FDA claims we have no rights

[Wifezilla]

Look at the number of people getting sick and even dying because they ate food that was supposedly "regulated", "inspected", "safe". Thanks but no-thanks.

Exactly! How many lettuce recalls for E. Coli have we had recently? Inspected beef recalls?

*Goes out and eats own chickens' eggs and some miner's lettuce growing in the yard*

HAH, TAKE THAT!

*Goes out and cracks open a pod of homegrown Alaskan peas* Regulate THAT!

I am surrounded by rebels and revolutionaries! (I am so proud

)​

 

[Katy]

I do have to chuckle when I read this thread.....if there were no FDA rules and regulations in place there would be an equal uproar about how the government isn't protecting it's citizens from potential harm. The sad truth is that there is not and never will be a perfect system that pleases everybody.

 

[Mandalina]

yeah..The FDA can kiss my rearest end.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Preamble to the Constitution

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I agree the Constitution does not give them the right to regulate our food. It gives them the responsibility to protect us against unscrupulous people who would sell dangerous or contaminated stuff. By exempting individuals and ramping up the requirements as the operations get bigger, they are staying out of our private life but getting involved in our public life.

Can you imagine the lack of domestic tranqulity if the government did not try to protect us? There are a lot of things I am not happy about, but this is not one of them.

 

[Q9]

Quote:
From some people, maybe. But I don't see how the FDA is doing any good. As others have pointed out, FDA "regulated" foods are regularly found to be dangerous, or at least certain samples are. It's an ineffecient bureaucracy that has no Constitutional right to exist.

 

[Q9]

Quote:
Show me where the FDA is allowed in the Constitution. I see it nowhere. Besides, only complete imbeciles would try to sell stuff that they know is contaminated. Probably private groups similar to Consumer Reports would do a better job than the FDA.

 

[patandchickens]

Quote:
In Article 1, the right to regulate interstate commerce.

Besides, only complete imbeciles would try to sell stuff that they know is contaminated.

Are you joking??????? Look at history. Heck, look at current events. It happens ALL THE TIME, pervasively, hugely, and if you look at our own past and at current-day foreign countries that lack good regulation, you will see how bad the situation can become. Very seriously. You need to learn more about this, as you clearly have no idea how bad things COULD be.

Pat​

 

[aprophet]

Quote:
In Article 1, the right to regulate interstate commerce.

Besides, only complete imbeciles would try to sell stuff that they know is contaminated.

Are you joking??????? Look at history. Heck, look at current events. It happens ALL THE TIME, pervasively, hugely, and if you look at our own past and at current-day foreign countries that lack good regulation, you will see how bad the situation can become. Very seriously. You need to learn more about this, as you clearly have no idea how bad things COULD be.

Pat​

most of the farmers I know do not ship across state lines when common sense is applied imho this is what interstate refers to so that would not apply.

 

[agnes_day]

people get too caught up in the anti-government thing it seems..not EVERYTHING related to government is bad.

 

[ivan3]

That the Pure Food And Drug Act and The Food And Cosmetic Act haven't been updated (particularly the labeling reqs) sometimes has me shaking my head. Some mother spending twenty minutes reading a label of meds in the pharmacy, then heading off to whisk up who-knows-what at the `health' food store (what ingredients? vetted by what agency?).

I have no problem with the FDA, they need a PR wonk to direct what enforcement actions they pursue. It is the expansion of the Interstate Commerce Clause, as interpreted by the Supremes, that should give one pause. FDA is at the end of that food chain.

The quote below, from Justice Thomas' dissenting opinon in a 2005 case regarding California's prop. 215, should be of interest. The majority held that the activity is covered. Thomas opines:

Respondent's local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not "Commerce ... among the several States."

Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that "commerce" included the mere possession of a good or some personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana.

If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress' Article I powers, as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause, have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to "appropriate state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."

If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined", while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite."

`Oh! But drugs!' (well, this sometimes happens when you invite in the ogre (feds) to keep out the demons (drugs) - `your quilting bees had better be using properly sanctioned threads, citizen').

aprophet wrote: most of the farmers I know do not ship across state lines when common sense is applied imho this is what interstate refers to so that would not apply.

Well, not exactly. The majority opinion arrived at in the case referenced above cites the following case from the `40's (grow wheat for your own chickens? Uncle Sam didn't see it that way): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

It doesn't matter whether the Right/Left/Upside Down are in power, it is the amount of discretion that we've allowed that leads to their laying tracks out of the right-of-way (then expecting us to lie down on them - doing you good by doing you in). Raw milk crossing a State border? `Fugggidaboutit'.​