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.

 

House Republicans vote to cut funds to implement food safety law

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 03:10 AM
link   
www.washingtonpost.com...

(URL won't embed for some reason.)

Yum.


Arguing that the U.S. food supply is 99 percent safe, House Republicans cut millions of dollars Thursday from the Food and Drug Administration’s budget, denying the agency money to implement landmark food safety laws approved by the last Congress.


Incidently, this was a bipartisan deal, passed easily from both sides...as you know, its probably a good idea to see just how poisoned we are getting with our stuff that fills the aisles.

However, not to worry, Republicans have indeed rested the minds of everyone:


Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), chairman of the House subcommittee that wrote the agriculture appropriations bill, said the cuts to food safety were justified because the nation’s food supply was “99.99 percent safe.”

“Do we believe that McDonald’s and Kentucky Fried Chicken and Safeway and Kraft Food and any brand name that you think of, that these people aren’t concerned about food safety?” Kingston said on the House floor. “The food supply in America is very safe because the private sector self-polices, because they have the highest motivation. They don’t want to be sued, they don’t want to go broke. They want their customers to be healthy and happy.”


See, all better...they don't need to check the food, because loving corporations do it for us...thanks mcdonalds!

Oh, fun fact was brought up by those tree hugging liberals though:


Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.) tried unsuccessfully to restore some money to FDA by arguing that the agency is overwhelmed by imported foods, inspecting just about 1 percent of the supply after it arrives in U.S. ports.

“China is the Wild West,” Dingell said. “The stuff they are exporting to the U.S., I’m not sure I would feed my hogs. It’s time to stand up and say we’re going to spend what it takes to keep people safe.”


Hmm....well...umm...We aren't hogs...We are Americans!

Besides, Why would the chinese want to export tainted food to us? China loves us, I can only assume they are giving us the finest quality foods...no checking needs apply.


They also shaved $35 million from the USDA’s food safety and inspection service.

Well, 1% was alot...again, corporations working with 3rd world nations for our food...what could possibly go wrong if we lessen the quality checking
Great move

Incidently, did you know one in every 7 people will get food poisoning in america. many will become hospitalized, and about 3000 will die from food poisoning.

Oh, and another pro-america ruling that went with this:

And lawmakers chopped $832 million from an emergency feeding program for poor mothers, infants and children. Hunger groups said that change would deny emergency nutrition to about 325,000 mothers and children.


Well, if you feed them, they will just keep breeding anyhow.
Maybe they can just get a sandwich at the park in orlando


Anyhow
Enjoy your breakfast.


edit on 17-6-2011 by SaturnFX because: Stupid URL!




posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 03:47 AM
link   
Does this have anything to do with S.510?



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 04:22 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Oh, but We need that money for the MILITARY! So who cares if People get sick, eh?

What turds They elected for Us.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 08:54 AM
link   
i think one target was to deny Genetically Modified Salmon.

House Moves to Ban Modified Salmon


www.nytimes.com...

In a potential blow to the future of the biotech industry, a handful of House lawmakers voted last night to bar the Food and Drug Administration from approving any bioengineered salmon for mass consumption.

A terse amendment (pdf) offered by Reps. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) and Don Young (R-Alaska) would ban FDA from spending any funds on genetically engineered salmon approvals beginning in the next financial year. Less than a dozen lawmakers voted by voice to attach the amendment to an agriculture spending bill expected to pass the House this week.


Salmon from Alaska is big business.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 09:00 AM
link   
Food Safety inspections haven't been funded/done in quite awhile.

Do you all realize how many are on Food Stamps now? Almost the entire USDA budget going to Food Stamps???

3/4ths of the mouths in America are being fed by the FED. Grow your own food or accept what they hand you.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   
it's called a local market!!!!

it is apparent that it is each individuals responsibility now to find food that is safe!



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by indigothefish
it's called a local market!!!!

it is apparent that it is each individuals responsibility now to find food that is safe!


That's really the best thing we can do.

Grow local, buy local, eat local.

Have a local diet. Have a diet where you can track what you eat from planting/birth to the table.

It was unnatural and wrong to start mass producing food and shipping into urban areas.

We spent the last 50 years setting up tinder boxes for pandemics and disease and called it progress.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   
I wonder what the point was of making this into law if they had no intention of funding it?



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Stop being such a bleeding heart, Saturn!

Those stupid hippies deserve to get sick and hospitalized if they don't check each and every meal for harmful strains of bacteria or other types of infectious diseases and carcinogens!

(Cue theme to Braveheart)

The free market will do it! Freeeee maaaaaarket!



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Avenginggecko
 


It would if the market were actually free.

Right now some company can poison thousands and as long as they pay the FDA a bribe (fee, fine, whatever) that company can just go right back to work.

The way it should happen is that company responsible for the poisoning should be marched on and shut down permanently.

But we have the FDA to protect them from such rash behavior. Calm down everyone, Joe's Clam Casino just paid us a million dollars so their clams are good to go now.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Avenginggecko
Stop being such a bleeding heart, Saturn!

Those stupid hippies deserve to get sick and hospitalized if they don't check each and every meal for harmful strains of bacteria or other types of infectious diseases and carcinogens!

(Cue theme to Braveheart)

The free market will do it! Freeeee maaaaaarket!


ok, granted, whenever I go out to eat, I typically have my mobile lab with me so I can do some quick checking for levels of ecoli and such...however, some of the poorer people for some reason don't have a mobile lab.

But I digress, some make a good point...everyone should grow their own food. Granted, someone living in the center of a city on the 7th floor apartment may find raising chickens and corn a bit difficult...however, I think with creative stacking.....






posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

But I digress, some make a good point...everyone should grow their own food. Granted, someone living in the center of a city on the 7th floor apartment may find raising chickens and corn a bit difficult...however, I think with creative stacking.....


None of us should live in cities.

Given that so many do I will say that chickens in an apartment are not difficult to do. Neither are rabbits.

You'd be amazed at what you can grow in containers indoors even with little sunlight.

The greatest obstacle to an "apartment farm" is regulations imposed on you by your government.

Ever read Opossum Living? It's amazing what you can do for yourself if you're willing to ignore the law.

Failing keeping it all in house there are communal options for urban agriculture. Cities are abundant in unused space that with a little dressing can be fine plots, coups, whatever.
edit on 17-6-2011 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Anybody that trust the FDA is a fool they take more private funding money (briberies) that what the federal government can give them.

So yes is a cut will mean nothing they still get private interest money.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Anybody that trust the FDA is a fool they take more private funding money (briberies) that what the federal government can give them.

So yes is a cut will mean nothing they still get private interest money.


So...erm...the FDA should be pushed into being supported by bribery alone?

You realize that these new regulations was, in part, supposed to cut down on the corruption and overlooking that was going on...so the statement saying it doesn't matter, because there is corruption going on, sort of means...corruption is preferrable to accountability.

the reason why such corruption is overlooked is because there is hardly any money to begin with to enforce the FDA properly...if that is solved, then there is less and less opportunity.

Akin to saying...no need to fund better oversight into law enforcement, because some cops are crooked...which actually is a argument why there definately needs more oversight...



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Sorry to tell you this but the FDA record shows very clear that they are nothing but been buy out by private interest, so getting more funding from fed or not is not going to change that fact.

Just get used to the hard fact that America is been ruled by private interest and they don't give a crap if they kill the population a littler bit at a time as long as corporate America gets their profits is more fools to be born everyday.




posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Just get used to the hard fact that America is been ruled by private interest and they don't give a crap if they kill the population a littler bit at a time as long as corporate America gets their profits is more fools to be born everyday.



On this I agree with you
Facism (corporatism) is very well rooted.
Now that corporations are people, and can anonymously donate unlimited funds directly to political action committees, I think we can offically declare the republic dead.

United Corporations of America...wonder if we can change the stars on the flag to double arches...maybe have the walmart smiley stamped on the bars



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


I am sorry I didn't mean to target you or the article, but I get so worked out when it comes to the government dealings and their fake agencies, you know nobody works for the America people needs in this country anymore.




posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


I am sorry I didn't mean to target you or the article, but I get so worked out when it comes to the government dealings and their fake agencies, you know nobody works for the America people needs in this country anymore.



Obama does!

-ducks, jumps behind sandbags-



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Food regulations are a good thing, since many people don't have the time to do research on whether particular foods are safe to eat, so they need an expert whose opinion they can trust.

The govt should not have a monopoly on providing regulations though. Since bureaucracies make bad decisions all the time regrading foods and drugs, secretly acting in the interests of corporations. We should let competing free market firms provide the regulations.

Who is more likely to make good decisions? A bureaucracy that has its place set in stone, or different regulatory firms competing for business?



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
Who is more likely to make good decisions? A bureaucracy that has its place set in stone, or different regulatory firms competing for business?


Someone whom works for the people
or someone whom works for the profits

Going to go with the people...
a corporation going for the profits will make good decisons...for their shareholders. if its worth risking sending out 5 million jars of tainted peanut butter to make 2$ a jar, and settle some lawsuits that come in the tune of 6 or so million bucks..well, thats just good business...only when it becomes more expensive to pay off lawsuits of sickness and death will recall become a option.

Naa, give me government on this one...but, the government needs to function better. less bureaucracy, more functionality...what is needed in goverment is small company organization verses corporate wasteful mismanagment. a mega corp is a red tape nightmare to do anything...a small company philosophy is all about streamlining and every piece functional and accountable.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join