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

[JoAnn_WI_4-H_Mom]

Quote:
Right on!

Smoke 'em if ya got 'em boys!

 

[ivan3]

NorTracNY wrote: 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?

Meat and Eggs are FSIS of the USDA responsibility (other than shell eggs): http://www.fsis.usda.gov/help/FAQs_Hotline_Inspection/index.asp

The bill was primarily in response to repeated low probablility risk events that result in high negative impact (few deaths, big $$ hit on exports/some outright bans, e.g., 2002 Exotic Newcastle outbreak in CA in 2002 - $300,000,000 to clean up/loss in trade/BSE `mad cow' scare ~5 Billion, the `tomato scare' 500 million (actually jalapenos from Mexico - this bill would have at least given the appropriate depts the opportunity to inspect imports). Did the bill outlaw anything? Actually, one of the few changes was to give the FDA authority to check the records of Already Regulated Facilities (they were required to start keeping them under the 2002/04 Food Safety and Bioterrorism Act but, no civil penalties accrued by those facilities refusing to produce them during scheduled inspections). State Dept.s of AG. are often stricter than the FDA and are the agencies that alert the FDA to problems. When the Media and General Public take a few stats courses and begin to get a grip on relative/probable risk, then we'll get some reasonable laws.

If everyone is so concerned about Government overreach and worried about what you grow in your backyard write your congressmen and tell them that you demand that the `war on some drugs' cease immediately. It is the Supreme Court's expansive interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause that is the most Onerous generator of Govt. Agencies interpreting their regs expansively (not just the DEA, mind you).

No deaths have every been attributed to the mere use of Marijuana, alone (unlike Benadryl, Aspirin, Tylenol, etc....). How much money do we spend to suppress it? Justice Thomas' dissent (below) is right on the money.

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....

... When agents from the Drug Enforcement Administration raided Monson’s home, they seized six cannabis plants. 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 “appropria[te] state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce.” United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 627 (2000) (Thomas, J., concurring)....


... 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).

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD1.html

I'll be the first to sign-on when you all start your letter writing campaign.

As S510 hasn't made the `final cut', yet (just wait for the next lettuce/tomato/spinach/etc. scare), below is the link to a description of the law you and I continue to operate under (until S510, or a variant, is out of the muck and is signed by pres). I'll be growing and selling what I want (legal in MO and US) - expecting that if I was in a `regulated' business I'd demand that all others in business adhere to the same standards - level playing field. Big ag already toes the line as the responsible ones don't get to light their cigars with hundred dollar bills if they lose market share. Remember that the bill conforms with 415 of the food drug and cosmetic act as amended by the 2002 food safety and bioterrorism act - new exemptions in S510 - but, if anyone wants to, please list what already existing State Laws on growing your own food will be `superseded' (be precise) or, better yet, list the precise alterations of 415 of the FDCA.

https://www.backyardchickens.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=385120&p=9 (post 84).

ed: clarity​

 

[GardenerGal]

Last year, my city introduced an ordinance regulating the sale of baked goods at churches, bazaars and other non-commercial venues. While granny can still make cookies for church bake sales, and soccer mom can make brownies to raise funds for her kids' teams, they are now required to provide a complete list of the ingredients, and cannot sell anything made of perishable ingredients such as whipped cream and egg custard.

After a couple hundred years of unregulated bake sales, this seemed like a huge imposition on our freedoms, but parents of kids with nut allergies (which are said to be on the increase in the U.S.) or those fearful of food-borne ailments from spoiled custard and cream toppings, argue that the ordinance is long overdue and should be a national standard.

On another note, how would Senate Bill 510 affect farmers' markets? It's just bizarre that at a time where the economy has driven an increased demand for locally grown produce, eggs, honey, and other products, that suddenly they would be outlawed.

 

[ivan3]

GardenerGal wrote: Last year, my city introduced an ordinance regulating the sale of baked goods at churches, bazaars and other non-commercial venues. While granny can still make cookies for church bake sales, and soccer mom can make brownies to raise funds for her kids' teams, they are now required to provide a complete list of the ingredients, and cannot sell anything made of perishable ingredients such as whipped cream and egg custard.

After a couple hundred years of unregulated bake sales, this seemed like a huge imposition on our freedoms, but parents of kids with nut allergies (which are said to be on the increase in the U.S.) or those fearful of food-borne ailments from spoiled custard and cream toppings, argue that the ordinance is long overdue and should be a national standard.

On another note, how would Senate Bill 510 affect farmers' markets? It's just bizarre that at a time where the economy has driven an increased demand for locally grown produce, eggs, honey, and other products, that suddenly they would be outlawed.

Do not concern yourself with the FEDS. Once they actually hand the the legislation off to the FDA and the `rules' are promulgated (there will be at least 18 months after something is signed before the understaffed inspection arm actually gets their marching papers and any `additions' to regulated facilities lists are made). It is always about your local and state regulatory bodies. The FDA arrives, like FEMA, if the State Agencies request it (with Exotic Newcastle in poultry in CA, the California Ag. Dept. declared an emergency and then the FDA came into the picture). They really should have just spent the money to increase the number of inspectors, hit those already regulated facilities that refused to turn over their documentation to inspectors - no fines, under current law, if they don't, and been given the authority to examine `food' entering the U.S.

Every local Farmer's market has its own rules (conforming with local and state law, primarily. FED? At present just read the FDCA 414/415 that I linked to - that is the current law - 2002 Food Safety and Bioterrorism Act).

We have rules here and they are reasonable: http://www.columbiafarmersmarket.org/rules.shtml​

 

[GardenerGal]

ivan3,
Thanks. That's helpful to know. I always hope that state and local governments will hire and train adequate staff and create the overseeing programs so it won't be necessary to bring in the feds to "fix" a problem.

 

[oswegoscott]

Quote:
Yes,one must master the bill. I have read the proposals several times and can NOT understand some things,which means,to me, that there is much room for interpretation
which invariably leads to loopholes. My biggest concern is that many of the "rules" are interpreted and enforced (or not) at the discretion of a person far removed from
Washington. There is far too much room for discrimination,bribery and persecution.
Yes,I have expressed my concerns on a local,state and national level and received the same "yeah,yeah,yeah" form letters in return (if I rec'd anything)
I also gripe about the GM seeds and livestock.
Woe is me--I feel we are all in for a ride in a sandstorm over the next several years

 

[Wifezilla]

Hoban 'Wash' Washburn: This landing is gonna get pretty interesting.
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: Define "interesting".
Hoban 'Wash' Washburn: [deadpan] Oh God, oh God, we're all going to die?

 

[JoAnn_WI_4-H_Mom]

Quote:
I know. There always is. So darn depressing.

But again, it gets down to finding the individual who got corrupted, or have a vendetta going, and remove the individual from power. The whole idea isn't bad, just a few of the individuals.

I'd like the imported food inspected. Even if I don't buy it, my kids might when out on their own and on starting salaries.

Did you know the Chinese in Shanghai will not buy anything they do not see alive and watch killed and processed in front of them? The markets are filled with tanks of swimming fish and pens of squawking chickens...they pick one based on how healthy it looks, and make certain they watch it being processed so they get the same one. They have been burned by their own producers enough to need these precautions. If the Chinese are worried about eating their own chicken and fish, why should we let it in uninspected?

Can you imagine NYC if it's markets needed to operate this way? It is an amusing mental image, a very fashionable person in Armani or something picking a chicken and carefully watching to make sure it is not switched for another during processing....and truckloads of live animals being brought into the city and processing being done in the city center.....

 

[JoAnn_WI_4-H_Mom]

Quote:
I've never seen Firefly, worth getting from the library?

 

[ivan3]

Best, recent, `reasoned' discussion of the bill: http://www.grist.org/article/food-2...ty-gritty-on-small-farms-and-food-safety-bill (attend to comments re: Tester/Hagan).

Imported food inspection? Currently the FDA has 400 inspectors covering ~350 ports of entry. 2% of this material is currently inspected.

S510 is a footnote to the 2002 Food Safety and Bioterrorism Act: http://www.foodlaw.org/security_and_bioterrorism.htm

To be a member of our local Farmer' Market (feds? BS) - link to our rules in my previous post:

B. Farm Inspections: Vendors may sell only their own products as per Rule 1. The resale of any products that are not grown or produced by the member/vendor, in the area as defined in Rule 4.B, is strictly forbidden. The Board of Directors or its representative(s) reserves the right to inspect any participant or member's farm by appointment, to ensure compliance with market rules and regulations. This will include random inspections. The primary purpose of a farm inspection will be to determine whether the participant or member is in fact producing all that he or she is selling at the market. Upon notification, participant or member must make all production areas available within three (3) days. Refusal to allow inspection is grounds for indefinite suspension. A decision regarding the inspection must be rendered six (6) days from completion of inspection, to be delivered in writing. Any member/vendor found to be in violation of this rule will be immediately expelled from the market without refund of any fees

Our local rules (level playing field - quality product) are very good and, FDA inspectors? One might live in the County

(you'll find them with the USDA/APHIS if things go busto at Butterball or Cargill, maybe ).

Please post up specific instances of `vague wording' (line numbers would be sufficient) in amended S510 and exactly how that would impact you, in your backyard. Thank you.

The only way to get past `form letter' responses from legislators is to know EXACTLY what you are addressing; believe me, if you do your research (web is getting better and better, I don't have to hit Ellis Lib. at the University nearly as often these days) you'll probably know more about the specific legislation than the legislator. Even then you'll have to tamp down the cynicism: I've been writing both State and Fed. Legislators regarding nuclear power/fuel reprocessing (think we ought to be energy independent immediately) since the late `70's. I sent off a rather detailed precis on the reasons for restarting the Integral Fast Reactor Project at Argonne National Lab., to then Sen. John Ashcroft. I received an actual handwritten reply from one of his staff thanking me for my interest but, reminding me that the U.S. has no interest in the the French Nuclear Program

???? Did that staffer think that because the research was being conducted at the ARGONNE National Lab that this was somehow associated with Gen. Pershing and the 1st. Army's little scrape with the hun in 1918?

That John Ashcroft later lost to a dead man when up for reelection to the Senate is one of the reasons I like Missouri.​