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.
Originally posted by stanguilles7
Originally posted by MountainLaurel
Sorry...that wasn't nice if your question is sincere, I'm sorry. To say the reason for the bill didn't mention "raw milk" specifacilly is missing the point I think. Small dairy farms are directly in harm's way by this unreasonable "power" from the FDA...that is the point I think....
The Headline of the article : Freedom watch: Not a single Democrat voted in favor of ending FDA raids on raw milk farmers
Natural News is sensationalist crap that actually kills your brain cells.
thomas.loc.gov...:SP02143:
thomas.loc.gov...:./temp/~r112Mil4Chedit on 26-5-2012 by stanguilles7 because: (no reason given)
"My Amendment has three parts, first, it attempts to stop the FDA's overzealous regulation of vitamins, food and supplements by codifying the First Amendment's prohibition on prior restraint. What do I mean by that? The First Amendment says you can't prevent speech, even commercial speech, in advance of this speech. You can't tell Cheerios that they can't say that there is a health benefit to their Cheerios . . "
Watch Senator Rand Paul try to end the FDA's ability label to accurately label food. That's right, food labels that are accurate are unconstitutional. The logic behind this is an insane rant that could come out of an Adam Sandler movie. Rand Paul is an awesome senator if you are a business or a businessman, if you are people, and I mean flesh and bone people, Senator Rand Paul is about as useful as trying to block sunburn with Capri Sun. Case in point . . .
Senator Rand Paul offered an Amendment to an FDA Bill yesterday that would end the FDA, that evil food and drug regulatory body that is restricting our constitutional freedoms, man. Your freedom to drink things and not know what is in them is at stake. Your freedom to sell products and put whatever you want on the packaging is slowly fading away.
Originally posted by hawkiye
Originally posted by gorgi
Such a biased article and a biased news source.
Raw milk should say banned as it is.
Such an ignorant biased post. Many would say it is just a troll post or a drive by. Raw milk is not banned in most states, so much for you having any credibility.
Oh and by the way nice evidence to support your lie er ah I mean contention that the article and source are biased.
edit on 26-5-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by hawkiye
Geez what part of the headline is untruthful?
Rands amendments seeks to legalize raw milk
Originally posted by hawkiye
It seems you are the only one falling to utilize brain cells here.
Originally posted by alfa1
Originally posted by MountainLaurel
I read the article you provided and it actually convinced me even more that this bill should have passed. The FDA is corrupt, and I do want thier "power" reined in.
IMHO, Rand Paul should resubmit this, but in separate parts, starting, for example with the part about disarming the FDA, but only that part by itself.
There may be many who like parts of that bill, but not other parts.
Originally posted by MountainLaurel
reply to post by stanguilles7
Ok, so tried to open both links you posted, both were unavailable, sooo not feeling your "motives" here?
Originally posted by hawkiye
Rands amendments seeks to legalize raw milk along with other things on a federal level which will quash such raids.
TEXT OF AMENDMENTS -- (Senate - May 22, 2012) [Page: S3429] --- SA 2127. Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. BLUMENTHAL) submitted an [Page: S3430] amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 3187, to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to revise and extend the user-fee programs for prescription drugs and medical devices, to establish user-fee programs for generic drugs and biosimilars, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: At the end of title XI, add the following: SEC. 11__. REGISTRATION OF FACILITIES WITH RESPECT TO DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS. (a) In General.--Section 415(a) (21 U.S.C. 350d(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``(6) REQUIREMENTS WITH RESPECT TO DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS.-- ``(A) IN GENERAL.--A facility engaged in the manufacturing processing, packing, or holding of dietary supplements that is required to register under this section shall comply with the requirements of this paragraph, in addition to the other requirements of this section. ``(B) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.--A facility described in subparagraph (A) shall submit a registration under paragraph (1) that includes, in addition to the information required under paragraph (2)-- ``(i) a description of each dietary supplement product manufactured by such facility; ``(ii) a list of all ingredients in each such dietary supplement product; and ``(iii) a copy of the label and labeling for each such product. ``(C) REGISTRATION WITH RESPECT TO NEW, REFORMULATED, AND DISCONTINUED DIETARY SUPPLEMENT PRODUCTS.-- ``(i) IN GENERAL.--Not later than the date described in clause (ii), if a facility described in subparagraph (A)-- ``(I) manufactures a dietary supplement product that the facility previously did not manufacture and for which the facility did not submit the information required under clauses (i) through (iii) of subparagraph (B); ``(II) reformulates a dietary supplement product for which the facility previously submitted the information required under clauses (i) through (iii) of subparagraph (B); or ``(III) no longer manufactures a dietary supplement for which the facility previously submitted the information required under clauses (i) through (iii) of subparagraph (B), such facility shall submit to the Secretary an updated registration describing the change described in subclause (I), (II), or (III) and, in the case of a facility described in subclause (I) or (II), containing the information required under clauses (i) through (iii) of subparagraph (B). ``(ii) DATE DESCRIBED.--The date described in this clause is-- ``(I) in the case of a facility described in subclause (I) of clause (i), 30 days after the date on which such facility first markets the dietary supplement product described in such subclause; ``(II) in the case of a facility described in subclause (II) of clause (i), 30 days after the date on which such facility first markets the reformulated dietary supplement product described in such subclause; or ``(III) in the case of a facility described in subclause (III) of clause (i), 30 days after the date on which such facility removes the dietary supplement product described in such subclause from the market.''. (b) Enforcement.--Section 403 (21 U.S.C. 343) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``(z) If it is a dietary supplement for which a facility is required to submit the registration information required under section 415(a)(6) and such facility has not complied with the requirements of such section 415(a)(6) with respect to such dietary supplement.''. SA 2128. Mrs. GILLIBRAND (for herself and Mr. BLUMENTHAL) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the bill S. 3187, to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to revise and extend the user-fee programs for prescription drugs and medical devices, to establish user-fee programs for generic drugs and biosimilars, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: At the end of title IX, add the following: SEC. 9__. PATIENT MEDICATION INFORMATION FOR PRESCRIPTION DRUGS. (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Cody Miller Initiative for Safer Prescriptions Act''. (b) Patient Medication Information for Prescription Drugs.--Chapter V (21 U.S.C. 351 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 505E, as added by this Act, the following: ``SEC. 505F. PATIENT MEDICATION INFORMATION FOR PRESCRIPTION DRUGS. ``(a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall issue regulations regarding the authorship,
Originally posted by stanguilles7
reply to post by frazzle
You fail at critical thought and honesty, as well as reading comprehension. When it was pointed out that this proposed amendment made ABSOLUTELY NO MENTION OF THE WORD MILK OR RAW MILK, you claimed the article didnt mention milk, EVEN THOUGH ITS IN THE HEADLINE and the OP repeatedly claims it is.
Again, you CLEARLY didnt take the time to read the amendment in question.
Originally posted by MountainLaurel
reply to post by frazzle
Your post was wonderful and very wise,,,,,,,loved it....
The OP said in the beginning of this thread that both Democrats and Republicans rejected this bill...for me. why it would be relevant that Democrats, especially rejected this bill, is that the "Democrats" were thought to be on the "side" of the "working class" American, and I believe this absolutely goes against any "illusion" we ever had that the Democratic party is on the side of the "people"
LOL...anyways....I am an ex-democrat...I support Ron Paul...and it makes me smile, his kid had the "guts" to make a stand against this nonsence....I can't wait to hear Ron Paul debate Obama, and if there is any justice left in this world, this will come to pass......♥edit on 27-5-2012 by MountainLaurel because: (no reason given)edit on 27-5-2012 by MountainLaurel because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by stanguilles7
reply to post by frazzle
Actually, I ave no problem with raw milk. I'm drinking raw milk. Right now. Seriously.
My contention is with the claims that this amendment has to do with raw milk. Despite what the poorly-sourced article claims, Paul's proposed amendment had nothing to do with raw milk. In fact, the word 'milk' is not anywhere in the amendment. I suspect thats why the author if the cited article gives no link to the amendment, but, lucky for you, I have, below:
Again, please show me the part of the proposed amendment that makes any mention of milk, raw or otherwise.
heres the entire text of said amendmentedit on 27-5-2012 by stanguilles7 because: (no reason given)