for myself and friends because pesticides are against our religion? Didn't think Obama and his evil minions would show their true faces this soon. Imagine where they'll go from here. Also, they must be pretty certain that there won't be much of an uprising about this to implement it so soon and during a recession/depression. Time to stock up on staples and seeds. I am certain that they are creating poverty so that everyone will ultimately be forced into willing slavery as the only way to survive.

Anonymous said...

Starve the beast. Take all your money out of the banks. Only pay cash for goods, especially buy used from other people.

Go underground where their rules and laws have no effect.

Jeremy said...

This is essentially the same thing they just did with children's products... Mandatory testing for lead and other things on every single piece on every single product. You cant resell old clothing under the new law, not even at yard sales. Once they start enforcing it, it could shut down most homemade toy operations and small businesses.

MaryAlice said...

Remember the part about "those who do not study history...." The USSR starved the small farmers and business owners because they wouldn't make good little commies. Remember the 'spread the wealth'- it doesn't just mean money . You will share your livestock, food and water.

Anonymous said...

accept new and more government controls in the hope that they can protect you. A person that gives up their freedoms to an oppressive government in hopes of gaining a little protection in the end will receive neither freedom or protection.

Anonymous said...

The plan is to break the backs of the middle class, and make them dependent upon the government. When this is accomplished they have won. And we become the USSA. The United Socialist States of America.

Anonymous said...

For every Bill that comes before Congress some one is making money off of it.
This bill would shut down the little family farms and big agriculture businesses will fill the void. So take a look at who will profit by a bill and most likely that will be the people supporting it behind the scenes. Congress does not represent the people anymore and it is time to fire the bums and put in term limits.

Anonymous said...

April 1st send a tea bag to 1600 Pennsylvania ave.
Also send one to every elected official you can.This is a movement that is taking place. Join we surround you on glennbeck. Get active. Send mail and e mail everyday swamp them with hate mail.
It does work. The libs are already feeling the pressure and they are starting to worry. In 2010 vote every last big spender out of office and put fresh new faces in there. put a new face on congress in 2010 they will get the message.

Anonymous said...

We can win if we unite and send a strong message to the bums in Washington. People put Obama in office because they thought they would get change. well that isn't happening. So now raise up and start yelling. Get this oppressive government off our backs so we can go to work and better ourselves with out interferences fro big brother. Cast out the people that feel American is a bad nation. get back to what made this nation great. Cast out the hate mongers, the very ones that claim to be against hatred, they constantly stir up trouble between the races so that we can not concentrate on what truly is happening.

Anonymous said...

there are over 300,000,000 people in the you really think they can police us all?...i don't believe this bill will pass and if it does it will be lost in the shuffle..look at bush with the small pox scare..he threaten to innoculate all the us citizens but it was maybe military and some medical workers and then it just faded it out...think about all the illegal stuff going on and how they can't stop telling what types of laws are out there but are no longer exercised...this will fade away too..i believe..if not what are we going to do..i don't see us bombing washington do you..ha..just joking...sorry but we got to think positive that this is not going to pass..

lb said...

About the post above who states, "can they police us all"...they don't have to, they simply get whistleblowers to do the policing....see section 407 of HR 875...and see part 6 or 7??? of The World according to Monsanto Documentary where the small farmers talk about their trust in their neighbours...there is no trust left...they, the wise lawmakers, have the policing thing covered....correct me if i'm wrong.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps we should just start eating politicians instead...

bs said...

i would like to second anonymous' comment from 12:55. this year we're still dealing with peanut butter, last year it was jalapenos. the year before that it was spinach. you're being studiously ignorant of the fact that both the cdc and the fda's budgets have been cut pretty consistently over the past few years. the usda only governs parts of the our system and the fda has been focusing more on drugs than food every year.

now, you can close your eyes and hope the food YOU buy is ok... or you can admit that you were relying on the same assumptions the rest of us are: that food for sale in america is safe. that ain't true, and maybe it is because of larger producers, but every year, 5,000 of us get food poisoning and die. your failure to note this reality is troubling. we spend tons of money on this issue every year when those people (and the 300,000 who are sickened but recover) go to the hospital and peanut producers go under because of lack of trust.

the only reason we know peanut butter was even a problem is because of the fda and the cdc.

Jess M. said...

This is indeed disturbing.

And to the people that keep bringing up the incidents with peanut butter, jalapenos, spinach, etc... grow your own, make your own or purchase local and you won't have that problem! It's time to be a little more self sufficient.

clink said...

It was stated that farms are exempt. That is a case of not reading the act in its entirety. In Section 206 -- the food production facility (farm) is discussed.

I have read and re-read and re-read this bill. ALL farms are included in this legislation.

pete said...

This will outlaw family farms, you are dead on right with your post.

Remember people, this violates our rights to life, property, privacy, secure against unreasonable searches, and more. The federal government has exactly NO authority to implement something like this.

This bill is tantamount to the enslaving of farms. Control the food you control the people.

Resist slavery.

Sean Shepard said...

Regarding Jess M's comment above:

The irony is that this kind of law would put massive restrictions on anyone attempting to grow or take control of their own food supply.

Every once in a while a food product gets tainted (or equipment gets cleaned with Benzene or China uses lead based paint or whatever) .. but if you're afraid of tainted food and want to grow some yourself, this law would put regulations on that.

Virgil said...

One thing that I have heard nobody say on here is that "The Large is Better" mentality is actually the problem.

For instance, in the peanut butter situation.

Do you really think we would have had that problem if we still had food being produced in the local community where everybody grew up together and everybody knows each other?

I think Not.

The same thing applies to our hospitals, to our police departments, to our schools, and many thousands of other items.

Until we put the community back into all being responsible for and taking care of the community, it is just going to get worse.

When your friends and neighbors raise something or grow something or produce something, they take special care of it because their NAME is on the final product and they want you to be happy with it.

When it is a very large conglomerate, the owner is so far removed from the actual process where the lower level managers are only interested in meeting production quotas and they could care less if a little something gets in it, just as long as they meet their quota so that they get paid and don't get fired.

If you want to fix the salmonella thing, the jalapeno thing, the peanut thing, or even the staph infections in hospital, or the education problems in schools, or the fact that it is turning into a us against them thing with the police, then you have to get back to basics and by that, get back to a community level, rather then a one size fits all and bigger is better mentality.


Anonymous said...

How will this effect the Amish community? One-thirds of thier annual income is derived from selling thier harvest at farmer's markets. They survive off of the rest of it.

Furthermore, I agree with the other guy who said the peanut butter feasco is a bit too convienant. I'm not saying it's a false flag operation, but who knows. People in power are a different bread. They see us as a different bread, too. A lower one.

Anonymous said...

One comment about eating the politicians instead, wouldn't this throw us back to being basic Aficans again?

Anonymous said...

When I first heard about this bill and its Senate counterpart (S425), I was outraged. I visited a number of different blogs, each basically stating the same facts. I wrote an email and was about to send it off to a bunch of my friends and colleagues alerting them to this travesty of justice and urging them to write their elected officials asking them to vote no on these two bills when I realized that I better first read the bills.

I knew I would receive an number of follow-up emails and calls and I wanted to have as much of the details down as possible. As I read H.R.875, it caught my attention early on that most bloggers had misread the bill as it pertains to organic farming and home gardens.

Whereas the concept of any bill that essentially outlaws organic farming or requires home gardeners to register their plots is alarming, I think people need to re-read these bills more carefully.

Sean, in reference to H.R.875, there are some disconcerting parts in the bill. But you’ve failed to put your excerpt from that bill into proper context. The subsection you quote, subsection 14, is found in SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS (their caps, not mine).

You need to look at subsection 13 FOOD ESTABLISHMENT. If you do, you’ll discover that 13(B) refers to subsection 14 FOOD PRODUCTION FACILITY. Subsection 13(B) reads:

"13(B) EXCLUSIONS- For the purposes of registration, the term ‘food establishment’ does not include a food production facility as defined in paragraph (14), restaurant, other retail food establishment, nonprofit food establishment in which food is prepared for or served directly to the consumer, or fishing vessel (other than a fishing vessel engaged in processing, as that term is defined in section 123.3 of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations).

In other words, as it reads in subsection 14, “any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined animal-feeding operation” is exempt from registration under this bill. This bill differentiates between food production and food distribution. It targets what happens to food after it leaves the producers domain. It is only about food distribution–what is termed Food Establishments in the bill.

Yes, this bill would require farmers’ markets and roadside stands to register, but it does not directly threaten organic farming or home gardeners.

Reading and understanding bills is a difficult task at best. As citizen journalists reporting in the blogosphere, we need to take extra care to get the facts straight, to do our homework, and try as hard as possible not to make false statements. If we do not put in the extra effort, then we’re no better than our elected officials who often rely on some else to fill them in on a bill’s specifics. That is why they often make poor decisions about how to vote on certain bills.

Sean Shepard said...

Anon 2:22:

All that section does is make a distinction between food production facilities. It does not exclude either, juts puts them two different categories (note different coverages in section 205 and 206).

And don't forget that some organizations could get caught up in their role as a "transporter" even though primarily engaged in a retail sales endeavor.

I note also that the couple of people that have read those definitions and tried to minimize via their comments the gravity of this legislation don't otherwise feel compelled to suggest that this is a bad bill. It is.

PapaSmurerf said...

Will this bill (HR-875) regulate private gardens?

Not explicitly but review & consider Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), a United States Supreme Court decision interpreting the Commerce Clause. Under this decision a farmer growing wheat for himself with no intention to sell it at market was deemed in violation under this interpretation.

wiki - "Farmer Roscoe Filburn argued that since the excess wheat he produced was intended solely for home consumption it could not be regulated through the interstate Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, reasoning that if Filburn had not used home-grown wheat he would have had to buy wheat on the open market. This effect on interstate commerce, the Court reasoned, may not be substantial from the actions of Filburn alone but through the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers just like Filburn its effect would certainly become substantial. Therefore Congress could regulate wholly intrastate, non-commercial activity if such activity, viewed in the aggregate, would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, even if the individual effects are trivial."

Therefore, according to SCOTUS, Roscoe Filburn was not at liberty to provide for himself at his own discretion, but to be 'legal' had to go to the 'open market' and purchase what he was entirely capable of growing for himself more cheaply.

This is how private gardens can get roped into being subject under FSA purview. By the above interpretation, since you're growing more of your own food in a garden for yourself, you're affecting 'interstate commerce' by not buying as much food from your 'interstate' supplied grocer, lowering demand and thereby depressing 'interstate' prices. Multiply that by a million people, and golly, gee, Monsanto, Cargill, Tysons, ADM, et al lose market share!

Raising a garden in this environment, you risk being at fault for having overtly done nothing but try to feed yourself by growing your own food!

These bills (hr-845 & s-425) are not so benign in their reach as you might think, especially in light of this dark spirit of judicial interpretation.

So now we know why the shoemaker's kids went barefoot, the government made it illegal for them to wear shoes their father made.
"Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people."
~ Henry Kissinger, 1970

Jess M. said...

Re Sean Shepard's response to my comment- That is exactly why I said it was disturbing. Virgil posted a comment shortly after mine that expresses the point I was trying to make in a much better way than I was able to. This bill is not the answer the squealers are looking for, I'd much rather it did not pass, but that we would take back our nation and bring things back to the local level- there, accountability can be had. Besides, I like talking to the men and women that grow my food and raise the animals that I eat. I have a sense of pride that I support my community and that the money stays where I live. This is something I would hate to lose.

cgt33 said...

Remember this one: "In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Catholics, And I did speak up because I was a Protestant;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

-----Martin Niemöller

We all need to speak up before it is too late...

cgt33 said...

correction in my comment:" And then they came for the Catholics, And I did speak up because I was a Protestant;" should read instead "And I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant..."

Anonymous said...

Started a cause on Facebook to fight this bill.

Anonymous said...

Govt cares about us? Never.

Indeed the elites welcome mass starvation and depopulation. The welfare/warfare state grew from TR and Sanger "progressive" eugenicists,suffergettes and prohibitionists. All jealous of their euro-dictatorial fiat banking counterparts, especially socialism, tyranny's oldest tool along with debasing currency to rob the people.

See just what elites have been planning for us for generations:

The Creature from Jelyll Island a Second Look at the Federal Reserve by Ed Griffin

Still Don't Believe In The New World Order?


Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy

Big Business and the Rise of American Statism

The Great Depression, World War II, and American Prosperity, Part I (video)

Hot Fuzz said...

thank you for bringing this to my attention

wambliska said...

Two comments I wish to reply to referring to food production/transportation in small amounts: My pates were confiscated by the USDA thanks to a sabotage from my cousin, partner in our small catering business. I was waiting for USDA approval for retail selling of our pates and was given legal rights to sell them as VIP gifts for marketing purposes during wine/condiment tastings. He was selling them retail behind my back. When I caught him at it, he responds by reporting the parsley I used one day was from my own garden. It wasn't about the meat products. Can you imagine that? This was years ago. Even home-canned products you are licensed to sell as a cottage industry product, fully inspected (food production equipment) can still be technically removed. Don't need any more regulations.

The point I am making? Had it not been for personal revenge from my own partner, who would have investigated the product, had to prove the parsley didn't come from a licensed farm, etc.? That's like saying just because AT&T has a secret database (Sky Factory-PBS segment two weeks ago) that IS recording literally trillions of communications (every e-mail/tel. call) made from anywhere on the planet (tunnels under the oceans/circling satellites, etc.) still means there has to be a reason for a govt. agency to request people to find the communication. Get over it, people. There aren't, nor ever could be enough investigators available to demand the technicalities already on the books to be disclosed (got to find them first), let alone why someone wants to do so in the first place. Time to change the subject!

Anonymous said...

The guy who was upset that people don't read the legislation didn't, himself, read the legislation. He read the first few paragraphs of the legislation.

The clause he cited basically excluded family farms from being called "food establishments." They are instead defined as "food production facilities."

Later in the legislation, there is a whole host of onerous and suspect burdens put on "food production facilities," including things companies like Monsanto love, like "science-based minimum standards."

Just a Girl said...

Dude, I have a blog about urban sustainable living where I have been documenting my aquaponics endeavor. I also track my Internet traffic on said blog. The USDA is going around hitting gardening blogs. This was as recently as Monday. WTF?

Alex Tiller said...

Here is an online petition you can sign to help stop HR 875:

Spread the word!

Anonymous said...

This is terrible! WTF? Are they really going to get away with it? How is it possible to turn around something obviously great into a criminal action?!

It's not like we aren't getting sick with pesticide soaked veggies anyway... remember the spinach? Remember the tomatoes, or jalapeno peppers, or whatever ended up causing that salmonella burst...?

I bet you the same company creating the chemical to bathe our vegetables in today will be the company creating the medicine to fight it's health consequences along time... As long as the government gets away without facing it's responsibility of providing collective health care, in depth studies on the biological repercussions of proposals like this one will be avoided.

wambliska said...

I bet you the same company creating the chemical to bathe our vegetables in today will be the company creating the medicine to fight it's health consequences along time..

YOU ARE SO RIGHT ANONYMOUS!!!!!! THAT'S WHAT I keep saying (and writing to my congressman about. I look at it this way: In spite that most of them are either 3C rated (crooks, chickens or clowns-- bedfellows with the same corporate stockholders or executives) or 4F (freaky, frightening, f---ked-up and fraudulent). We gotta keep on fighting for our rights. Who knows, maybe one of these days they will have a change of heart (or mother nature may just do it for them, instead). Either way it ain't gonna be pretty......

wambliska said...

Regarding my first post with the words "get over it, people) I hope that it isn't mis-construed. I meant get over the hype. This simply is ANOTHER form of control by washington, regardless of the political party they put after their names. Almost all of them are knowingly, intentional crooks, in my opinion.

This control over food (and the chemical antidotes one has or will have to take after eating chemically altered food (over time) is beyond bad law. Its criminal!!!!

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately the words coming out of Obama's mouth sound astonishingly familiar to Karl Marx, Hitler and Stalin...the Communist Manifesto and other writings are now coming to fruition right before my very eyes!

Obama is grabbing for as much power as he can possibly get before everyone realizes what the hell's going on!

We need to stop allowing this kind of behavior to happen! Get up and get out there to tell these politicians that we voted for a piece of our minds!

Marxism isn't much fun...

Anonymous said...

i think you're mixed up. read the bill's introduction - it only alters safety regulations on interstate movement of said produce, by changing 2 provisions of the FDA's food safety guidelines; it doesn't do any of the things you and your readers seem to be so worried about.

fearmongering has no place in the marketplace of ideas.

Anonymous said...

When one writes a bill with such sweeping language that does not specifically exclude small farmers, roadside veggies stands, and home gardens it causes confusion and apprehension.

So here is the question:

Wouldn't this entire mess just be cleared up if simple language, you know the Keep It Simple Silly principle, was applied?

How about:

"No foodstuffs produced by American Citizens on their own property for their own consumption, sharing with neighbors or to supplement other hungry individuals during these Economically Challenging times shall be covered by HR 875."

I mean - we expect results - let us tell the legislators what we want.

Maybe that is too simple - but look at the situation we are in now by writing thousand page Bills.

Amanda Crowe said...

I predict the sponsors of HR 875 are likely not going to have such a la-dee-dah time, as Farmers and those who are all about... There has been a lot of fear and hysteria surrounding the Food Safety Modernization Act coming from small growers, organic gardeners, and organic consumers alike.

Rob said...

Looks to me like an immanent collapse: the Empire loses the Vietnam War, the Drug War, the Terror War, (the War against Communists looked like a victory because the Other Side itself collapsed), the Dollar is soon to be not the world's reserve currency, the CIA have been calling
the shots on policy, and the central government want to use food as a means to control people (the jails are already overfull)...

Even the Soviet Union were not so stupid as to do this (except during
the 1930's). In its rather orderly collapse, the SU recognised that small kitchen gardens (not the Kolkhoz system (collective farms))
produced most of the food, and did not touch it. Public transport was
excellent and kept running, which meant that people and goods could
get from place to place and to market, even when there was nothing to keep cars and trucks running. I wonder if the bill sponsors read Dmitry Orlov's blog, specifically: and started quivering in their gated communities?

Orlov compares the Soviet collapse to the sprawled-out population in the States, where Agribusiness has exhausted and sterilised the soil, bees are dying, and instead of public transport, there are SUVs everywhere.

John Heald said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Heald said...

I eat peanut butter right from the jar. Lets do this. O.o

Blah blah blah government control blah blah blah conspiracy blah religion... BLAH..

ITs all about the money folks..

Stop worrying about your peanut butter..

If you get taken out by some PB&J You probably deserve it

Anonymous said...

thanks u r information

Anonymous said...

That means that an orchard that sells fresh fruit at a roadside stand would be affected; a farmer who delivers CSA boxes would be affected, even a home gardener who brings excess harvest to a farmers market’s community booth would have to register or be subject to $1,000,000 fines and that garden plot would be subject to inspection by federal agents. Ridiculous, isn’t it? But it’s true. My Blog : earn money chao!

marry said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

I've never worried about the safety or quality of certified organic produce. I read labels - my organic peanut butter contains peanuts - period.

The salmonella contamination is coming from huge corporations who have enough money to ensure safety, but don't because they improve their bottom line by cutting corners.

This is all about greed - the politicians and the corporations. Don't be fooled, consumer safety obviously doesn't matter and never has. Cigarettes would be less harmful if they outlawed the addition of a plethora of known toxic and/or carcinogenic substances.

123 123 said...

Interesting story as for me. I'd like to read a bit more about this matter. Thanks for giving this information.
Sexy Lady
Escorts UK

debate popular said...

The fact that this is an internal attack of small SMEs (small and medium enterprises). Ojala do not think it really take this act would do great damage when the economy is faltering.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anthony said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Term Paper said...

The last comment was deleted as it was a massive advertisement for someone's religious affiliation or material.

mygamebest said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
star said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
davidbieber80 said...

The bill would appear to even cover some fishing boats and potentially your downtown hot dog street vendors. "Transportion" of food also could be covered. In fact, the bill probably would also apply to your family garden since no exemption is apparent.
error fix