It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Feds order farmer to destroy his own wheat crops

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 08:03 AM
link   
I couldn't quite figure out where to put thread since it's not really "breaking" news as such but if the mods feel it's better placed in another forum then by all means move it.

link

So I was just browsing another (non conspiracy) forum and happened to notice someone had made a thread about this article in the off topic section. I've read it through once and although I don't know much about natural news as a source it seems fairly well written.

Basically in a nutshell the US Federal Government is attempting to stop people growing their own food, at least that's what it seems like to me. They are then trying to promote big corporately owned food chain at the expense of smaller farmers. I already had idea this kind of thing was going on but not on this kind of scale.

Now we all know governments love control and power. I think this article is a good indication of their slowly expanding influence.

Thoughts?




posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Chilled Zen
 


On the one hand, this is talking about an incident from 1940 so it is not about a recent tyrannical act.

That said, it's exploration of the case is a nice reminder of where this B.S. could theoretically go if unchecked.

Interest link, nonetheless.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 09:02 AM
link   
Yes well with the passing of the H.R. 2751 Food Safety Bill yesterday you can rest assured you'll be seeing alot more of it happening now.


Info on Passing of the Food Safety Bill and the implications of it.

TFN



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   
If a multi-national agro-corp has a choice between maintaining operations in the US under heavy obligations and controls, vs expanding in another country without those controls, I think we can guess the outcome.

Why on earth they don't plan to ensure imported food meets US standards is crazy. You can import unregulated food but you can't grow it in your own backyard.


I will join the small farmers should they want to take their message to the streets. I hope they do before we are completely in a stranglehold by big$$.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 09:37 AM
link   
The OP's example concerned growing wheat to reduce the cost of feeding his poultry. Back in the 1940's price control was the motive for limiting crop plantation. Theoretically the chicken farmer could have grown corn or a barley that was not being price controlled by the government. The problem is that for egg production, feed makes a big difference in taste so the farmer broke the law rather than pay the extra expense of buying price controlled wheat to feed his chickens.

The new legislation appears to be aimed at reducing the cost of government safety monitoring. There are economies of scale that make larger farms more efficient. Except for the organic market smaller farms would have a difficult time competing. The cost of regulating organic produce would be quite high. For example organic honey is supposed to be produced in an area where the hives are located 4 miles from any contaminants.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Filburn is the landmark case decided by SCOTUS that colors today's activities by the FBI, DEA, ATF and others through expansion of the Constitution's Commerce Clause to regulate all activities as though they involve interstate commerce. It's definitely not news, but it's nice to see the outrage replayed after all these years as if it's something new. The problem is: how to counter this - since Filburn was a producer of wheat, thus subject to the claimed market regulation, his case would be unrepresentative of typical consumers or in cases where (by law) no commerce exists (the two-edged sword here is that if an activity is prohibited by law the government may not engage in regulatory activity as there is no legal commerce or market ro regulate).

ganjoa
edit on 22-12-2010 by ganjoa because: spelling, punctuation



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by wayno
If a multi-national agro-corp has a choice between maintaining operations in the US under heavy obligations and controls, vs expanding in another country without those controls, I think we can guess the outcome.

Why on earth they don't plan to ensure imported food meets US standards is crazy. You can import unregulated food but you can't grow it in your own backyard.


I will join the small farmers should they want to take their message to the streets. I hope they do before we are completely in a stranglehold by big$$.


Agree with all of this. I didn't realize how taken over by big business farming has become especially with the pull they have on government (almost one and the same in some cases).

Bumped so a few more people can see this.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 06:30 PM
link   
Thanks for the post Chilled Zen. Found some more info on what happened with ol' Roscoe Filburn. It appears that what he did was grow 20 acres of wheat instead of the legal 10 acres the gov. allowed him to. He fed his
chickens and other livestock off the 2nd 10 acres...but apparently, the government didn't believe him. All he was doing was trying to save money, or so it appears...then like now, the government just doesn't care about anybody but themselves.

www.tenthamendmentcenter.com...

As for the passage of the "law" that was just ratified...we'll just have to see how much backbone the American people have left. It appears that no one learns from history....

Ever wonder why all those seeds were being stored underground in different places all over the world??
IT has begun.

ETA: The link posted has a few more interesting qualities other than info about Wickard v Filburn.

edit on 23-12-2010 by Holly N.R.A. because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join