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