It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
The infamous S.510 "food food safety bill" was passed by the US Senate last night in a sneaky, last minute voice vote. All Senators voted for it, Republicans and Democrats alike. Not a single U.S. Senator -- not even Coburn -- objected to its passage.
With this vote, the US Senate now sends the bill back to the House of Representatives where it is due for a final vote as HR 2751 that would then send the bill to the White House for a presidential signature. This House vote could take place as....
A betrayal of food freedom
This last-minute sneak vote of unanimous consent is widely considered a betrayal of food freedom by the few Republicans who had opposed this bill. TheHill.com posted their report on this unexpected turn of events late last night (thehill.com...) and has since been overrun by comments from steaming mad members of the public who feel utterly betrayed by their Senators.
The Natural Solutions Foundation posted a blog entitled, "Betrayed by the GOP" which blasts Republican and Democratic lawmakers alike for approving this bureaucratic monster that will grow the size and power of the FDA (www.healthfreedomusa.org...).
The Farm-To-Consumer Legal Defense Fund also posted an urgent action alert (www.farmtoconsumer.org...) urging people to call their representatives in Washington and oppose HR 2751.
Last night, consumer groups crossed the aisle to join forces with the sustainable agriculture camp, agreeing to some compromises in the language of the Tester amendment (PDF of the revisions here).
* The FDA gains the authority to withdraw its exemption from a farm or facility that has been associated with a food-borne illness outbreak
* The radius a facility or farm can sell direct within and still be eligible to be a "qualified end-user" has been reduced from 400 miles to 275 miles
* Language has been added clarifying that farmers market sales are "direct-to-consumer" for FDA's purposes...
..The Act will greatly expand the power of FDA, an agency that does not respect your freedom of food choice. The FDA has stated as a matter of public record that people have "no fundamental right to their own physical and bodily health" and "no fundamental right to obtain any food they wish."
...These So called for new “authorities” as FDA Commissioner Hamburg calls them, are a smokescreen for what S 510 really does which includes all of the following:
1. The FSMA ratifies the FDA’s interpretation of its existing authority to require a Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) like approach to controlling food safety threats in all food packers, processors, storage facilities and distributors unless exempted by the Tester-Hagan amendment. This is despite the fact that they are completely inappropriate for pure packers, storage facilities and distributors as they have no critical control points at which an action can be taken to reduce any threats. Instead, these parts of our food system are already well regulated with Good Handling Practices (GHPs) and the FDA’s transportation rules. For months I have challenged supporters of this approach to give a single example of an outbreak that originated at one of those three types of food facilities. No one has named one.
2. The FSMA ratifies the FDA’s interpretation of its existing authority to regulate fruit and vegetable farmers’ production and harvesting of their crops.
3. The FSMA creates a huge, completely unfunded mandate for the inspection of the fruit and vegetable farmers not exempted by the Tester-Hagan amendment. This cost was not included in the CBO’s $1.4 billion dollar estimate of the cost of the FSMA....
Under Tester’s amendment, food producers who sell their goods directly to consumers and have less than $500,000 in annual sales would not be subject to the onerous new requirements designed for industrial-scale food producers. Family-scale producers would, however, continue to be overseen by local and state food safety and health agencies.
Originally posted by prexparte
reply to post by RUSSO
I say maybew e should start growing our own foods, rasing our own cattles and then trade between neighbors, let the government have their own poisoned food
According to the 2002 Ag Census, there are 2.2 million farms in the USA. 73,752 are incorporated.
Number of Farms:....by value of sales (GROSS not net income)
826,558..................... Less than $2,500
213,326..................... $2,500 to $4,999
223,168..................... $5,000 to $9,999
256,157..................... $10,000 to $24,999
157,906..................... $25,000 to $49,999
140,479..................... $50,000 to $99,999
240,746..................... $100,000 to $499,999
70,642..................... $500,000 or more
I would divided them into
up to $25,000.............1,519,209 -hobby
$100,000 to $499,999.....240,746 provides a living - 5% MAX is the actual income
$500,000 or more............70,642 the Corporate farms.
Soon only Corporate farms will be left.
we are not talking small farms which government could control, we are talking family gardens, independant gardening
(13) FOOD ESTABLISHMENT-
(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....
“..FOOD PRODUCTION FACILITY- The term 'food production facility' means any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined animal-feeding operation...”
“ The Administrator, in order to protect the public health, shall establish a national traceability system that enables the Administrator to retrieve the history, use, and location of an article of food through all stages of its production, processing, and distribution.
set good practice standards to protect the public and animal health and promote food safety;
conduct monitoring and surveillance of animals, plants, products, or the environment, as appropriate
require each food production facility to have a written food safety plan that describes the likely hazards and preventive controls implemented to address those hazards;
include, with respect to growing, harvesting, sorting, and storage operations, minimum standards related to fertilizer use, nutrients, hygiene, packaging, temperature controls, animal encroachment, and water”
Food Safety bill HR-875
Federal Register Interim Final Rule - 68 FR 58893, October 10, 2003: Registration of Food Facilities Under the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002
Some commenters disputed the statement in the proposed rule that ndividual homes are not subject to the regulation if the food that is manufactured/processed, packed, or held in the home does not enter commerce.'' (68 FR 5378)....
(Response) FDA has concluded that private individual residences are not ``facilities'' for purposes of the registration provision of the Bioterrorism Act. Under the Bioterrorism Act, the term ``facility'' includes ``any factory, warehouse, or establishment.''
Congress did not specify any definition for these terms. Under their common meanings, the terms can include private residences. For example, according to Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary (1994), the most relevant definition of ``establishment'' is ``a business firm, club, institution, or residence, including its possessions and employees.'' However, ``n determining whether Congress has specifically addressed the question at issue, the court should not confine itself to examining a particular statutory provision in isolation.
...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?'" www.fff.org...
Today a state Ag inspector and two county officials show up and scare the bee-jesus out of me. First they accuse me of selling products and milk, then explain that even "giving milk products away" is illegal in California. Now everything is pasteurized, but it is illegal to share milk products in any form! They explained it was even ILLEGAL to give it to my own children if they did not live under my roof! I can't even take a lasagna dish to my grown sons home without risk of being fined, arrested and or jailed! This is OUTRAGEOUS!!!!" Donna, Aug 12, 2008. (See more stories on Feds raiding farms and co-ops.)
I wasnt talking about me growinng and selling to anyone, my idea is me growing approximately 1/4 acre garden, and well say bob down the street has a few sheep and a cow, I trade him X amount from my garden for X amount of his meats..and so the great selling would end. no money trading hands.
Today a state Ag inspector and two county officials show up and scare the bee-jesus out of me..... They explained it was even ILLEGAL to give it to my own children if they did not live under my roof! I can't even take a lasagna dish to my grown sons home without risk of being fined, arrested and or jailed!... finance.groups.yahoo.com...
The camel's nose is a metaphor for a situation where permitting some small undesirable situation will allow gradual and unavoidable worsening. A typical usage is this, from U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater in 1958:
' This bill and the foregoing remarks of the majority remind me of an old Arabian proverb: "If the camel once gets his nose in the tent, his body will soon follow." If adopted, the legislation will mark the inception of aid, supervision, and ultimately control of education in this country by the federal authorities..'.
...The attack on the self-sustaining financial sector is much more dangerous than this food scare hype, and should be taking the brunt of the attention. It seems to me that someone's counting on this passion for healthy food to derail from the real issue here....