They want to make it ALL illegal. What do you think of Senate Bill 510

[Ridgerunner]

I personally think it is more of a respone to the approximately 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 5,000 deaths in the United States each year caused by foodborne ilnesses. But that is just me. Maybe the suffering caused by this is inconsequential to most people.

The wild hog story is cute. I like that. Can I tell another one? How do you keep the wild hogs out of your corn patch? Control the wild hogs. Which you identify with will depend on your perspective. Are you a wild hog or do you own a corn patch? I know the wild hogs represent freely romping through the woods, smelling the flowers, chasing the butterflies, and growing fat on the acorns they root out from under the oak trees. But if I have a corn patch and the wild hogs start rooting in it and destroying it, I see it as where their wild carefree ways have started impinging on my rights, so I might build a fence. I know, a different perspective.

I find it a bit arrogant that you or anyone else can argue the wisdom of any of our founders. What they created changed the world. Changed our lives and millions of others. They did something that had and has never been before in the history of man. And they proved that it works.

I don't see it as arrogance to look at the founding fathers in context. Collectively they did a great thing in the end. Ben Franklin did great things as an individual. He was a great diplomat, businessman, author and many other things. If you study him a bit, he was a great believer in states rights. He had a heavy hand in setting up the Articles of Confederation, the first document our government was set up under. It was very strong in states rights. There were other founding fathers, George Washington for one, that were more in favor of a stronger federal government. The founding fathers were not in lockstep, all agreeing exactly on the same thing. Ben and the states rights faction won and established the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation failed. The concept of strong states rights and a very weak federal government did not work. Things like when the other New England states closed their ports to English shipping, Connecticut was glad to get the extra business by keeping their ports open. So they called another constitutional convention to modify the Articles of Confederation. Those sneaky radicals that were supposed to modify the Articles instead wrote a totally new constitution. It called for a pretty strong federal government. Many thought that federal government was too strong, so they fought for and managed to get the first ten amendments passed.

The founding fathers were radicals in open rebellion. They put their life on the line. Some were great individuals in one aspect or another. Some were common people that did great things. But they were human beings. Sometime they were right and sometimes they were wrong as individuals. They had a divergent view of many concepts. What they collectively did worked, eventually.

I think even profound statements need to be looked at in context, otherwise they are trivialized and misrepresented.

 

[calista]

Nicely said, Ridgerunner.

The hysteria and misinformation prevalent about this bill and its possible ramifications reminds me somewhat of the Y2K non-event. We'll see -- and do something to mitigate the effects if worse DOES come to worst with its passage.

Of course, they'll still have to pry my cherry tomatoes and chickens from my cold dead hands, if it comes to that.

 

[draye]

These are just more laws of oppression. You can look at it and analize it any way you want and interrpret it any way you want and it still come down to one thing trying to oppress the people and take aeay their freedoms.

I'm praying for those of you who are blind because you want to be. Go ahead and stick your head in the sand and live in denial. I just hope that you will be satisfied when you no longer have freedom.

 

[mons02035]

Quote:
These things you mention are actual a result of IMPROPER HANDLING at the point of sale., like not keeping things refridgerated or frozen, or not washing hands after peeing or not cooking the food. Not in the actual creation of the food. **EDIT** And despite those numbers, we in the US still have the safest food and water in the world AND our life expectancey has done nothing but go up and up and up since our creation.

Ridge, you and I obviously have much different fundamental views of things. I could argue your point until I'm blue in the face about states rights and them not working (your opinion) and how our founders looked upon our creation but you and I will still disagree.

In the end, I think we want the same things. Freedom. The ability to have have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We just have a different idea of who is actually looking out for us and who is actually working against us. In the end, I hope my kids and yours can live a life that is free from government clamping down on them but sadly, it appears to be going in the other direction.

 

[mons02035]

Quote:
It's the corporations and big businesses that have the most to gain from this bill. The small businesses won't be able to afford the new fees associated with all the new requirements. This will force may small businesses to close, and thereby give an even greater market share to the large corporate factory farms. There is a reason why most large Corporate type Farms support this bill and most small farms, organic producers and organizations oppose this bill. This bill is not about food safety, but about giving greater market share to Big Business and more controll to the Federal government.

EXACTLEY!!!!! Why is this so hard to understand?

 

[Wifezilla]

Wish I knew mons.

We got ecoli in spinach and celery, the egg recall, toxic tomatoes that weren't really toxic...maybe it was the jalapenos, etc... with plenty of regulation. The regulation fails to protect the consumer and some say "We obviously need more regulation!". Ummmm...hellooooooo

 

[noodleroo]

My concern is the big picture. I want to make up my own mind about what is good for me. I want to grow and eat non-genetically modified foods. I want to choose how my body heals. I don't believe that the government should be deciding these things for me and I sure don't want to PAY for it. I ask you to consider this (again); what financial gain does the government have to KEEP me healthy? (If healthy, we don't need to buy medications). The U.S. economy as we currently operate, would collapse...

I believe that it is reasonable for individuals to be personally responsible for the foods they consume. It is rediculous to think that any government enforcing agency can guarantee that any given bite of food that you put in your mouth won't make you sick.

I don't like anything about this bill.

 

[NorTracNY]

Wow has this topic expanded to cover a lot more than just this bill. Remember this bill does NOTHING for meat and eggs. Just because "Food Safety" is the name of a bill doesn't mean it is the best bill for combating it. Ridgerunner, you asked a very good question about how many deaths are too many. I saw where you were grabbing the CDC data for your numbers. Please read the data and tell me how many of the ~5000 deaths/year this bill would prevent. The cost of this bill is I believe $1,800,000,000. And where will this money come from? Our government owes over $13,000,000,000,000 right now. Let's keep things in perspective. The CDC believes that many of the deaths are with other pre-existing problems. If we truly are looking to spend money we don't have to delay (let's not use the word prevent since that's not what it is) deaths, why not tackle a problem that is more in need?

I think a law that would require everyone to run 3 miles/day or they would be fined would actually raise money.
How about a tax on the sale of any product with a link to cancer?
Heavy tax on any process that puts Mercury or other poisons in the air.
These three would have a lot bigger effect than this current "Food Safety" bill.

Leading Causes of Death
(Data are for the U.S.)

Number of deaths for leading causes of death

* Heart disease: 616,067
* Cancer: 562,875
* Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 135,952
* Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 127,924
* Accidents (unintentional injuries): 123,706
* Alzheimer's disease: 74,632
* Diabetes: 71,382
* Influenza and Pneumonia: 52,717
* Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 46,448
* Septicemia: 34,828

 

[Ridgerunner]

Quote:
You are exactly right. We do have different fundamental views but we want about the same thing.

Just for the record, I'm basically a liberal. I do not want the government to have anything to say about my religion. I don't want to control your religious beliefs. Whatever goes on in my bedroom, however boring, is nobody else's business. I don't really care what you do in your bedroom or with whom as long as it is consensual. I want to choose my own friends. The only people I want to have any involvement in my personal life are the people that I choose to have an involvement.

I don't trust corporations or big business. You may be surprised at that. It is not the corporation as much as the corporate mentality. Corporations are not evil. It is the people in the corporations that can have evil effects. I'll give an example. I used to work for a big oil company. One of my responsibilities was to oversee the underwater inspection of offshore oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. These inspections were required by government regulators to help verify structural integrity of the platform. Some of these had people sleeping on them. Every year I had to justify my budget to my managenment. The money I spent did not make a direct profit but was a cost of doing business. If I was not able to quote the regulation requiring this inspection, the money would not be appropriated. The corporate mentality I am talking about comes from my management was in that position for only a couple of years, then would be moved to a different managerial position. If they did not spend that money it was a feather in their cap that they had reduced expenses. One of my friends was in charge of painting those platforms. One typical question he got was "If we don't paint it this year, will it fall down?" His response was, "No it will not fall down. But if we don't paint it, when it gets inspected, we will get an "Incident of Non-Compliance" (INC) which results in a fine". What he did not have to say was that a fine affected that manager's bonus. He normally got the money to paint the platforms that needed it. I've got other stories, but the bottom line is that unless the regulations are in place, a lot of the stuff that needs to be done does not get done. I don't see laws and regulations as something evil. I see then necessary to get some things done the right way. I definitely do not believe that if unregulated, corporations will do the right thing.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Quote:
I don't have a clue. Best I can determine, the CDC does not either. I actually mentioned this in a previous post. You are exactly right that the USDA handles meat and poultry while this bill is FDA. One of the requirements of this bill is that a study to answer this question be performed and the results be reported back to congress within 18 months. Then, in another election year, this will again be debated and the bill probably tweaked.