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

[JoAnn_WI_4-H_Mom]

Quote:
Before everyone posts what a horrible person I am for hiring non-Americans: I don't do the hiring, just supervising. I argued for Americans when they applied. The problem is, so few apply. And those who do don't seem to understand their B's from school don't look so good next to the international kid who went to the same school and got A's. These international kids work, and are here legally.

 

[buildingmyark]

Quote:
That's exactly why I couldn't bring myself to argue with NYReds. There are numerous examples of unconstitutional laws that have been passed, not to mention all of the unconstitutional dealings going on in D.C. The courts are always going back and forth on what is/isn't consititutional. It just depends who's in power.I think that the constitution is pretty clear. This is a republic which means that the courts or the majority shouldn't be able to limit or eradicate our inalienable rights.

 

[JoAnn_WI_4-H_Mom]

Quote:
The only extreme I noted was the extreme belief that ALL laws and ALL government being somehow out to sicken or "leave to die" the average citizen.

The opposite extreme would be the idea that only government could do anything right and we should all just mindlessly obey what we are told to do and the government would keep us all healthy.

Submitting to either extremity would be putting blinders on.

I suspect either demonification or deification of "government" would make it hard to objectively analyse whether an individual law is good or bad for society as a whole, or even ourselves invdividually.

I trust government before I trust big multi-national corporations.

It has been suggested that corporations put thier customers first as that is good for business. However, there are many examples of corporations not caring for their customers much as long as they made their profit from them before they died. Examples would be Big Tobacco (a product that kills you if you use it as directed), Nestle's baby formula marketing campaigns in Africa in the 70's, auto maker knowing it had a brake problem but figuring they could pass any accidents off as bad driving, oil companies drilling at break neck speed and disregarding safeguards, and (sorry) the fast food industry will sell us fattening, heart-and-health damaging foods that don't kill us out right but will in the long run because it is good for their profits. ( I personally am addicted to Big Macs, which are strangely much smaller in China )

I cannot do much about a bad corporation, but I have been able to do something about bad government. It is as easy as voting and writing and reporting to real investigative journalists. I have personally seen it work. Your experience of course may vary.

When big government and big corporations cooperate, now that is when it gets very scary for all of us. I think everyone is nodding here.

I'm still trying to figure this S510 out. Is it simply a vehicle of big agriculture? Is it an honest attempt to upgrade a 70-year old regulation to address inspecting imported foods and allow forced recall of tainted foods and medicines? Does it actually help the little guy, and thus help safeguard that portion of our food supply?

This sure is an emotional topic. And the emotions are not making the conversation any clearer.

 

[Wifezilla]

When big government and big corporations cooperate, now that is when it gets very scary for all of us. I think everyone is nodding here.

 

[buildingmyark]

Quote:
I just wanna ask... (In a completely non-controversial/argumentative way) Is questioning the intentions of the government actually putting blinders on? I can see how the other extreme could be described as putting the blinders on. I just feel that the government as a whole has not done a whole lot to earn our trust.


Quote:
Is there a difference? Who knows with all of the under-the-table dealings that go on with lobbyist, campaign contributions and such. If I had to make a call, I would probably say that the evidence is clear that big gov't and big corporations have very close ties that are NOT in our best interest.

Quote:
I think you may have found something that we can all agree on!

 

[oswegoscott]

Quote:
The only extreme I noted was the extreme belief that ALL laws and ALL government being somehow out to sicken or "leave to die" the average citizen.

The opposite extreme would be the idea that only government could do anything right and we should all just mindlessly obey what we are told to do and the government would keep us all healthy.

Submitting to either extremity would be putting blinders on.

I suspect either demonification or deification of "government" would make it hard to objectively analyse whether an individual law is good or bad for society as a whole, or even ourselves invdividually.

I trust government before I trust big multi-national corporations.

It has been suggested that corporations put thier customers first as that is good for business. However, there are many examples of corporations not caring for their customers much as long as they made their profit from them before they died. Examples would be Big Tobacco (a product that kills you if you use it as directed), Nestle's baby formula marketing campaigns in Africa in the 70's, auto maker knowing it had a brake problem but figuring they could pass any accidents off as bad driving, oil companies drilling at break neck speed and disregarding safeguards, and (sorry) the fast food industry will sell us fattening, heart-and-health damaging foods that don't kill us out right but will in the long run because it is good for their profits. ( I personally am addicted to Big Macs, which are strangely much smaller in China )

I cannot do much about a bad corporation, but I have been able to do something about bad government. It is as easy as voting and writing and reporting to real investigative journalists. I have personally seen it work. Your experience of course may vary.

When big government and big corporations cooperate, now that is when it gets very scary for all of us. I think everyone is nodding here.

I'm still trying to figure this S510 out. Is it simply a vehicle of big agriculture? Is it an honest attempt to upgrade a 70-year old regulation to address inspecting imported foods and allow forced recall of tainted foods and medicines? Does it actually help the little guy, and thus help safeguard that portion of our food supply?

This sure is an emotional topic. And the emotions are not making the conversation any clearer.

There you go again with the absolutes. It's NOT about ALL laws! Government and big business are essentially the same . S510 is another ruse to control. So is the medical bs. So is the Patriot Act. So is the airport screening bs which will extend to railroads and buses and ships soon. I truly do not understand HOW anyone can overlook the additional controls added every day (seems like,anyway)
What I eat,smoke,drink,drive,read,the Dr I see-- that is my darn business and choice--as long as I don't infringe on the rights of others. The Gulf oil "spill" and 9/11 ? Hopefully most of you know
that the cause isn't as portrayed.
Corporate execs and politicians ,with very few exceptions, are in it for power and personal gain. Period. If they won't play that game--there are those nasty accidents and firings

 

[buildingmyark]

Quote:
Right on!

 

[JoAnn_WI_4-H_Mom]

Quote:
The only extreme I noted was the extreme belief that ALL laws and ALL government being somehow out to sicken or "leave to die" the average citizen.

There you go again with the absolutes. It's NOT about ALL laws!

I was refering to your post #172 on page 18 of this thread where you stated (your emphasis)

Quote:
I thought by this statement you meant ALL laws, which seemed like an extreme to me. My apologies if I have misunderstood you. Do you see where I could have drawn that conclusion?

My concern about people taking an extreme view that ALL laws or ALL government is bad is that it allows you to no longer look at individual laws. They are all bad. Why look?

There was also a statement that I seem to advocate not questioning the "government". I am sorry if I gave that impression.

What I feel is blinding is deciding ALL laws are bad, so we don't need to question whether the government may have gotten it right.

The topic of the original post is what affect S510 will have.

For what it is worth, I have this respose from A WI Senator.

Quote:

 

[JoAnn_WI_4-H_Mom]

From another WI Senator:

Thank you for sharing with me your concerns about S. 510, the Food Safety Modernization Act. My goal in the U.S. Senate for many years has been to preserve and protect small family farms and the traditional agricultural heritage of Wisconsin. I appreciate knowing your thoughts on this important issue.

It seems nearly every time I pick up a newspaper, there is a headline about a food-borne illness that has sickened consumers. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there are 76 million new cases of food-related illness in the United States each year. These illnesses and the product recalls associated with them have rattled consumer confidence in the quality and safety of the food we eat. This is unacceptable.

The Senate approved the Food Safety Modernization Act on November 30, 2010 by a vote of 73-25. I supported this bipartisan legislation, which was also backed by numerous industry and public health organizations. The bill is the most significant food safety reform in over 70 years, and it will improve our nation's antiquated food safety laws.

The Food Safety Modernization Act will establish a risk based system for inspections at food production facilities, enhance surveillance and traceability methods for food-borne illness outbreaks. It also provides the FDA with the authority to order a mandatory recall of a food product when a producer fails to voluntarily recall their product. S. 510 will also strengthen the FDA's authority to prevent the importation of food products from foreign companies who refuse to submit to timely inspection of their facilities, a measure that I have supported in the past.

This legislation also includes an amendment sponsored by Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) that which carefully addresses the impact the bill would have on family farmers. The amendment helps ensure that food safety rules are scale appropriate, rather than one-size-fits-all. This will help target limited federal dollars to achieve outcomes that improve food safety. Specifically the amendment states that small farms and food processors as well as small and mid-scale farms that direct market to consumers, stores, and restaurants in their region would be required to follow state and local regulation where it exists or FDA requirements appropriate to the scale and type of agriculture.

As chairman of the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, I have worked to address challenges affecting our nation's food safety. In 2007, I convened hearings on food safety in both Washington and Wisconsin, and have since worked to boost funding for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS), increase the number of food safety inspectors domestically and abroad, and develop regional rapid response teams across the country to identify and isolate contaminated produce at its source.

The health and safety of American consumers is of the utmost importance; please be assured that I will continue working to improve the safety of food in the United States. I appreciate having the benefit of your views.

Sincerely,
Herb Kohl
United States Senator

 

[JoAnn_WI_4-H_Mom]

The above are of course form letter replies that would go out to any one contacting them with concerns regarding the bill.

The point is, I did contact them and detailed my concerns that the bill could be abused and possibly did not protect small diversified producers enough. I did not do as good a job as I would like, I felt I was not making a clear enough statement about how the bill could be improved.

I wanted to know their official public position on the bill. If they have made a deal behind the scenes with Big Ag, it will not be in a message like this.

I know that Senate office staff count correspondence for and against each bill. Selected correspondence are brought to the Senator's attention.

That's why it is important to understand all the issues related to the proposed legislation. We cannot raise the proper concerns if we are not master of the subject.