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.

 

Freedom watch: Not a single Democrat voted in favor of ending FDA raids on raw milk farmers

page: 4
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   
The word "Milk" does not appear once in the amendment Paul put forward.

reply to post by frazzle
 


AGAIN, please cite the part of the amendment that mentions Raw Milk, as the OP article claims.

SOURCE


Text of Entire Amendment

Or, if that has 'timed out', just go to thomas.loc.gov... and enter in "S.AMDT.2143" in the search form and select "Bill Number" and you will be directed to the amendment.

And you will find that there is no mention of the word milk anywhere in the text.
edit on 27-5-2012 by stanguilles7 because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 27 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 



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.


Geeze are you just acting stupid? The provisions of the bill covers raw milk along with a host of other things. It doesn't have to mention every substance specifically. It doesn't mention white willow bark either but guess what it covers it along with a host of other supplements... Sigh!



edit on 27-5-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


So when you earlier said it specifically referred to milk you were lying?

Fae it, you posted a crap article, that makes bogus claims.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   
because I would rather be drinking milk from a cow with leukemia.. as long as its pasteurized





Wikipedia: Bovine Leukemia Virus



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


What he said:


U.S. Senator Rand Paul introduced an amendment that would have ended armed FDA raids on raw milk farmers and legalized free speech about the curative properties of medicinal herbs, nutritional supplements and superfoods


So is it your contention, then, that this amendment would NOT have stopped the raids on raw milk farmers? Where is the clause that permits armed SWAT teams to continue holding farmers at gunpoint while dumping bleach into their containers of raw milk and all over other produce which has not been tested or deemed dangerous to anyone?

Waste not, want not isn't just an old timey cliche when its YOU on the wanting end of the stick. By their voting records and actions, this government is all about waste and want, which they create in record amounts all over the planet. Everything they touch turns sour and/or bitter in the mouths of the people they lord it over, many of whom are not even allowed to vote in US elections. And apparently you concur with those philosophies and policiies. Wow. Just wow.


edit on 27-5-2012 by frazzle because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by stanguilles7
reply to post by hawkiye
 


So when you earlier said it specifically referred to milk you were lying?

Fae it, you posted a crap article, that makes bogus claims.



So now your just trolling. Quote me where I said it specifically mentions milk? You can't! The article is dead on the only crap around here is your posts. Lay off the tap water will ya... Sigh!



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


The Op's article says this is about Raw Milk.

Can you cite the specific part of the proposed legislation that refers to milk raw or otherwise?

Thanks!



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


What he said:


U.S. Senator Rand Paul introduced an amendment that would have ended armed FDA raids on raw milk farmers and legalized free speech about the curative properties of medicinal herbs, nutritional supplements and superfoods


So is it your contention, then, that this amendment would NOT have stopped the raids on raw milk farmers? Where is the clause that permits armed SWAT teams to continue holding farmers at gunpoint while dumping bleach into their containers of raw milk and all over other produce which has not been tested or deemed dangerous to anyone?

Waste not, want not isn't just an old timey cliche when its YOU on the wanting end of the stick. By their voting records and actions, this government is all about waste and want, which they create in record amounts all over the planet. Everything they touch turns sour and/or bitter in the mouths of the people they lord it over, many of whom are not even allowed to vote in US elections. And apparently you concur with those philosophies and policiies. Wow. Just wow.


edit on 27-5-2012 by frazzle because: (no reason given)


Great post couldn't have said it better!



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


I agree...could not have said it better.....you got it going on Frazz...


It's so absolutely "insane" that how any rational person doesn't get it is beyond me.....lol...my tomato plant is getting babies...very fun...and I'm grateful that for now, no "armed" FDA swat team is making me dig up my "dangerous" tomato plant.....

LOL, I loved the reference to the party of "NO"....that's my new party too........HELL NO......
edit on 28-5-2012 by MountainLaurel because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   
alright, I was intrigued enough by Alfa's/Stanguille's posts to go and look at the text of the amendment and the original bill to see what it said, and I have to agree - there is NO mention of ending "raids on raw milk farms", there is no mention of raw milk, no mention of Amish milk and no mention of ending FDA raids period.

The full text of the bill is here:

Library of Congress
Bill Summary & Status
112th Congress (2011 - 2012)
S.AMDT.2143



AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act concerning claims about the effects of foods and dietary supplements on health-related conditions and disease, to prohibit employees of the Food and Drug Administration from carrying firearms and making arrests without warrants, and to adjust the mens rea of certain prohibited acts under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to knowing and willful.


BOTH sides of the aisle rejected this amendment:
"Motion to table amendment SA 2143 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 78 - 15"

The "Prohibited Acts" (section 11), Paul inserts the phrase "knowing and willful" ("mens rea"). This may or may not make much of a difference, although I can see how it might affect a dairy farmer who unknowingly violates a law against selling raw unpasteurized milk. BUT NOTE: nowhere in the text of Paul's amendment are dairy farmers EVER mentioned.

"Mens Rea" is obvious in a case of, say, bank robbery, where you know the robber "had a guilty mind (or intent)", but it may be a valid concern in a case of a farmer selling raw products without knowing about certain laws.

The part Paul goes off the deep end on are the food label laws, and I'm pretty sure this is the part that got the amendment voted down by both parties.

Paul's amendment also makes very minor changes in text to S. 3187, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; but note that the original bill S.3187 already carries prohibitions against FDA official carrying firearms depending on the circumstances.

Section 702(e), S.3187 is:

SEC. 11__. PROHIBITIONS ON FDA OFFICIALS CARRYING FIREARMS AND MAKING ARRESTS WITHOUT WARRANTS.


Paul's amendments:

Section 702(e) (21 U.S.C. 372(e)) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (1);
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs (1) and (2) respectively;
(3) in paragraph (2), as so redesignated, by adding ``and'' after the semicolon at the end;
(4) by striking paragraph (4); and
(5) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (3).


Again, his amendment modifies the language of Title 21 U.S.C., and S. 3187. You can look over Title 21 here (Title 21 U.S.C. (United States Code) is also the "Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act)");
Wikipedia link
FDA link:
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act)

 


This is clearly a sensationalist article by "NaturalNews" and uses hyperbole (or just plain bad assumptions) to try and make the claim that Paul sought to end FDA raids on raw milk producers. He basically is trying to do away with the "Truth in Labeling" law.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


Well, you certainly put a lot of thought in your response, and I can appreciate the points you bring up. How might this have effected "food labeling"? Some very good people have gone to bat to make sure there is some sort of "standard" and labels on the foods we eat, to at least give people a fighting chance to be informed.

My problem is with the FDA as a whole, I don't trust them, and I don't think they work in the best interests of the people, lol, I'm quite sure those "pain in the ass" people that keep these "crooks" in check at all, is quite an irratation to the folks that would poison thier Grandmother to make a buck.....



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
alright, I was intrigued enough by Alfa's/Stanguille's posts to go and look at the text of the amendment and the original bill to see what it said, and I have to agree - there is NO mention of ending "raids on raw milk farms", there is no mention of raw milk, no mention of Amish milk and no mention of ending FDA raids period.

The full text of the bill is here:

Library of Congress
Bill Summary & Status
112th Congress (2011 - 2012)
S.AMDT.2143



AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act concerning claims about the effects of foods and dietary supplements on health-related conditions and disease, to prohibit employees of the Food and Drug Administration from carrying firearms and making arrests without warrants, and to adjust the mens rea of certain prohibited acts under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to knowing and willful.


BOTH sides of the aisle rejected this amendment:
"Motion to table amendment SA 2143 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 78 - 15"

The "Prohibited Acts" (section 11), Paul inserts the phrase "knowing and willful" ("mens rea"). This may or may not make much of a difference, although I can see how it might affect a dairy farmer who unknowingly violates a law against selling raw unpasteurized milk. BUT NOTE: nowhere in the text of Paul's amendment are dairy farmers EVER mentioned.

"Mens Rea" is obvious in a case of, say, bank robbery, where you know the robber "had a guilty mind (or intent)", but it may be a valid concern in a case of a farmer selling raw products without knowing about certain laws.

The part Paul goes off the deep end on are the food label laws, and I'm pretty sure this is the part that got the amendment voted down by both parties.

Paul's amendment also makes very minor changes in text to S. 3187, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; but note that the original bill S.3187 already carries prohibitions against FDA official carrying firearms depending on the circumstances.

Section 702(e), S.3187 is:

SEC. 11__. PROHIBITIONS ON FDA OFFICIALS CARRYING FIREARMS AND MAKING ARRESTS WITHOUT WARRANTS.


Paul's amendments:

Section 702(e) (21 U.S.C. 372(e)) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (1);
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs (1) and (2) respectively;
(3) in paragraph (2), as so redesignated, by adding ``and'' after the semicolon at the end;
(4) by striking paragraph (4); and
(5) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (3).


Again, his amendment modifies the language of Title 21 U.S.C., and S. 3187. You can look over Title 21 here (Title 21 U.S.C. (United States Code) is also the "Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act)");
Wikipedia link
FDA link:
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act)

 


This is clearly a sensationalist article by "NaturalNews" and uses hyperbole (or just plain bad assumptions) to try and make the claim that Paul sought to end FDA raids on raw milk producers. He basically is trying to do away with the "Truth in Labeling" law.


Okay, so here is the intent of the law, directly from Rand's mouth.

TRANSCRIPT:

"President, today I’m offering an amendment to the FDA. I’m troubled by images of armed agents raiding Amish farms and preventing them selling milk directly from the cow. I think we have bigger problems in our country than sending armed FDA agents into peaceful farmers’ land and telling them they can’t sell milk directly from the cow.

"My amendment has three parts. First, it attempts to stop the FDA’s overzealous regulations of vitamins, food and supplements by codifying the first amendment prohibition on prior restraint."

You say there is "no mention of ending FDA raids period", yet in your own post denying the bill would do that, it is clearly stated that it would "prohibit employees of the Food and Drug Administration from carrying firearms and making arrests without warrants." Inquiring minds would like to know how you could mistake the meaning of that.

If you want to know what he was actually thinking in terms of this Act, going to the horse's mouth for the answer is probably better than guessing. www.randpaul2010.com...

As for me, I hope he reintroduces this legislation and keeps doing that until they cry "uncle".



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


Keep in mind Paul can't just create an amendment that says" FDA can't raid farms". He has to get at the root of the laws that are the reasons for the FDA to raid a dairy farm, which is apparently why he is seeking to modify the food labeling laws. Is his approach the right one? He may have thought his amendment would end raids on dairy farms but I don't see how, with what he wrote in his amendment.

Very briefly, the Public Health Service back in the 1920's outlawed the sale of raw items like milk to prevent milk borne disease. After several iterations of this law it has been adopted by most states as part of the FDA.

Summary of Raw Milk Statutes and Administrative Codes


In 1924, the United States Public Health Service (USPHS), a branch of the Food and Drug Administration, developed the Standard Milk Ordinance, known today as the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (PMO). This is a model regulation helping states and municipalities have an effective program to prevent milk borne disease. The PMO contains provisions governing the production, processing, packaging and sale of Grade "A" milk and milk products. It is the basic standard used in the Voluntary Cooperative State -USPHS/FDA Program for the Certification of Interstate Milk Shippers, a program all 50 states, the District of Columbia and U. S. Territories participate in.

Forty-six of the 50 have adopted most or all of the PMO for their own milk safety laws with those states not adopting it passing laws that are similar. California, Pennsylvania, New York and Maryland have not adopted the PMO.

Section 9 of the PMO states in part that, "only Grade "A" pasteurized, ultra-pasteurized or aseptically processed milk and milk products shall be sold to the final consumer, to restaurants, soda fountains, grocery stores or similar establishments." In spite of 46 states adopting the PMO, it is at least technically possible at the present time to legally sell or distribute raw milk for human consumption in 32 states.

States legalizing raw milk sales or distribution have done so through:

-Statute. Any state statute conflicting with Section 9 of the PMO overrides it.
-Administrative rule or regulation. Any state regulation conflicting with Section 9 of the PMO overrides it.
-Policy. This would include cowshare programs in states where even though there is a prohibition on the sale of raw milk, state regulatory agencies have made a policy decision not to shut down cowshare programs they know of that comply with state guidelines. State policy sometimes does conflict with and override state statutes, administrative rules or other written guidelines in the regulation of milk and milk products.

Raw milk sales for animal consumption are at least potentially legal in all states but one under commercial feed licensing laws. Except for Michigan, not a single state law expressly prohibits the sale of raw milk for animal consumption. The variables are the states' willingness to grant licenses to producers of raw milk for animal feed and how strictly state agencies would monitor licensees to make sure that raw milk sales did only go for animal consumption. The PMO regulations do not apply to the sale of raw milk for animal feed.

Many states permitting the sale of raw milk for human consumption prohibit the sale of most or all raw milk products. With yogurt providing the highest profit margins of any raw dairy product, the benefits to farmers of expanding state legalization of raw milk to include raw milk products are obvious. Butter and cheese fall outside the PMO's definition of milk products. They are manufactured milk products, not Grade "A" milk products, and are generally regulated under a state's dairy manufacturing laws. Farmers can typically sell raw cheese (at least raw cheese produced according to federal guidelines) if they have obtained a manufacturing plant license.

The state milk law summaries are based on research of the state statutory and administrative codes and conversations with farmers and state dairy officials. Any corrections are welcome.

Source:Grade "A" Pasteurized Milk Ordinance, 2003 Revision.


His "Mens Rea" additions indicate he perhaps blames the raids on the idea the FDA is assuming the guilty parties are acting in a malicious manner, versus the raids are conducted to prevent outbreaks of milk borne disease, whether the guilty party acted intentionally or not. I assume the prevention of milk borne disease is the primary reason for the FDA's actions, not because the FDA wants to persecute someone for violating a law.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


What completely freaks me out about your response, is that you believe it? People have been so "brain-washed" that some actually buy into some ridiculous notion, that fresh, local, farm raised food is not safe? It's just so crazy I can't even find the words....sigh....



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
reply to post by frazzle
 


Keep in mind Paul can't just create an amendment that says" FDA can't raid farms". He has to get at the root of the laws that are the reasons for the FDA to raid a dairy farm, which is apparently why he is seeking to modify the food labeling laws. Is his approach the right one? He may have thought his amendment would end raids on dairy farms but I don't see how, with what he wrote in his amendment.

Very briefly, the Public Health Service back in the 1920's outlawed the sale of raw items like milk to prevent milk borne disease. After several iterations of this law it has been adopted by most states as part of the FDA.
...
His "Mens Rea" additions indicate he perhaps blames the raids on the idea the FDA is assuming the guilty parties are acting in a malicious manner, versus the raids are conducted to prevent outbreaks of milk borne disease, whether the guilty party acted intentionally or not. I assume the prevention of milk borne disease is the primary reason for the FDA's actions, not because the FDA wants to persecute someone for violating a law.


Keeping in mind that Rand's bill covers a myriad of products besides raw milk, that seems to be what people want to focus on, so let me ask you, what makes you think the wild claims about all this alleged illness and death resulting from raw milk consumption is accurate and truthful?

The Weston A. Price Foundation has been active in promoting raw milk with its "Real Milk" campaign.[14] The organization claims that of 15 milkborne disease outbreaks cited by the FDA, not a single one demonstrated that pasteurization would have fixed the problem, that 93% lacked either a valid statistical correlation with raw milk or a positive sample, and half lacked both; they further claimed that, even with the FDA's numbers, raw milk was no more dangerous than deli meats.[29] In response, the director of the FDA's division of plant- and dairy-food safety, John Sheehan, called the organization's claims on the health benefits and safety of raw milk "false, devoid of scientific support, and misleading to consumers".[30]

In 2008, scientists discovered that raw milk contains more species of bacteria than previously thought, and identified Chryseobacterium oranimense as well as C. haifense and C. bovis, but the amount found in raw milk has not been proven harmful.[31]

Nutrients in milk

Advocates of drinking raw milk claim raw milk contains desirable substances, such as enzymes, that cannot survive the heating process and may be destroyed during pasteurization; specifically, immunoglobulins and the enzymes lipase and phosphatase, which are inactivated by heat, are believed to be beneficial.[citation needed] In contrast, food scientists and FDA officials assert that most "beneficial" enzymes survive pasteurization and that humans do not use animal enzymes to metabolize nutrients.[22]

Raw milk contains vitamin B6, but the heat treatment may cause as much as 20% of the vitamin to be lost.[18][unreliable source] Pasteurization does cause the loss of several vitamins, but only approximately 0–10%.[22] Raw milk contains very little vitamin D, which is added to processed milk.[14][22]


en.wikipedia.org...

So are these people are lying through their teeth?

That's fifteen possible adverse reactions cited by the CDC. Now lets compare those 15 POSSIBLE adverse reactions to the number of actual deaths that result every year from products and drugs that are fully approved by the FDA. Last I heard, it ranged anywhere from 100,000 to 300,000 and both are probably very conservative numbers.

ETA I do agree that the wording of this bill could have been better but as I said before I hope he resubmits the bill, but I also hope he clears up the language before doing that.
edit on 28-5-2012 by frazzle because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


And while we're busily arguing the pros and cons of raw milk, the real story is about how many of our senators are outright owned and operated by big ag and big drugs. The failure of Rand's bill coupled with the passage of THIS bill will give you a strong hint, if you needed one.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by MountainLaurel
 



What completely freaks me out about your response, is that you believe it? People have been so "brain-washed" that some actually buy into some ridiculous notion, that fresh, local, farm raised food is not safe? It's just so crazy I can't even find the words....sigh....


What freaks me out about your attitude is how little you seem to be aware of how serious food and milk borne pathogens are.

Secondly you assume my post was somehow against the sale of raw milk - my post is only pointing out the false claim by NaturalNews: "Not a single Democrat voted in favor of ending FDA raids on raw milk farmers". My post like a couple other members here, also pointed out that no part of the text of Paul's amendment specifically states it would end "raids on raw milk farmers". His introduction may have mentioned that, but his bill doesn't, which contained only very minor tweaks to the original U.S.C. covering the prohibitions/restrictions of firearms for agents.

I grew up among dairy and tobacco farms in North Carolina, and spent my entire childhood drinking raw milk, I never knew there was any other kind. To this day I can't drink pasteurized milk because it doesn't taste right and is too watery. BUT I also know that raw milk is only good IF you can stomach it AND it is VERY VERY fresh. The idea of shipping it to some store and letting it sit on a shelf is precisely WHY we created the laws against it in the first place - bacteria and pathogens in raw milk would result in an explosion of disease among unaware consumers.

According to the link I posted above about raw milk laws, most states voluntarily comply, and there's several states that don't want to comply with raw milk laws where it IS legal to buy/sell raw milk.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 06:48 PM
link   
My parents drank raw milk every day of their lives, and still do. My grandparents, great grandparents, great great grandparents, etc. all drank milk every day of their lives and didn't get sick from milk once. In fact, they had less disease in their lives than most people get by the time their 20 today. I have switched to raw milk and will stay that way, and if the Empire wants to throw me in jail, fine. I have learned to discover that what you call society is a great deception...but it may just be because I live on a farm and can't stand city people.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


That's all fine and good, but you're making this into a debate about the virtues of raw milk, when the topic is about something else - Paul's amendment, and whether it would end raids on 'raw milk farms', and also about how the parties voted. "Not a single Democrat voted in favor of ending FDA raids on raw milk farmers" doesn't sound as lopsided when you also say "Neither did the Republicans vote to end FDA raids on raw milk farmers". A much more accurate headline would be "Both Parties Reject Paul's Amendment", but that doesn't quite fit NaturalNews brand of politics.

Paul may have thought changing the original law by having the phrase "knowing and willful" added to a large number of sections would have prevented such raids without actually spelling it out, but apparently not, and isn't the Mens Rea requirement pretty much implied in every law? We don't have to say he is guilty of bank robbing, but only if he knowingly and willfully robbed a bank. Much of the changes, if you will go and look, Paul made were in the food labeling section that dealt heavily with the forgery, tampering, counterfeiting, of such labels, and anyone who did such a thing, it's pretty well established they did so knowingly and willfully.

The FDA has an Office of Criminal Investigation, and that is where they draw their authority to carry firearms or conduct raids. Looking at what their primary function is, it seems they focus mainly on illegal supplements, counterfeit drugs, etc.:
FDA Office of Criminal Investigations
Looking through their list of cases, I'd say we NEED to have this agency, I don't think I'd like to walk into a store to buy some Avastin or Tylenol only to have it turn out to be a counterfeit shipped from China. That's how people die.

Paul would be much better off to find a way to exempt raw milk producers from coverage, rather than trying to rid the FDA of it's ability to investigate counterfeit drugs.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


Actually, if you read the amendment, it makes no mention of milk whatsoever. So thats a second way the article is total nonsense.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join