A person or gleaner shall not be subject to civil or criminal liability arising from the nature, age, packaging, or condition of apparently wholesome food or an apparently fit grocery product that the person or gleaner donates in good faith to a nonprofit organization for ultimate distribution to needy individuals
Federal and State tax advantages still accrue to `gleaners'. Here, in Missouri, such donations of Ag. products are solicited. Ag. Dept. plants Veg. garden near State House and donates harvest to nonprofits. Columbia Farmer's market is now able to translate fed. food support paper into real money, etc. (Columbia Farmer's Market inspections make the FDA look like whimps:
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.
Cong. Research Service on Farmer's markets in 2006:
http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/RS21652.pdf and they continue to expand.
The new law tightens up the inspection schedules for ALREADY REGULATED FACILITIES
so much that, if I owned a regulated facility and wasn't very `tidy' about manufacture and distribution, I'd not be losing much sleep:
Sorry, FDA can NOW actually REQUIRE ALREADY REGULATED FACILITIES to produce the records that they were required to maintain under the 2002 `bioterrorism' law, but the FDA inspectors couldn't levy a fine for not producing records during inspections - pretty good lobbying during implementation of 2002 law, eh? - was akin to a cop asking if I had a driver's license and I replied that I did and his asking to see it and my refusing and his saying `thanks, have a nice day'. FDA can now prevent `PORT SHOPPING' by foreign importers, i.e., were, until now, able to try to enter U.S. at another port of entry if FDA rejected the load at another (guess the FDA didn't share the info at one port with others?).
Actually, the class of folks who are impacted (because some blogs started posting up the `rules' for ALREADY REGULATED FACILITIES as somehow being applied to everyone - didn't read S510 down to the point where it stated that the bill conformed with 415 of the FD&C - all the existing exclusions weren't posted on the blogs???) are previously UNREGULATED FARMS that, under the `sop' Tester/Hagan amendment, make $500,000 and now have to file paperwork and
may be inspected in -oh, maybe- 7 years from now...
(it is important to note that 2002 law and (unamended) S510 excluded `FARMS' - didn't say what size - dollar valuation).
Now, if anyone has anything
specific to offer to `amend' the above info. I'm all ears.
Got to come back to the real problem: the reason for the original 2002 bioterrorism act (which S510 was just cleaning up) was fear (remember the folks who wrapped their houses in plastic and died?). The court decisions arising from the War on Some Drugs is how the Feds ALREADY get in one's yard. The resulting expansion of the Interstate Commerce Clause as interpreted by the Supreme Court pretty much encourages Fed Agencies to interpret their regs
expansively `your' activity is not interstate commerce but it is `bound up inextricably with interstate commerce'. Of course, until most Americans decide that sacrificing our freedom and the lives/property of innocent citizens, in order to prevent the voluntary ingestion of some substance or other by other citizens, is immoral, evil and an anathema to our values, then FEAR will drive the decisions and the feds to one's door - not one's cucumbers and eggs:
http://www.lohud.com/article/2010101150330
(though, if they wanted one's cucumbers and eggs they would cite the ICC decisions - not the Food Safety Law - gotta be careful what one wishes for and writes one's congress critters about).
