How to send your farmer to jail Update on Tester Amendment Post 239

[ivan3]

Again, please post the specific language from the bill itself (call me a stickler for detail). In general I agree that the Feds are overreaching but, I keep my eye on the Interstate Commerce Clause:

Justice Thomas' dissent in this case: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD1.html

Pretty much sums it up:

Even the majority does not argue that respondents’ conduct is itself “Commerce among the several States.” Art. I, §8, cl. 3. Ante, at 19. Monson and Raich neither buy nor sell the marijuana that they consume. They cultivate their cannabis entirely in the State of California–it never crosses state lines, much less as part of a commercial transaction. Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that “commerce” included the mere possession of a good or some purely 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 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.” The Federalist No. 45, at 313 (J. Madison).

Whenever we, the citizens, demand that the Feds do something (drugs/terrorism) they'll always get their sticky beaks in everything else.

When we need them to regulate a market or business that is structurally important and can drive all of us into a hole, or engage in Strategic planning that is not mere reaction, our reps often follow the money and we're out of luck.​

 

[PaulaJoAnne]

Quote:
Here you go. I will also try and find the stuff on seed saving as well later on. Maybe someone else can?

SEC. 206. FOOD PRODUCTION FACILITIES.

(a) Authorities- In carrying out the duties of the Administrator and the purposes of this Act, the Administrator shall have the authority, with respectto food production facilities, to–

(1) visit and inspect food production facilities in the United Statesand in foreign countries to determine if they are operating in compliance with the requirements of the food safety law;

(2) review food safety records as required to be kept by the Administrator under section 210 and for other food safety purposes;

(3) set good practice standards to protect the public and animal health and promote food safety;

(4) conduct monitoring and surveillance of animals, plants, products, or the environment, as appropriate;

(5) collect and maintain information relevant to public health andfarm practices.

(b) Inspection of Records- A food production facility shall permit the Administrator upon presentation of appropriate credentials and at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner, to have access to and abilityto copy all records maintained by or on behalf of such food production establishment in any format (including paper or electronic) and at any location, that are necessary to assist the Administrator–

(1) to determine whether the food is contaminated, adulterated, or otherwise not in compliance with the food safety law; or

(2) to track the food in commerce.

(c) Regulations- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture andrepresentatives of State departments of agriculture, shall promulgate regulations to establish science-based minimum standards for the safe production of food by food production facilities. Such regulations shall–

(1) consider all relevant hazards, including those occurring naturally,and those that may be unintentionally or intentionally introduced;

(2) require each food production facility to have a written food safety plan that describes the likely hazards and preventive controls implemented to address those hazards;

(3) include with respect to growing, harvesting, sorting,and storage operations, minimum standards related to fertizer use, nutrients, hygiene, packaging, temperature controls, animal encroachment… and water;

 

[PaulaJoAnne]

I know many will say that the Bill is not going after everyone, but, remember the Lead law? It actually leaves the language loose enough so that even those who sell older toys at a garage sale can go to jail if they are checked.

 

[purr]

it reminds me of chicken little.

The sky is falling!
or is it?

 

[Dunkopf]

I have heard that the bill is actually designed to help small farmers and small growers like us. I think a lot of the stuff directed against it is actually supported by big agriculture. The internet has proven to be a very useful tool for some groups.

 

[ivan3]

PaulaJoAnne, the defintion of what constitutes a `facility' isn't changed. What I'm looking for is language that will alter the 2002/04 exclusion list (what isn't already a regulated facility) from the pamphlet I linked to in my previous post, e.g., not being able to sell our Japanese Red Shiso at the local farmer's market because we've become a `regulated' facility.

 

[noodleroo]

Here is a link that will answer any question that you have. It has the text of the bill also:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-510
What I don't like is that supplements are considered 'food' by this bill. Look at who is supporting this bill and who is opposing. I really don't want big pharma any more involved in my health care decisions than they already are. They have a lot of money to lose if we were all to stay well...

 

[ivan3]

noodleroo, check post 24 in this thread, the definition of what constitutes a regulated and unregulated facility is found in the FDA pamphlet I link to. There are changes in this bill for already regulated facilities. I've read the bill twice and the definition doesn't seem to be changed. The bill conforms with previous law (2002 Bioterrorism act, specifically).

The supplement issue is one that I'm of two minds on. I've watched shoppers read each and every line on a bottle of OTC meds and, then, go over and grab up a `supplement' that might have been packaged by dwarfs in raincoats and only be effective if used by said dwarfs. That is O.K. by me, but my rheumatologist has told me a few sad tales over the past 30yrs. Guess YMMV.

 

[noodleroo]

Ivan3: I understand where you're comming from. I guess I'm just really jumpy when it comes to the government and my health. To make a long story short, I would prefer to spend my time and money staying well rather than pay insurance companies, doctors and especially pharmacies who have no financial incentive to get and keep me healthy.

Bottom line for me is that the powers given to government agencies in this bill are still WAY too encompasing for me to feel the least bit comfortable with it. I prefer to be allowed to think for myself when it comes to my food and health...

Here is a link to a thread I started about this bill back in August in case anyone wants to look at it:
https://www.backyardchickens.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=385120&p=1

 

[ivan3]

noodleroo, thanks for the link. On a personal level I think it is my right to ingest whatever substance I like, so long as the consequences do not impact the life or liberty of my fellow citizens. If I was a Regulated Entity selling a product to other citizens (particularly overseas) I would do everything by the book. I wouldn't want to lose my market share or my business. I'd be worried about the Interstate commerce clause and lawyers.

Raw milk, for example:

But the more intriguing question is how far Congress’s regulatory power actually extends with respect to the manufacture and distribution of raw milk. Is it broad enough to outlaw the sale of raw milk entirely? Stated another way, does the fact that raw milk is produced, and frequently even sold only locally (i.e. not interstate commerce per se) insulate it from Congress’s potentially, if not theoretically, apocalyptic reach?
Out of the difficult analytical framework has emerged a line of precedents approving Congress’s regulatory efforts, even with respect to intrastate commerce, that has a “substantial economic effect on interstate commerce.” See Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 125 (1942) (emphasis added). “[E]ven if appellee’s activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce.” Id.


Many states have confronted cow and herd-share agreements head-on, and most have closed the legislative loophole by specifically outlawing the practice. But not even that has deterred proponents of raw milk; it has, in fact, forced some into ever-more-dangerous, and highly illegal, distributive schemes, including placing a “pet food only” label on raw milk that they know, or have reason to know, will or may be consumed by human beings. Alaska, Colorado, and North Carolina require raw milk to be dyed before being marketed as pet food in order to address this problem specifically.

But, clearly, this type of despicable mislabeling would be illegal in more than just those three states, regardless of the dye requirement. In most states, it would violate consumer protection laws; and additionally would make the job of trial lawyers representing kids who have been sickened by the product a lot easier, as the “pet food only” label is more than an implicit admission that the product is not fit for human consumption and is, as a result, unreasonably dangerous and defective. Punitive damages, in states where they are available, would be sought with gusto.

http://www.natlawreview.com/article/raw-milk-issue-safety-or-freedom

My real problem with much regulation is that no relative risk analysis is ever used as a basis for legislation, or litigation.​