Glenn Beck 3/27/09: Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009 - HR 875

I couldn't figure out why all this salmonella 'poisoning' was happening.. till I watch the video...


Trust me when I say...they want to control the way we live because to be self sufficient means uncontrollable. It is possible to live ENTIRELY off the 'grid'..

I laugh at the 'raw' milk ploy LOL. to funny.. like every time I tell people I used to eat 1/2 lb of RAW hamburger every time we have hamburgers.. they're in shocking horror !! ....and yes..

this was on a dairy farm

the only safe place left on the planet will be Africa ..

Originally posted by elston
Funny isn't it. It can't be organic as it takes three years of soil sitting without checmical treatmen to be certified Organic.

Depends on what you are growing, not everything organic takes 3yrs to grow. Who told you that?

In fact very little will take 3yrs to grow, very little will take 2years to grow.
What are you talking about?

It's a sad thing when Russia is Capitalist and America is Socialist...

Makes me sick that I can do nothing to stop these things. Politicians are doing their own agendas and not listening to the people anymore.

We CAN change what's happening. It's called a revolution. It's going to be ugly though. We will be fighting our own brothers and sisters (our own military) untill they wakeup and realize we the people are right and the government is wrong. Someone's going to have to pick up a gun and fight for what we believe to be the truth. Many will die. I'm willing to do it are you?

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by elston
Funny isn't it. It can't be organic as it takes three years of soil sitting without checmical treatmen to be certified Organic.

Depends on what you are growing, not everything organic takes 3yrs to grow. Who told you that?

In fact very little will take 3yrs to grow, very little will take 2years to grow.
What are you talking about?

He is refering to how long the soil itself has to sit without treatment. Not how long it takes to grow something. At least I think thats what he means.

reply to post by LostNemesis

Ya know, there is always the hope that this bill is being taken way out of context.

Unfortunately it is not WTO is getting their Codex Alimentarious International standards passed.

check out HR 875 explaination

and A walk thru Hr 875

Here is what actually happen with the tainted peanuts How did food inspection fail


[edit on 31-3-2009 by crimvelvet]

[edit on 31-3-2009 by crimvelvet]

reply to post by Retseh

Think practically, not abstractly, this is unenforcable in its current guise, this woman is the Diane Feinstein of the food world.

It is set up to be very enforceable I am afraid. Remember it is part of Homeland Security and the "Food Czar" can call up reinforcements if needed. (It is spelled out in the bill)

Civil Penalty

(A) IN GENERAL- Any person that commits an act that violates the food safety law (including a regulation promulgated or order issued under the food safety law) may be assessed a civil penalty by the Administrator of not more than $1,000,000 for each such

(B) SEPARATE OFFENSE- Each act described in subparagraph
(A) and each day during which that act continues shall be considered a separate offense.....

(e) Penalties Paid Into Account- The Administrator--
(1) shall deposit penalties collected under this section in an account in the Treasury; and
(2) may use the funds in the account, without further appropriation or fiscal year limitation--
(A) to carry out enforcement activities under the food safety law; or
(B) to provide assistance to States to inspect retail commercial food establishments or other food or firms under the jurisdiction of State food safety programs.

This means the more money they collect the more agents they can hire. The more agents under a district the higher the pay grade. Also spelled out in the bill, a farmer has thirty days to get into court and the evidence has to be massively against the USDA since the farmer is presumed guilty before a USDA decision can be overturned. The word of the "food czar" can not be overturned in a court of law, and the "food czar" will be Mike Taylor, lawyer to Monsanto.

NOTE: Checkout the practical results of Civil Forfeiture at end of post



HR 875 also includes this.

"in any action to enforce the requirements of the food safety law, the connection with interstate commerce required for jurisdiction SHALL BE PRESUMED TO EXIST."

The fact you are growing veggies for you and friends does not exclude you!

The Commerce Clause: A farmer growing wheat for his own use

“The government claimed that if Mr. Filburn grew wheat for his own use, he would not be buying it — and that affected interstate commerce” The Supreme court found against the farmer!!! law

CIVIL FORFEITURE
Innocent owners who are never charged with a crime still must prove their innocence in complex proceedings. . Under civil asset forfeiture laws, the simple possession of cash, with no drugs or other contraband, can be considered evidence of criminal activity.

Results revealed a concentration on seizing real property with a high value. In addition, real property seizures are preplanned and commonly made under the controversial facilitation statute.

EXAMPLES:
When asked why a search warrant would not be served on a suspect known to have resale quantities of contraband one officer responded:
"Because that would just give us a bunch of dope and the hassle of having to book him (the suspect). We've got all the dope we need in the property room, just stick to rounding up cases with big money and stay away from warrants."

In another case officers were instructed to wait until most of a large shipment was converted into cash.

This perversion of law enforcement priorities was the subject of an empirical study "Efficiency is measured by the amount of money seized rather than impact on drug trafficking." , Drug Enforcement's Double-Edged Sword: An Assessment of Asset Forfeiture Programs described forfeiture as a "dysfunctional policy" that forces law enforcement agencies to subordinate justice to profit.


How many examples to you think it will take before no one is willing to grow food??? With the current raids on farms and Co-ops, people held at gunpoint for hours to weeks, I believe they are VERY serious about enforcement. Henshaw Incident

BIG AG at it again....hey they WILL take things as far as they can....

i wonder if the carbon tax scam will be indirectly linked with this.....
alot of the country's don't have to go along with reducing their own emissions...in the kyoto protocol....(the industrialized nations) can BUY CARBON OFFSETS from an organization connected with carbon credits and use these credits on some foreign country's land ...so they pay off some corrupt foreign politician who tells small farmer joe''''hey this land is not able to grow crops anymore....we are reducing this land's carbon footprint....and U.S company XYZ purchased carbon offsets accepted by our gov't and ....buzz off..........now should this be done enough...........the food supply will be cut down.........and i'm sure these foreign land's for carbon offsetting just maybe those that aren't part of the BIG AGRICULTURE's grip........

reply to post by Blagojevich

I find it quite amusing that an entertainer is getting this much attention for speaking so-called "truth."

Fine you don't like Glen Beck the read about the bill from Dailykos or OpEdNews this is bad news for anyone except the big corporations...... Oh excuse me is that who you actually work for??

I have found a lot of "left-wing Activists" who are actually Corporate sleepers since I started researching this bill. The long range planning is pretty incredible.

When they come to take your land, crops, and livestock, there's not much you can do to stop them short of an armed resistance. They'll have all the so called "legal documents" and it will be all wrapped up in a nice bow for you.

What they aren't anticipating is resistance from the people.

I'm ready to start advocating the use of violence. Our representatives are no longer representing the interests of the people. Our government is corrupted to the core.

Oust every single politician that isn't a co-sponser on Ron Paul's audit the fed bill. That bill should let you know very clearly who OUR reps are versus who's been bought and paid for by GOVCORP, or CORPGOV, or SELFSERVING GREEDY ASSHOLES BANKRUPTING OUR ENTIRE COUNTRY SO THEY CAN ADD ANOTHER ZERO TO THEIR BANKROLL.

I haven't read every page and every post, so I apologize if I repeat something someone has already mentioned.

I personally have issues with commercial foods - I'm scared of it. Now, as I am Canadian, this doesn't affect me........yet. But it will, because if your Government is able to convince our Government that "this is a good idea" we might be close behind you on this...

What this woman in the video was saying is exactly right - the big farms and the big corporations are the ones who are going to benefit from this. But what happens, when a crop of their spinach gets E.coli and some of the population has been exposed to it? Does anyone else, see the irony in this?

By limiting the options on fresh produce and fresh food, farms, gardens, and orchards, they will be CONTROLLING what we can and can not eat. My dad has always said to me "You want to control the population? Control the Food and Water." It's true. They fluoridate our water and tell us it's good for our teeth, then pump our food full of growth hormones and tell us its safe to eat. But what about the long term exposure to these things?

Create a problem, create the solution, and save the day... That is what I suspect the salmonella, lysteria, and other outbreaks are caused by... and why this bill might be easy to pass by those who view these recent outbreaks as "evidence" that the Government needs to get their hands into this particular market (thats my paranoia talking, sorry. I do try to keep it in check when I'm in public).

Now, having my own garden on my own property is in my opinion, none of the governments beeswax.


- Carrot

Originally posted by Blagojevich
If there is a huge down-side to having a "liberal" president in office, is that for the next 4 years, we'll have to put up with Glen Beck's crap. I find it quite amusing that an entertainer is getting this much attention for speaking so-called "truth." Have any of you actually consider the ratings-boost Fox is getting? What happened to "WE CAN'T TRUST THE MSM!!"? Most people understand there's a horrible connotation to be known as a "Republican"

... it should come as no surprise Republicans are scattering to the "libertarian movement."

Perhaps instead of attacking and insulting the messenger you should consider discussing the topic? Many of us choose not to be Partisans in the hip pocket of a Political Party and we are concerned about what all Politicians are doing to us and our freedoms.

If you think this type of regulation is not dangerous or does not infringe on our basic freedoms, you should tell us why? If you trust the Government to not abuse these powers, you should tell us why?

The source does not matter. What matters is if it is true and how it will impact our lives. Not everything in this world is a Republican or Democrat issue and not all of us are Partisans who tow the Party Line. I've been here long enough to know that the people you are insulting are most likely NOT Partisan Hacks. What they are is concerned citizens afraid for the direction our country is going right now. Most of us are as mad at Bush as we are at all of Congress and Obama. We don't understand why people are so blind or uncaring as they loose their homes, freedoms and futures. We know for a fact that any power given to Government will be abused.

OK, after reading I'd say the only issue is that it does not define terms properly which is the point made by the Lady in the video. How it could be used or abused remains to be seen. The cynic in me can't help but assume that somebody would find a way to abuse this. Perhaps not?

reply to post by Blanca Rose


He is not your ivy league educated and totally sold out beltway cool, if that is what you mean. Nevertheless, he is a true Patriot who is sounding the alarm on a national stage, speaking the inconvenient truths that most Americans were able to ignore until he began stating them in his simple and down to earth way. His daffy humor in emphasis is refreshing as juxtaposed to the slick blue bloods and their all too evident sense of self-importance. God bless him.

As for his laughing while our nation crumbles, he as yet appears to have no idea how late in the day it is; still hoping for sanity in the insane asylum, as it were. I will not fault him for this as he is serving to awake a vast number of the American people; something all my letters to the editor, Emails, public speaking engagements, congressional haranguing and internet editorializing has not been able to accomplish. I thank God for him. I have a peace in the storm I have not had for some time.

A fearsome thing this sleeping giant when awakened, just ask the Japanese.

reply to post by Blaine91555


AMEN!!! I second that fellow Patriot! Well said!

reply to post by CA_Orot


The key here is that Monsanto is a leading supplier of genetically altered seed which produce plants that have INERT SEEDS. What this means is that you will have to buy seeds every season. Further, these genetically altered variants do not contain the nutrition of the organic non-altered variants; which is also why the current push to control vitamins and nutritional supplements. Remember that he who controls the food supply controls the populace.

reply to post by CA_Orot

Create a problem, create the solution, and save the day... That is what I suspect the salmonella, lysteria, and other outbreaks are caused by... and why this bill might be easy to pass by those who view these recent outbreaks as "evidence" that the Government needs to get their hands into this particular market (thats my paranoia talking, sorry. I do try to keep it in check when I'm in public).

That is exactly what was done.

The IPC was created in 1987 explicitly to drive home the GATT agriculture rules of WTO at Uruguay talks. Sec of Ag Ann Veneman served on the International Policy Council on Agriculture, Food and Trade (IPC), a group funded by Cargill, Nestle, Kraft, and Archer Daniels Midland. She and Dan Cargill wrote the Agreement on Ag for WTO in 1994 - 1995 and Robert Shapiro was chair of Monsanto while also leading the President’s Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations.

In 1993 the International HACCP guidelines were developed by the Codex Alimentarius, a joint Programme of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)and the World Health Organization (WHO).

In 1995 World Trade Organization (WTO) was formed.

"Measures to trace animals...to provide assurances on...safety ..have been incorporated into international standards... The Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures...Aims to ensure that governments DO NOT USE QUARANTINE AND FOOD SAFETY REQUIREMENTS as Unjustified trade barriers... It provides Member countries with a right to implement traceability [NAIS] as an SPS measure."

In July 1996 there was a major re-structuring of USDA food policies: Pathogen Reduction/Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) Systems rule was implemented.

USDA FSIS Union president Stan Painter stated

It (the recall of Hallmark/Westland Meat) highlights one of the problems that we have attempted to raise with the agency ever since 1996 when the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) inspection system was put in place. There seems to be too much reliance on an honor system for the industry to police itself. While the USDA investigation is still on going at Hallmark/Westland, a couple of facts have emerged that point to a system that can be gamed by those who want to break the law. It (HACCP) shifted the responsibility for food safety over to the companies .
December 2004 Freedom of Information Act requests
August 2005 Over 1000 non-compliance reports – weighing some 16 pounds -- were turned over Source

So whats the difference? " globally harmonized, science-based risk assessments" are being implemented in the EU, USA and else where replacing the “precautionary principle” (Do no harm) It is interesting that the “precautionary principle” is used by the UN as the basis for dealing with the environment but human health only rate a "scientific risk assessment"

Reading Mr. Auxenfans talk for the WTO round table tells you exactly what is planned.

Issues for the Agricultural Talks and WTO Trade Round:
Plant Biotechnology
by: Bernard P. Auxenfans
CEO of FOL Networks Ltd, UK (1)
27th IPC SEMINAR - June 27, 2001 - Sydney, Australia


After 31 years with Monsanto, Mr. Auxenfans, retired from the Monsanto Corporation at the end of 1999 as the former Chief Operating Officer (COO) of the Agricultural Division, and its Chairman for the Europe-Africa operations. He is a member of the Board of Directors of IPC

The un-scientific so-called “precautionary principle” is unfortunately being successfully and constantly misused as justification to immobilize science and its applications, as well as to confuse the public.... the so-called precautionary principle - in reality a concept rather than a scientific principle - should not be used as a tool to stop innovation, even under the guise of a moratorium, which is what has happened in the EU today. There will always be scientific uncertainty in any scientific field and reasonable approaches to risk management must be adopted to manage this uncertainty. Prohibition must only be used as an extreme risk management tool.

United Nations, “Rio Declaration on Environment and Development,” Rio de Janeiro, June 1992

“In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation” source

reply to post by djzombie

Yes, I'm sure it was more than 10 years ago, very convenient.

Yes it was very convenient. You didn't think this appeared full blown in Rosa Delauro's pointy little head did you?? It has been years in the planning so John Q public would accept it. Also there is nothing to prove he is NOT still a Monsanto consultant since his company is privately owned (67% by his wife)

IPC (International Policy Council on Agriculture, Food and Trade) was founded by the Agri-bus giants to push international food and ag regs in 1987.
Monsanto employee Ann Veneman (Calgene) lead the GATT trade delegation and is an IPC Member Emeritus.
Bernard Auxenfans member of the Board of Directors at IPC is former chairman Monsanto France
Jerry Steiner member of IPC is from Monsanto (US)
Mickey Kantor, US trade representative (USTR) for much of the Uruguay Round, subsequently became a Monsanto board member.

Back at home Clinton's President’s Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations was lead by Robert Shapiro, chairman of Monsanto at the time WTO was ratified in 1995. Marcia Hale, a former assistant to President Clinton and director for intergovernmental affairs, was director of international government affairs for Monsanto.

in 2009 the guy slated to be the new "Food Czar" Mike Taylor was a Monsanto lawyer and Vice President for Public Policy at Monsanto Corp.


What was IPC pushing??

"Measures to trace animals...to provide assurances on...safety ..have been incorporated into international standards... The Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures...Aims to ensure that governments DO NOT USE QUARANTINE AND FOOD SAFETY REQUIREMENTS as Unjustified trade barriers... It provides Member countries with a right to implement traceability [NAIS] as an SPS measure." source

“Development of risk-based systems has been heavily influenced by the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures ” OIE report Oct 2008 source

September 2008 FDA on International Harmonization: Failure to reach a consistent, harmonized set of laws, regulations and standards within the free trade agreements and the World Trade Organization Agreements can result in considerable economic repercussions. source

Now explain to me how Monsanto is NOT involved in the bill

reply to post by grover

There are sound reasons why food production WAS one of the most tightly regulated industries in the nation... that is before the republicans cut funding for the FDA in half or better over the years.... its called food borne toxins.

Your ignorance is showing. The problem goes directly back to the WTO agreement on Ag ratified under Clinton in 1995. It opened borders and trashed our food safety system. Instead of funding food inspection they funded implementing NAIS. (138 million)

To get around the OIE "Return to disease free status" the USDA cut Bovine TB testing in California from 10,576 in 1995 to 1,425 by 1999. Over 25% of the Mexican cattle come across the border into the USA at a Mexican cattleman Assoc controlled border crossing at Santa Teresa, NM


in April 2001, the USDA’s Veterinary Services published an interim rule requiring Mexican feeder steers to originate from herds that had recently been tested for TB. The USDA then agreed to grant waivers to the whole-herd testing.

For Mexican Feeder Cattle in Effect April 1, 2002... Dr. Logan... said, the disease was extremely rare in U.S. herds. How ever, more TB-lesioned cattle are being detected at slaughter, and ear tags indicate that many of these animals are of Mexican origin. States near the Mexican border have now lost their "disease free status"

For all beef in the year 2007,
The Value in Dollars of US export sales were $2,183,977,168.
The Value in Dollars for US imports sles were $4,857,454,008

There is absolutely no reason for the USA to be pushing cattle export. Yet we import cattle from countries with the following diseases.

Uruguay - 2001 FMD outbreak

Brazil - 2005 FMD outbreak, Vesicular stomatitis, Bluetongue (now found in USA)
Lymphatic filariasis, Leishmaniasis, Onchocerciasis (River Blindness), Trypanosoma cruzi,

Argentina - 2008 FMD outbreak

Nicaragua - Trypanosomiasis (Chagas disease),leptospirosis

Costa Rica - rabies, Naegleria fowler, Encephalitis, vesicular stomatitis viruses, Leptospirosis, Trypanosomiasis (Chagas disease)

Mexico - tuberculosis, brucellosis "cattle tick fever," Trypanosoma cruz, Vesicular
stomatitis

Canada - tuberculosis, BSE

the 1995 WTO Agreement on Ag states

"Measures to trace animals...to provide assurances on...safety ..have been incorporated into international standards... The Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures...Aims to ensure that governments DO NOT USE QUARANTINE AND FOOD SAFETY REQUIREMENTS as Unjustified trade barriers... It provides Member countries with a right to implement traceability [NAIS] as an SPS measure."

I suggest you educate yourself before posting.

reply to post by djzombie

Someone linked a story in another thread about this where a man had his farm considered a commercial farm, he didn't even sell his crops, just ate them himself. But that effects commerce, because the food he grew replaces food he would otherwise have to buy, And that was their reasoning. Something to do with the commerce act, I didn't really understand it myself, because it was that backwards doubletalk that our government so loves these days. Someone please find the story, I've looked all over.

Here it is and it scares the heck out of me. Also HR 875 is based on OIE/WTO "Guide to good farming Practices" January 2005: source



The Commerce Clause: A farmer growing wheat for his own use “The government claimed that if Mr. Filburn grew wheat for his own use, he would not be buying it — and that affected interstate commerce” The Supreme court found against the farmer!!! source

Enter Roscoe Filburn, an Ohio dairy and poultry farmer, who raised a small quantity of winter wheat — some to sell, some to feed his livestock, and some to consume. In 1940, under authority of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, the central government told Mr. Filburn that for the next year he would be limited to planting 11 acres of wheat and harvesting 20 bushels per acre. He harvested 12 acres over his allotment for consumption on his own property.

When the government fined him, Mr. Filburn refused to pay. Wickard v. Filburn got to the Supreme Court, and in 1942, the justices unanimously ruled against the farmer. The government claimed that if Mr. Filburn grew wheat for his own use, he would not be buying it — and that affected interstate commerce. It also argued that if the price of wheat rose, which is what the government wanted, Mr. Filburn might be tempted to sell his surplus wheat in the interstate market, thwarting the government's objective. The Supreme Court bought it

The Court's opinion must be quoted to be believed: [The wheat] supplies a need of the man who grew it which would otherwise be reflected by purchases in the open market. Home-grown wheat in this sense competes with wheat in commerce.

As Epstein commented, "Could anyone say with a straight face that the consumption of home-grown wheat is 'commerce among the several states?'" For good measure, the Court justified the obvious sacrifice of Mr. Filburn's freedom and interests to the unnamed farmers being protected: