Q9 wrote: Holy freakin' crap. I just glanced at the bill, and saw at least a dozen instances of such vague wording that the Feds could get away with nearly anything! Granted, it was the summary, but the bill itself will inevitably provide even more opportunities
Well, just from the "summary", that you've skimmed, please list those dozen instances that will impact already excluded entities under Section 415 of the FDC Act, as amended by the 2002 Bioterrorism Act (FDA Implementation). I'm from The `Show Me State'; `Show Me' being no whining plea to be led from the darkness by some nebulous authority but, rather, a skeptical challenge delivered flat-up, e.g., `Show Me the money'.
After you've listed the "dozen instances", being the scholar that you are, please check my work and be precise in your criticism, i.e., where did I miss that Farms, Cultivation by Individuals and Restaurants (with 10 are fewer employees) are Not excluded?
https://www.backyardchickens.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=420932&p=10 (post 94)
Forensically speaking, all things being equal, more bite than bark earns more points per round.
Q9 wrote:As for those instances, have you bothered to read the text of the bill? Obviously they can't go for home gardens under this, but otherwise they have a LOT of wiggle room. Look at how much power the Secretary is given. "If the Secretary determines..." is all over the place. What constitutes "potential harm?" What constitutes "major changes in methods?"
I 100% agree, "Show me." Number 1 rule in political research - FOLLOW THE MONEY. Look who's sponsoring this. Kraft, General Mills, etc. At any rate, even assuming this bill, by some freak, amazing chance, is not twisted to give the feds massive power, it is STILL illegal. The Constitution is perfectly clear on the extent of the government's power - almost nothing in this bill is permitted.
I provided an image of the language, from the bill itself, in the link above. You state "Obviously they can't go for home gardens...", and they can't go after farms (excluded in the language of the bill as well), unless the farm is already a Regulated Facility. As the bill conforms with 414/415 of the FDC, I also provided images of the exclusions from the 414 pamphlet. As the subject of this thread is "Will it be illegal to grow my own food" I simply provided links to source material. As you asserted that you had found "a dozen instances of vague wording" in the summary, I thought you might be so kind as to list all 12 and how those `vagaries' would amend the prexisting law that this legislation conforms with.
Might want to read the 2002 Food Safety and Bioterrorism Act:
http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodDefense/Bioterrorism/default.htm
Would be happy to discuss your specific Constitutional concerns (how many amendments does your copy have?), as well as solicit your views re: whether Kraft, Gen.M., et.al. should be free and unfettered Corporate Citizens, or bad actors requiring strict regulation by the FDA, in another thread.
noodlero wrote:
Ok, ivan3: I want you to go to the following link, scroll about 3/4 of the way down to the line just above (gg). It states that supplements are considered 'food'. The problem that concerns me the most is that the FDA has been trying to get total control of supplements for years. Supplements have been defined as 'food' instead of 'drugs' and many lobbiests have fought to keep it that way. This new bill gives the FDA an 'in' using the simple little word: FOOD...
http://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformatio
086297.htm
That language was added in 1994:
http://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInform...ignificantAmendmentstotheFDCAct/ucm148003.htm (3/3/b). Did this bill change the exceptions?
My only interest is in selling at the farmer's market (already comply with regs) don't see anything that will impact that: If anyone does, I'd like to see it (from the bill).
