House Republicans vote to cut funds to implement food safety law--'Food Industry can police itself

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

They want their customers to be healthy and happy.”

And if they have shares in the medical industry?

Could be very profitable if you have the power to make people sick...

Do not always believe the government is the faithful watch dog protecting us from all bad foods.

If you dont want GMO food or rbgh in your milk tough they side with big corporations not you and I . SO fine cut their funding .


www.purefood.org...

In a letter to Monsanto, FDA deputy commissioner Lester Crawford wrote, "We share your concerns"about "deceptive practices"that mislead consumers about the quality, safety, or value of milk products from rBGH-treated cows

In its lawsuit against Oakhurst Dairy, a small family-owned dairy in Portland, Maine, Monsanto objects to a label on Oakhurst's milk products that says "Our Farmers' Pledge: No Artificial Growth Hormones." Monsanto says the label misleads consumers into thinking that milk produced from cows not treated with Monsanto's recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH or rBST) is superior to milk from cows treated with the GE hormone. In a company statement, Monsanto says the label fails to "fully disclose years of scientific evidence that milk from cows supplemented with rBST is the same as other milk" and runs counter to the FDA's labeling guidelines for rBGH-free dairy products.

FDA rules won't require labeling of genetically modified salmon

www.washingtonpost.com...

That the Food and Drug Administration is opposed to labeling foods that are genetically modified is no surprise anymore, but a report in the Washington Post indicates the FDA won't even allow food producers to label their foods as being free of genetic modification.

www.rawstory.com...

Creekstone Farms is known for its attempt to test all of its beef for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE, or "mad cow disease"). At a cost of about half a million dollars, Creekstone built a testing lab, the first inside a U. S. meat packing plant, and hired the necessary personnel. In 2004, however, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which controls the sale of testing kits, refused to sell Creekstone enough to test all of its cows. The USDA's stated position was that allowing any meatpacking company to test every cow would undermine the agency's official position that random testing was scientifically adequate to assure safety. The USDA also claims that testing does not ensure food safety because the disease is difficult to detect in younger animals. An alternative position is that the USDA's objection is the result of pressure from larger meatpacking operations. The president of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association told the Washington Post that "If testing is allowed at Creekstone, we think it would become the international standard and the domestic standard, too." Creekstone Farms says tests cost about $20 per animal, increasing the cost of beef by about 10 cents per pound. The USDA currently tests about 1 percent of cattle slaughtered in the U.S.

en.wikipedia.org...

A yearlong sting operation, including aliases, a 5 a.m. surprise inspection and surreptitious purchases from an Amish farm in Pennsylvania, culminated in the federal government announcing this week that it has gone to court to stop Rainbow Acres Farm from selling its contraband to willing customers in the Washington area. The product in question: unpasteurized milk. It’s a battle that’s been going on behind the scenes for years, with natural foods advocates arguing that raw milk, as it’s also known, is healthier than the pasteurized product, while the Food and Drug Administration says raw milk can carry harmful bacteria such as salmonella, E. coli and listeria.

www.washingtontimes.com...

A year of under cover work to catch a raw milk producer . Who is selling a product to people who want it they are not being duped.

Unlike us being duped in to believing these agencies do whats best for us .

Reply to post by incrediblelousminds

What multi-national corporation was Thomas Jefferson part of, since he stood for this "myth" of less government is good?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by incrediblelousminds

 

What multi-national corporation was Thomas Jefferson part of, since he stood for this "myth" of less government is good?

Red Herring.I am not saying that anyone who doesnt agree with any form of government legislation is necessarily pro-corporate. I'm saying that the "NO Govt" lobby here on ATS are carrying water for the corporations who stand t be negatively effected by regulations, as is the case here with this specific issue relating to the FDA and regulating the major food industries that feed millions of people.

Originally posted by Lostinthedarkness
Do not always believe the government is the faithful watch dog protecting us from all bad foods.

If you dont want GMO food or rbgh in your milk tough they side with big corporations not you and I . SO fine cut their funding .

Do you REALLY not see how that is cutting off your nose to spite your face?

Yes, the FDA and USDA are in bed with the very same industries they are supposed to monitor.. We, the people, need to monitor those we trust to monitor industry. But to claim that because these regulatory agencies have been corrupted that we shoud just do away with them and allow industry to police themselves is incredibly self-defeating.

That si what the GOP does: they de-fund programs to the point they become useless, and then get people to say "Hey, let's get rid of this organization, it's useless'.

How about funding them properly and monitoring them properly so they do the job they are supposed to do?

This Libertarian fantasy that everything would be dandy without regulations is the height of irony, seeing as it is only born within the bubble of a relatively safe public engendered BY these regulations. As another poster pointed out, feel free to research how these industries behaved prior to an real Federal oversight and tell me which you would prefer.

I feel, and I am sure many here fell the same, like the voice crying in the wilderness when I have said over and over on this forum that Republicans are the enemies of human beings, and this is another proof of it, just like the other day when they voted to cut the WIC [feeding poor children] program.

Of course you heard the brain dead on ATS offering justification for that [not feeding starving or ill fed children]. I wonder how those same brain dead here on ATS will justify this barbaric cut.


Of course that is the Libertarian Republican conservative Tea Party philosophy in a nutshell: The rich have the right to poison our children. It’s in the constitution.

I wonder did the great Ron Paul, the guy loved so much by the people on this forum vote for this stupid cut.

I wonder when if any of those Republican congressmen’s children die [God forbid] of E coli WILL THEY FINALLY LEARN TO PUT PRIORITIES IN PERSPECTIVE.

Simple: The welfare of the general population comes first. Not the rich capitalists that subsidize their campaigns and will offer them jobs when they retire.

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


If you notice the direct correlation between the FDA enforcing some laws is a direct influence of the market. . They are picking winners in the free market. The winners are the Big corporations. Losers the small corporations and the US citizens that want a choice of GMO rbhg or organic natural foods .

Sure safe guards are needed but as it stands now the safe guards are against competition to the big guys.

reply to post by Lostinthedarkness


Absolutely. But I fail to see how that justified funding cuts that will only exacerbate the problem.

IS that what you are suggesting?

Well I guess folks will have to take more responsibility for what they eat instead of relying on government flunkies to make them feel safe. What we are witnessing is the slow collapse of the American government. It will be painful but in the long run for the best I hope.

We have been the fat cat living on a credit card now the credit card has run out and we have to adjust our life style from high on the hog to just getting by. We are reaping what we have sown by not holding these politicians accountable and we still aren't so we must suffer the consequences.

Those of us who have been warning everyone for the last 20 and 30 years have been mocked ridiculed and scorned for our efforts but many of us will still suffer with the rest because of thier ignorance denial and plain stupidity. I have always said stupid should hurt and well this time it is really going to hurt. Get prepared while you still can...

Part of the defunding is for the food safety act last year


www.csmonitor.com...

Supporters include General Mills, Kraft Foods, Monsanto, and the National Association of Manufacturers. Opponents include the American Grassfed Association, Family Farm Defenders, and the Small Farms Conservancy. The Pennsylvania Association for Sustainable Agriculture, which represents smaller farmers, has backed the bill.

hmm looks like the big guys against the little guys again

Here's a quick excerpt from our conversation about S.510 and the small farm exemption in the Tester Amendment: Farmer Brad: To me, that's so un-American to say hey, you're going to stay in this box, and you can never grow your business bigger than that. $500,000 [in revenue] is your cap. Health Ranger: It's destroying farming jobs. Farmer Brad: It has made us start to totally re-look at our business plans and how we're going to sell our food. We're no longer going to sell wholesale, no longer going to sell to chefs or restaurants, it's consumer direct only. Health Ranger: So you're actually pulling back from some of your expansion plans? Farmer Brad: We are. We have actually, this last year as we've been watching this happen, we've been putting plans on hold, and pulling back our business... so again, that's how this is going to affect the local food system. Health Ranger: Right. Farmer Brad: Because we don't want to get too successful. Learn more: www.naturalnews.com...

www.naturalnews.com...

If passed, the misnamed Food Safety and Modernization Act would authorize the FDA to tell farmers how to grow their crops. Federal bureaucrats who likely know little to nothing about farming will set the guidelines on appropriate temperatures, what soil to use, how much water to use and what animals are allowed to be on certain fields. A study by Senator Tom Coburn’s (R-OK) office states “on the whole this bill represents a weighty new regulatory structure on the food industry that will be particularly difficult for small producers and farms to comply with (with little evidence it will make food safer)” Sen. Jon Tester has introduced the “Tester Amendment” which would allegedly prevent these harmful regulations from affecting small family farms. However, Campaign for Liberty says these regulations will still be imposed on whoever the FDA decides. It could even affect your home garden if you sell vegetables or fruits at a local farmers market.

www.redstate.com...

Big guy little guy .

So defunding a bill that aims to help the big guys and screw the little guy bad.

Originally posted by Lostinthedarkness


hmm looks like the big guys against the little guys again

Are The Pennsylvania Association for Sustainable Agriculture the big guys or the little guys?

A study by Senator Tom Coburn’s (R-OK) office states “on the whole this bill represents a weighty new regulatory structure on the food industry that will be particularly difficult for small producers and farms to comply with (with little evidence it will make food safer)” Sen. Jon Tester has introduced the “Tester Amendment” which would allegedly prevent these harmful regulations from affecting small family farms. However, Campaign for Liberty says these regulations will still be imposed on whoever the FDA decides. It could even affect your home garden if you sell vegetables or fruits at a local farmers market.

So defunding a bill that aims to help the big guys and screw the little guy bad.

I'm a 'little guy'. Been market/farming/gardening for several years. Neither I, nor anyone I know in the same and similar positions has been concerned with this bill at all. I've read the doomsday reports about it, and i've also looked at the actual wording. no one is coming to our saturday markets and busting grannies selling cookies. That is just the line being pushed by the guys who dont really want it. And, yes, those are big names. Your attempt to make it big vs little with big in favor of this legislation is misleading, either by reading and perpetuating misleading info, or intentionally misleading yourself.

Here's a quick excerpt from our conversation about S.510 and the small farm exemption in the Tester Amendment: Farmer Brad: To me, that's so un-American to say hey, you're going to stay in this box, and you can never grow your business bigger than that. $500,000 [in revenue] is your cap. Learn more: www.naturalnews.com...

That's complete nonsense. IF you are earning, as a farmer, over 500,000 a year, you are not a 'small' farmer. This is misleading astroturfing picked up by new age pseudo agricultural websites like naturalnews and passed of as 'real' farmers. Nothing about this bill would harm small farmers. Nothing. It provides greater strength to regulatory agencies, which is why the Republicans loathe it. For example, did you know recalls of tainted food used to be volountary? This bill gives the big bad government the authority to make them mandatory. Yes, scary indeed.

Are you a farmer? Do you even know any? Or are you one of those people who drives past the farmer's market to buy potato chips? Yo should stop and talk to an actual farmer some time.

More deregulation courtesy of The NeoConserviBaggerNazi's.

Basically, repubs refuse to provide the funding to enforce laws that prevent big corporations from poisoning our food.

Has everyone already forgot China selling us poison as baby food as a result of GW's admin refusing to enforce the laws?

Repubs, as adamant about doing to our food industry what they did to banking, through deregulation.