- Thread starter
- #61
- Jul 30, 2009
- 2,321
- 15
- 181
Alaska actually has had a cow share program for human consumption for two years now, and does not require dye added to the milk.
How to send your farmer to jail Update on Tester Amendment Post 239
- Thread starter PaulaJoAnne
- Start date
PaulaJoAnne wrote: Alaska actually has had a cow share program for human consumption for two years now, and does not require dye added to the milk.
Sorry, I was addressing the Commerce Clause `expansion' (excellent info on it in link) the raw milk issue was meant as an exemplar. Replace `raw milk' with some innocuous herb for instance. We sell both Lavender Hyssop and Shiso, both contain minute amounts of volatiles (give them their distinctive smell/taste) if those volatiles were consumed in massive amounts, they could cause illness or death. The technology behind testing is so good now that trillionths of a gram can be detected. Thus, relative risk assessments need to be conducted in order to determine what should, or should not, be legal. Not the media screaming about godzilla, when it is nothing more than a Fence Swift on a rock.
In Europe a river was tested near a commercial poultry facility. Oh, no! Evil devils dumping Nitrofurasones (antibiotic) in the water! Turns out the three sources of the breakdown product (only way these drugs can be tested for): 1. Naturally occurring 2. plastic manufacturing 3. human pharmaceutical use (flushed down the toilet); poultry facility hadn't been using it since it was blacklisted. Again, trillionths of gram.
Sorry, I was addressing the Commerce Clause `expansion' (excellent info on it in link) the raw milk issue was meant as an exemplar. Replace `raw milk' with some innocuous herb for instance. We sell both Lavender Hyssop and Shiso, both contain minute amounts of volatiles (give them their distinctive smell/taste) if those volatiles were consumed in massive amounts, they could cause illness or death. The technology behind testing is so good now that trillionths of a gram can be detected. Thus, relative risk assessments need to be conducted in order to determine what should, or should not, be legal. Not the media screaming about godzilla, when it is nothing more than a Fence Swift on a rock.
In Europe a river was tested near a commercial poultry facility. Oh, no! Evil devils dumping Nitrofurasones (antibiotic) in the water! Turns out the three sources of the breakdown product (only way these drugs can be tested for): 1. Naturally occurring 2. plastic manufacturing 3. human pharmaceutical use (flushed down the toilet); poultry facility hadn't been using it since it was blacklisted. Again, trillionths of gram.
- Thread starter
- #63
- Jul 30, 2009
- 2,321
- 15
- 181
FDA's Views on Freedom of Choice
http://ftcldf.org/litigation-FDA-status.htm
Here are some of FDA's views expressed in its response on 'freedom of food choice' in general and on the right to obtain and consume raw milk in particular:
"Plaintiffs' assertion of a new 'fundamental right' to produce, obtain, and consume unpasteurized milk lacks any support in law." [p. 4]
"It is within HHS's authority . . . to institute an intrastate ban [on unpasteurized milk] as well." [p. 6]
"Plaintiffs' assertion of a new 'fundamental right' under substantive due process to produce, obtain, and consume unpasteurized milk lacks any support in law." [p.17]
"There is no absolute right to consume or feed children any particular food." [p. 25]
"There is no 'deeply rooted' historical tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds." [p. 26]
"Plaintiffs' assertion of a 'fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families' is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish." [p. 26]
FDA's brief goes on to state that "even if such a right did exist, it would not render FDA's regulations unconstitutional because prohibiting the interstate sale and distribution of unpasteurized milk promotes bodily and physical health." [p. 27]
"There is no fundamental right to freedom of contract." [p. 27]
The above really states why I have a problem with todays legislation
http://ftcldf.org/litigation-FDA-status.htm
Here are some of FDA's views expressed in its response on 'freedom of food choice' in general and on the right to obtain and consume raw milk in particular:
"Plaintiffs' assertion of a new 'fundamental right' to produce, obtain, and consume unpasteurized milk lacks any support in law." [p. 4]
"It is within HHS's authority . . . to institute an intrastate ban [on unpasteurized milk] as well." [p. 6]
"Plaintiffs' assertion of a new 'fundamental right' under substantive due process to produce, obtain, and consume unpasteurized milk lacks any support in law." [p.17]
"There is no absolute right to consume or feed children any particular food." [p. 25]
"There is no 'deeply rooted' historical tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds." [p. 26]
"Plaintiffs' assertion of a 'fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families' is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish." [p. 26]
FDA's brief goes on to state that "even if such a right did exist, it would not render FDA's regulations unconstitutional because prohibiting the interstate sale and distribution of unpasteurized milk promotes bodily and physical health." [p. 27]
"There is no fundamental right to freedom of contract." [p. 27]
The above really states why I have a problem with todays legislation
Last edited:
PaulaJoAnne, do you have a link to the court case(s) cited above, or the page this info was on? Would appreciate seeing it.
The `intrastate' suppression of this and that by the feds goes back to Wicker (`40's wheat grower). Raw milk has indeed, owing to poor sanitation/time delays on delivery, sometimes grows nasties that kill people. Marijuana, which law enforcement, the courts and scientists (some of whom really tried to be a little less than scientific to placate Nixon - See: Shafer Commission `72) have all `stipulated', hasn't a single recorded death attributable to its use (alone - not with alcohol/tobacco and/or other substances with less benign toxicity profiles). This is why I quoted Justice Thomas (next are the quilting bees - `might poke your fingers, ladies!')
The feds use existing case law to reach down into other activities in the guise of going after `an activity that `might have an impact on `interstate commerce', while it only exists in your backyard - and if you sell it? Good luck.
I'd still be more worried about the lawyers circling like vultures: http://www.foodpoisonjournal.com/2010/07/articles/foodborne-illness-outbreaks/raw-milk-and-hot-water-in-new-york-and-other-states-too/
One's State almost always is the first line of intervention. The FDA follows on. FDA is the tip of the spear consisting of nearly a century of case law regarding food safety, as they can also invoke the Necessary and Proper Clause/10th Amendment, now, I'd be keeping my heifers under wraps for fear I'd be charged with violating the `bovine title' of the Mann act.
I'll just keep herding the strays back to their homes when they wander over (not a snitch on the hoof...):
The `intrastate' suppression of this and that by the feds goes back to Wicker (`40's wheat grower). Raw milk has indeed, owing to poor sanitation/time delays on delivery, sometimes grows nasties that kill people. Marijuana, which law enforcement, the courts and scientists (some of whom really tried to be a little less than scientific to placate Nixon - See: Shafer Commission `72) have all `stipulated', hasn't a single recorded death attributable to its use (alone - not with alcohol/tobacco and/or other substances with less benign toxicity profiles). This is why I quoted Justice Thomas (next are the quilting bees - `might poke your fingers, ladies!')
The feds use existing case law to reach down into other activities in the guise of going after `an activity that `might have an impact on `interstate commerce', while it only exists in your backyard - and if you sell it? Good luck.
I'd still be more worried about the lawyers circling like vultures: http://www.foodpoisonjournal.com/2010/07/articles/foodborne-illness-outbreaks/raw-milk-and-hot-water-in-new-york-and-other-states-too/
One's State almost always is the first line of intervention. The FDA follows on. FDA is the tip of the spear consisting of nearly a century of case law regarding food safety, as they can also invoke the Necessary and Proper Clause/10th Amendment, now, I'd be keeping my heifers under wraps for fear I'd be charged with violating the `bovine title' of the Mann act.
I'll just keep herding the strays back to their homes when they wander over (not a snitch on the hoof...):
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #65
- Jul 30, 2009
- 2,321
- 15
- 181
ivan3, I added it to the post. Sorry it was not on there to begin with.
I know this was specifically about raw milk, but I believe that they would say this about everything
I know this was specifically about raw milk, but I believe that they would say this about everything
Quote:
Its like the FDA must think we are all complete idiots. I do not have faith in their ability to do the right thing for me or anybody else. The last thing I want is for the FDA to have any more power than they already have. I refuse to be a part of the mindset that seems to be common in the US that irradiated, genetically modified dead food is OK for us to eat. I refuse to put my health and wellness in the hands of the very people that have no financial incentive to KEEP ME HEALTHY. And, I assure you; when it comes to the government, follow the money to find the motive...
Its like the FDA must think we are all complete idiots. I do not have faith in their ability to do the right thing for me or anybody else. The last thing I want is for the FDA to have any more power than they already have. I refuse to be a part of the mindset that seems to be common in the US that irradiated, genetically modified dead food is OK for us to eat. I refuse to put my health and wellness in the hands of the very people that have no financial incentive to KEEP ME HEALTHY. And, I assure you; when it comes to the government, follow the money to find the motive...
Quote:
Its like the FDA must think we are all complete idiots. I do not have faith in their ability to do the right thing for me or anybody else. The last thing I want is for the FDA to have any more power than they already have. I refuse to be a part of the mindset that seems to be common in the US that irradiated, genetically modified dead food is OK for us to eat. I refuse to put my health and wellness in the hands of the very people that have no financial incentive to KEEP ME HEALTHY. And, I assure you; when it comes to the government, follow the money to find the motive...
Actually, irradiated food is quite OK. Low levels of radiation have been shown to actually reduce the occurence of cancer. For instance, the cancer rate is lower in the Rocky Mountains, which are far more exposed to interstellar radiation, while it is higher in the more insulated Gulf States. Those who work around reactors on ships have a 25% lower cancer rate, too. Plus, irradiation is like an atom bomb to pathogenic organisms on food.
Genetically modified has its benefits, too, but IMO it's been taken WAY too far.
Its like the FDA must think we are all complete idiots. I do not have faith in their ability to do the right thing for me or anybody else. The last thing I want is for the FDA to have any more power than they already have. I refuse to be a part of the mindset that seems to be common in the US that irradiated, genetically modified dead food is OK for us to eat. I refuse to put my health and wellness in the hands of the very people that have no financial incentive to KEEP ME HEALTHY. And, I assure you; when it comes to the government, follow the money to find the motive...
Actually, irradiated food is quite OK. Low levels of radiation have been shown to actually reduce the occurence of cancer. For instance, the cancer rate is lower in the Rocky Mountains, which are far more exposed to interstellar radiation, while it is higher in the more insulated Gulf States. Those who work around reactors on ships have a 25% lower cancer rate, too. Plus, irradiation is like an atom bomb to pathogenic organisms on food.
Quote:
Its like the FDA must think we are all complete idiots. I do not have faith in their ability to do the right thing for me or anybody else. The last thing I want is for the FDA to have any more power than they already have. I refuse to be a part of the mindset that seems to be common in the US that irradiated, genetically modified dead food is OK for us to eat. I refuse to put my health and wellness in the hands of the very people that have no financial incentive to KEEP ME HEALTHY. And, I assure you; when it comes to the government, follow the money to find the motive...
Actually, irradiated food is quite OK. Low levels of radiation have been shown to actually reduce the occurence of cancer. For instance, the cancer rate is lower in the Rocky Mountains, which are far more exposed to interstellar radiation, while it is higher in the more insulated Gulf States. Those who work around reactors on ships have a 25% lower cancer rate, too. Plus, irradiation is like an atom bomb to pathogenic organisms on food.
Genetically modified has its benefits, too, but IMO it's been taken WAY too far.
Skin cancer is higher in Colorado. The people are higher too.
Its like the FDA must think we are all complete idiots. I do not have faith in their ability to do the right thing for me or anybody else. The last thing I want is for the FDA to have any more power than they already have. I refuse to be a part of the mindset that seems to be common in the US that irradiated, genetically modified dead food is OK for us to eat. I refuse to put my health and wellness in the hands of the very people that have no financial incentive to KEEP ME HEALTHY. And, I assure you; when it comes to the government, follow the money to find the motive...
Actually, irradiated food is quite OK. Low levels of radiation have been shown to actually reduce the occurence of cancer. For instance, the cancer rate is lower in the Rocky Mountains, which are far more exposed to interstellar radiation, while it is higher in the more insulated Gulf States. Those who work around reactors on ships have a 25% lower cancer rate, too. Plus, irradiation is like an atom bomb to pathogenic organisms on food.
Skin cancer is higher in Colorado. The people are higher too.
- Thread starter
- #69
- Jul 30, 2009
- 2,321
- 15
- 181
Quote:
Its like the FDA must think we are all complete idiots. I do not have faith in their ability to do the right thing for me or anybody else. The last thing I want is for the FDA to have any more power than they already have. I refuse to be a part of the mindset that seems to be common in the US that irradiated, genetically modified dead food is OK for us to eat. I refuse to put my health and wellness in the hands of the very people that have no financial incentive to KEEP ME HEALTHY. And, I assure you; when it comes to the government, follow the money to find the motive...
Actually, irradiated food is quite OK. Low levels of radiation have been shown to actually reduce the occurence of cancer. For instance, the cancer rate is lower in the Rocky Mountains, which are far more exposed to interstellar radiation, while it is higher in the more insulated Gulf States. Those who work around reactors on ships have a 25% lower cancer rate, too. Plus, irradiation is like an atom bomb to pathogenic organisms on food.
Genetically modified has its benefits, too, but IMO it's been taken WAY too far.
Whow! Back up! Wait a minute!
I know it does not become radioactive, but for goodness sakes! It is rendered dead! No life giving nutrition is left in it!
I'll have to dig around for the data later on, but please, I beg of you to do some more research.
Its like the FDA must think we are all complete idiots. I do not have faith in their ability to do the right thing for me or anybody else. The last thing I want is for the FDA to have any more power than they already have. I refuse to be a part of the mindset that seems to be common in the US that irradiated, genetically modified dead food is OK for us to eat. I refuse to put my health and wellness in the hands of the very people that have no financial incentive to KEEP ME HEALTHY. And, I assure you; when it comes to the government, follow the money to find the motive...
Actually, irradiated food is quite OK. Low levels of radiation have been shown to actually reduce the occurence of cancer. For instance, the cancer rate is lower in the Rocky Mountains, which are far more exposed to interstellar radiation, while it is higher in the more insulated Gulf States. Those who work around reactors on ships have a 25% lower cancer rate, too. Plus, irradiation is like an atom bomb to pathogenic organisms on food.
Whow! Back up! Wait a minute!
I know it does not become radioactive, but for goodness sakes! It is rendered dead! No life giving nutrition is left in it!
I'll have to dig around for the data later on, but please, I beg of you to do some more research.
Quote:
Actually, irradiated food is quite OK. Low levels of radiation have been shown to actually reduce the occurence of cancer. For instance, the cancer rate is lower in the Rocky Mountains, which are far more exposed to interstellar radiation, while it is higher in the more insulated Gulf States. Those who work around reactors on ships have a 25% lower cancer rate, too. Plus, irradiation is like an atom bomb to pathogenic organisms on food.
Genetically modified has its benefits, too, but IMO it's been taken WAY too far.
Whow! Back up! Wait a minute!
I know it does not become radioactive, but for goodness sakes! It is rendered dead! No life giving nutrition is left in it!
I'll have to dig around for the data later on, but please, I beg of you to do some more research.
Wait, are you referring to veggies as well? I was just referring to meats - pork in particular. Irradiation is EXTREMELY effective at decontamination. I don't know about the effects on plant matter. My apologies if I wasn't clear on that.
Actually, irradiated food is quite OK. Low levels of radiation have been shown to actually reduce the occurence of cancer. For instance, the cancer rate is lower in the Rocky Mountains, which are far more exposed to interstellar radiation, while it is higher in the more insulated Gulf States. Those who work around reactors on ships have a 25% lower cancer rate, too. Plus, irradiation is like an atom bomb to pathogenic organisms on food.
Whow! Back up! Wait a minute!
I know it does not become radioactive, but for goodness sakes! It is rendered dead! No life giving nutrition is left in it!
I'll have to dig around for the data later on, but please, I beg of you to do some more research.
Wait, are you referring to veggies as well? I was just referring to meats - pork in particular. Irradiation is EXTREMELY effective at decontamination. I don't know about the effects on plant matter. My apologies if I wasn't clear on that.
Similar threads
New posts New threads Active threads
-
Latest threads
-
-
-
Severely molting hen cold weather coming- Started by mmoeck
- Replies: 5
-
-
-
-
Threads with more replies in the last 15 days
-
-
-
-
Over researched and made myself anxious about coccidiosis- Started by Echelontheory101
- Replies: 67
-
-
