Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
(View past Libertarian pings here)
Posted on 06/18/2009 5:27:24 AM PDT by FromLori
A new food safety bill is on the fast track in Congress-HR 2749, the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009. The bill needs to be stopped. HR 2749 gives FDA tremendous power while significantly diminishing existing judicial restraints on actions taken by the agency. The bill would impose a one-size-fits-all regulatory scheme on small farms and local artisanal producers; and it would disproportionately impact their operations for the worse.
HR 2749 does not address underlying causes of food safety problems such as industrial agriculture practices and the consolidation of our food supply. The industrial food system and food imports are badly in need of effective regulation, but the bill does not specifically direct regulation or resources to these areas.
To read a detailed account of the bill, go to: http://www.ftcldf.org/news/news-15june2009.htm (Read the section on tracing. That is NAIS, isn’t it? – highly disguised yet triggered by the word “trace.” ) Alarming Provisions:
Some of the more alarming provisions in the bill are:
* HR 2749 would impose an annual registration fee of $500 on any “facility” that holds, processes, or manufactures food. [isn't this every home in the US, every garden?] Although “farms” are exempt, the agency has defined “farm” narrowly. [What is the definition?] And people making foods such as lacto-fermented vegetables, cheeses, or breads would be required to register and pay the fee, which could drive beginning and small producers out of business during difficult economic times. [Yes. There are laws against this corporate-size-destroys-the-little-guy policy, aren't there? Are home bread or cheese or lacto-fermented vegetable makers who make for their own families included in this?]
* HR 2749 would empower FDA to regulate how crops are raised and harvested. It puts the federal government right on the farm, dictating to our farmers. [This astounding control opens the door to CODEX. WTO "good farming practices" will include the elimination of organic farming by eliminating manure, mandating GMO animal feed, imposing animal drugs, and ordering applications of petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides. Farmers, thus, will be locked not only into the industrialization of once normal and organic farms but into the forced purchase of industry's products. They will be slaves on the land, doing the work they are ordered to do - against their own best wisdom - and paying out to industry against their will.
There will be no way to be frugal, to grow one's own grain to feed the animals, to raise healthy animals without GMO grains or drugs, to work with nature at all. Grassfed cattle and poultry and hogs will be finished. So, it's obvious where control will take us. And weren't these the "rumors on the internet" that were dismissed but are clearly the case?]
* HR 2749 would give FDA the power to order a quarantine of a geographic area, including “prohibiting or restricting the movement of food or of any vehicle being used or that has been used to transport or hold such food within the geographic area.” [This - "that has been used to transport or hold such food" - would mean all cars that have ever brought groceries home so this means ALL TRANSPORTATION can be shut down under this. This is using food as a cover for martial law.] Under this provision, farmers markets and local food sources could be shut down, even if they are not the source of the contamination. The agency can halt all movement of all food in a geographic area. [This is also a means of total control over the population under the cover of food, and at any time.]
* HR 2749 would empower FDA to make random warrantless searches of the business records of small farmers and local food producers, without any evidence whatsoever that there has been a violation. [If these bills cover all who "hold food" then this allows for taking of records of anyone at any time on no basis at all.] Even farmers selling direct to consumers would have to provide the federal government with records on where they buy supplies, how they raise their crops, and a list of customers.
[NAIS for animals and all other foods?]
* HR 2749 charges the Secretary of Health and Human Services with establishing a tracing system for food. Each “person who produces, manufactures, processes, packs, transports, or holds such food” [Is this not every home in the US?] would have to “maintain the full pedigree of the origin and previous distribution history of the food,” and “establish and maintain a system for tracing the food that is interoperable with the systems established and maintained by other such persons.” The bill does not explain how far the traceback will extend or how it will be done for multi-ingredient foods. With all these ambiguities, [with all these ambiguities, it is dangerous, period, separate from the money] it’s far from clear how much it will cost either the farmers or the taxpayers. [It is massive and absurd and burdensome beyond the capacity of people to comply - is this not fascism? - so it is a set up for being used to impose penalties endlessly and/or to eliminate anyone at will.]
* HR 2749 creates severe criminal and civil penalties, including prison terms of up to 10 years and/or fines of up to $100,000 for each violation for individuals. [Does it include judicial review, Congressional oversight, a defined and limited set of penalties and punishments for a defined set of "crimes"? Or is it entirely ambiguous and left to the whim and sole power of "the Administrator"? Who is that person set to be? Is it Michael Taylor, Monsanto lawyer and executive, as Food Democracy has said? That is, do these bills set up an agency by which the entire US food supply will be turned over to the control of a multinational corporation under WTO regulations (and not to US farmers and not to US laws under the Constitution), with boundless freedom to do what it wants, and one infamous for harm to farmers and lack of safety of food?] If it was not clear before how frightening these bills were, this small section of provisions, should make their actual fascism clear now. It goes way beyond “food safety” to absolute control over farms, animals, food, and us, including our movements and access to food at all.
Action to Take:
Contact your Representative now! Ask to speak with the staffer who handles food issues. Tell them you are opposed to the bill. Some points to make in telling your Representative why you oppose HR 2749 include:
The bill imposes burdensome requirements while not specifically targeting the industrial food system and food imports, where the real food safety problems lie. Small farms and local food processors are part of the solution to food safety; lessening the regulatory burden on them will improve food safety. The bill gives FDA much more power than it has had in the past while making the agency less accountable for its actions. HR 2749 needs to be defeated!! Please take action NOW.
To contact your Representative, use the finder tool at www.Congress.org or send a message through the petition system (the petition will be on our website this evening) athttp://www.ftcldf.org/petitions_new.htm. Or call the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121.
To check the status of HR 2749, go to www.Thomas.gov and type “HR 2749″ in the bill search field.
I believe there are measure to regulate vitamins as well because when I reordered my calcium tablets, I was told that things were changing.... due to more restrictive regulations. The guy on the phone told me they were afraid there were more regulations to come that will add to the expense.
Khrushchev spoke the truth when he said “we will bury you from within.”
Ping
I don't think a day has gone by since the usurper 0bama and his thugs took over, that I haven't seen the warning to "contact my Representaive". He's ostensibly a Republican. The problem is that I guess he is either too busy kissing 0bama's posterior, or attending some cocktail party or just sitting back collecting pay to do anything. I haven't seen anything out of the Republican'ts.
bttt
They want control of all farm/ranch land to boot. This battle (particularly close to my heart and hometown) has been going on for 30+ yrs.
Beware of *conservatory easements* and, in this case, the Pentagon.
This fits what Rush said two days ago - that the Abominable Administration (my term, not his) is out to destroy small business.
It certainly looks that way.
The author’s take on this bill is simply silly.
Thanks for posting.
ROTFL. See Wickard v. Filburn, Raich, and other United States Supreme Court cases on the reach of federal statutes into purely intrastate activity.
* HR 2749 would empower FDA to regulate how crops are raised and harvested.
No Back yard Garden for you! lol
Maybe it's our fault we have the representation that we have.
How about we all just stand up and tell them, “No, you’ve gone too far...”
Narrow case and not easily enforced - even by the FDA.
I remember that. As he was beating his shoe on the table.
And had a shoe on each foot.
“The author’s take on this bill is simply silly.”
I might have thought so as well, but after what happened with that stupid CPSIA bill, I’m just not so sure. Not wanting to have lead in children’s products was *interpreted* in such a way that it shut down small businesses, impacted thrift shops, caused a ruckus in the motorcycle industry, and essentially banned books pre-1985. Quite a stretch from the original intent.
As someone else has pointed out,
Wickard v Filburn
pretty much defined ANY activity as “affecting interstate trade” and therefore subject to federal regulation.
During the 30’s, a farmer was growing wheat for HIS OWN CONSUMPTION. The court ruled that since he wouldn’t be buying wheat on the market because he was growing it himself, he was “affecting” interstate commerce, and was subject to federal regulation.
Yes, it’s a bogus ruling, and one that should have a pitchfork, torch, tar and feather rally on the steps of the USSC, but there it is.
It won't take them long to remove the Interstate Commerce clause from the Constitution and make all states regulated by the Fed.
Stalin told farmers what to grow and how to grow it. Obama needs to make the public totally dependent of him and the Democrats/Stalinists.
And all the preliminary measures to break down the Constitution will easily be done under the Comatose state that the American public is and will continue to be under.
We truly need some drastic event, like a massive attack on our own soil to wake these brain dead idiots up from their hypnotic stupor. But in order to get through to them, we would have to broadcast the news on Oprah, the View, American Idol and Dancing With the Stars.
Might want to resolve that juxtaposition. The latter negates the former. "Totally dependent" will require shutting down home gardens (growing up, my family grew fully half our own food and easily could have doubled that).
It won't take them long to remove the Interstate Commerce clause from the Constitution and make all states regulated by the Fed.
As I observed above, the commerce clause has been expanded beyond all bounds - it is removed for all practical purposes.
Certainly true "on the numbers." There is no way a federal agency could watch tens of millions of independent operators. But inability to get all the offenders does not result in inability to get some of them. Google "fda" "intrastate" "enforcement" and see a number of products where the FDA asserts authority on intrastate activity -- pharmaceutical in nature, mostly, but also adulterated or "bad" food that has not and will not travel interstate.
Point being, "this authority is limited to activity involving products that in fact cross state boundaries" is false.
the Lefties who are pushing for urban gardening and the consumption of locally grown organic produce are going to have a cow (or at least a tofu-based cow substitute...)
Quote of the day. This says it all.
PING!
Guess I'll have to add armed (yes, they will be armed...trust me) FDA home garden inspectors to my paper target list.
Oregon Unemployment Rate is 12.4% -- Dashes Dreams of California Transplants
I'll happily eat my grass fed beef, free range chicken, and home raised pigs, rabbits, and vegetables before I'll eat any of the over-regulated, mass processed, cross-contaminated food substitutes that come from the local grocery.
 |
Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Oregon Ping List.
Think about what this would do to the farmers of Oregon and other states.
It needs to be defeated.
I just thought of something else!!
How many of you use Nutrilite Vitamins like I do? Their controls at their organic farms are much better than any USDA controls.
Being without my organic vitamins and supplements would send my health into a tailspin.
When cheez is outlawed, only outlaws can has cheezburger.
Remarkable!
There could be a massive groundswell of outrage rising across America.
Yeah, I'm sure they won't think to invoke Wickard v. Filburn. After all, that was about a guy growing wheat for his own consumption being free from federal regulation. Nothing like this issue at all.
DAMN STRAIGHT!!!!!!!!
Yeah, that’s my thoughts as well. I trust them, about as far as I could throw their collectivist asses.
Organic farmers and those who sell backyard vegetables are not traceable in the system. If someone gets sick from farmer John's chickens, there is no way to know. This scares the heck out of the major producers, since the FDA and USDA will find someone to blame.
And this bill isn't the main cause. The various anti terrorism laws are. They will only get more regulated.
In short, while the author is a big over dramatic, this would shut down most farmer's markets. The big question is will it be taken to individual gardeners.
So if you really like someones veggies, get ready to do an underground deal.
I believe the DemonRats are up to something very nasty, indeed. Under the umbrella of anti-terrorism anything goes today. Bovine Squat is turned into pure gold. I happen to know that Oregon is owned by organized crime and the Dems control the state.
Look what I Gooogled: Over 9,000 Reports . . . And Gunderson is a Portland manufacturing plant. Add + guillotines and see what comes up. Check my freeper page and learn more if you are so inclined.
But the FDA is really nervous about organic food also. The manure reg is because of some ecoli concerns.
This bill is oppresively “Big Brother” , with unbelievable growth of government regulation powers.
From a recent email from Weston Price Foundation
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)
HR 2749 - Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009
NOTE: Answers are based on the June 17 Waxman version that was accepted by voice vote of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Page references are noted per this version posted at http://tinyurl.com/na33dz
Q1: Does FDA have jurisdiction over INTRAstate commerce?
A1: As a federal agency, the FDA has jurisdiction over INTERstate commerce. For example, the prohibited acts regarding adulteration and misbranding in the current Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) all refer to INTERstate commerce. However, the existing law states that “in any action to enforce the requirements of [FFDCA] . . . the connection with INTERstate commerce required for jurisdiction in such action shall be presumed to exist.” [1a] Combined with court decisions addressing the connection between INTRAstate and INTERstate commerce, it is unclear what kind of showing defendants would have to make to rebut the presumption and avoid federal regulation. The agency’s regulatory power is limited to commerce, however, so non-commercial activities (such as growing your own vegetables for personal consumption) are not regulated.
Under current law, a business qualifying as a “food facility” must register with FDA, even if that business only engages in INTRAstate commerce. [1b] In addition, the agency can inspect the records of a business that engages solely in INTRAstate commerce if there is a “reasonable belief that an article of food is adulterated and presents a threat of serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals.” [1c]
[1a] 21 USC 379(a)
[1b] 21 USC 350(d)
[1c] 21 USC 350(c)
Q2: Would HR 2749 expand the FDA’s regulation of INTRAstate commerce?
A2: Yes. Under HR 2749, FDA’s regulatory control over INTRAstate commerce would grow considerably. The bill would allow for inspections of firms whose business is strictly within a State. [2a] It would impose, among other requirements, a mandate for all firms in the food business to comply with national performance standards for various foods set by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). [2b] It would also require most firms in the food business to establish a traceback system for their products, even if those products never cross State lines. [2c]
[2a] Section 105(a)-pp. 42-43
[2b] Section 103(b)-pp. 36-37
[2c] Section 107(c)-p. 54
Q3: I have a garden and sell produce at a road-side stand on my property. Would HR 2749 apply to me?
A3: Yes, you would now have to follow federally-established standards for growing produce. [3a] Produce not grown as required by these standards would be considered as adulterated under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). [3b] Further, you would be required to make your business records available to FDA inspectors. [3c] The inspectors would have the power to show up unannounced without a warrant to search your records without any evidence whatsoever that you have committed a violation of the law. If you refuse to let the inspector see your records, you would be guilty of adulteration under FFDCA. [3d]
[3a] Section 104(b)-pp. 38-41
[3b] Section 104(a)-p. 38
[3c] Section 106(a)-p. 48
[3d] Section 207(a)-pp. 119-120
Q4: I sell produce from my garden at a local farmers market, under HR 2749 would I have to register as a “food facility” with FDA?
A4: Farms are exempt from the registration requirement under current law. [4a] HR 2749 would not eliminate this exemption. “Farm” is narrowly defined under current regulations [4b]; so, it is possible that many farms that have not registered in the past, could be required to do so if FDA has more resources at its disposal to enforce registration.
For example, a farm that sells vegetables straight from the garden (i.e., no processing) would not be a “food facility”. If FDA strictly interprets the definition of “farm”, a farm that sells canned vegetables at the market would be a “food facility” because canning is considered “processing” under the law. [4c] Under federal regulation, a farm that processes food would not be considered a “farm” for purposes of the registration requirement unless ALL of the processed food is consumed ON the farm. [4d]
Under HR 2749, those who sell vegetables from the garden at farmers markets would be required to follow federal standards for growing produce [4e]; and their business records would be subject to random warrantless searches by FDA inspectors even if the agency has no evidence of any violation of the law. [4f-see Q3/A3 above]
[4a] 21 USC 350d
[4b] 21 CFR 1.227(3)
[4c] 21 CFR 1.227(6)
[4d] 21 CFR 1.227(3)
[4e] Section 104(b)-pp. 38-41
[4f] Section 106(a)-p. 48
Q5: I own a bakery and sell my goods at a local farmers market, how would HR 2749 apply to me?
A5: HR 2749 would apply to you in the following ways:
1 - Your bakery would qualify as a “food facility” and you would need to register with FDA each year [5a] and pay an annual fee ($500 in 2010 [5b], and increasing in future years as indexed for inflation [5c]).
2 - You would have to register in electronic format. [5d]
3 - You would be required to have a unique facility identifier number. [5e]
4 - You would be required to conduct an analysis identifying potential hazards at your food facility; and you must implement controls to prevent those hazards from occurring as well as a plan for what to do in the event that any do occur. [5f]
5 - If your products cross state lines, you must develop a FOOD SAFETY PLAN. [5g-also see Q6/A6 below]
6 - You would also be required to establish and maintain a system for tracing the food you produce. It is uncertain at this point what this traceability system will require, but the requirements are likely to be extensive.
[5h]
[5a] Section 101(b)-p. 6 [4b] Section 101(b)-p. 13 [5c] Section 101(c)-p. 14 [5d] Section 101(b)-p. 7 [5e] Section 206(a)-p. 118 [5f] Section 102(a)-p. 21 [5g] Section 102, sec 418A(a)-p. 28 [5h] Section 107(c)-p. 54-58
Q6: What will a FOOD SAFETY PLAN involve?
A6: Your FOOD SAFETY PLAN would have to include a hazard analysis that identifies potential hazards in your operation. The plan must also include descriptions of a variety of procedures you follow to prevent hazards from occurring and corrective actions to take if any does occur. In addition, you would need to describe your procedures for recordkeeping, conducting recalls, and traceback. Further, the plan must include how you ensure a “safe and secure food supply chain” for the items and ingredients you use as well as how you implement any science-based performance standards required by FDA. [6a]
[6a] Section 102, sec 418A(b)-pp. 29-30
Q7: I have read a summary of HR 2749 and am alarmed by the provision giving the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) the power to quarantine any geographic area within the country. How broad is this power?
A7: Under HR 2749, the HHS Secretary would have the power to prohibit ALL MOVEMENT of ALL FOOD within a geographic area. No court order is needed to exercise this power. The Secretary only has to notify the appropriate official of the State(s) affected and issue a public announcement. [7a]
[7a] Section 133(b)-pp. 98-99
Q8: I am a raw milk consumer. Is it true that under HR 2749 would give FDA the power to institute a complete ban on the sale of raw milk?
A8: Yes, HR 2749 requires the HHS Secretary to issue “science-based performance standards . . . applicable to foods or food classes.” The Secretary is to “identify the most significant foodborne contaminants and the most significant resulting hazards . . . and to minimize to an acceptable level, prevent or eliminate the occurrence of such hazards.” [8a] FDA would have the power to make pasteurization of all raw milk a performance standard. Based on both its public statements and its record of taking enforcement actions against farmers, FDA is vehemently opposed to the consumption of raw milk and would like to ban its distribution.
Even if FDA does not issue a performance standard requiring pasteurization, the likelihood is that if HR 2749 passes into law, the agency will be increasing its enforcement actions against raw milk producers whose products cross state lines. FDA has indicated that raw milk is a priority item with the agency; with the passage of HR 2749, it would have much greater resources to go after raw milk than it did before. FDA could take enforcement action directly or through state agencies funded by FDA.
The way to stop this threat is to support HR 778, a bill that would, in effect, end the ban on raw milk for human consumption in interstate commerce. [8b] If you have not already done so, contact your Representative and Senators asking them to co-sponsor and/or vote for HR 778. You may send a message to them through the petition service by clicking on “Support HR 778 Now” at http://tinyurl.com/lwble7
[8a] Section 103(b)-p. 37
[8b] 21 CFR 1240.61
Q9: I purchase products from an Amish producer who has said he would not register his facility because the electronic filing requirement violates his religious beliefs. What are the criminal and civil penalties he could be facing if he is charged with violating the law?
A9: Under HR 2749, failing to register a food facility would constitute “misbranding.” [9a] If any of the “misbranded” products are introduced or “delivered for introduction into interstate commerce”, the producer could be sentenced to up to ten years and be assessed criminal fines. [9b] Under HR 2749, anyone knowingly violating certain prohibitions contained in the FFDCA such as the prohibition against introducing adulterated or misbranded food in interstate commerce, could face these penalties.
In addition, the Amish producer could be facing substantial civil penalties. Under HR 2749, any individual who knowingly violates a provision of section 331 of FFDCA (prohibited acts) relating to food, can be fined up to $100,000; a corporation can be fined up to $7.5 million. [9c]
[9a] Section 101(a)-p. 6
[9b] Section 134-p. 100
[9c] Section 135(a)-p. 101
Q10: I’m a farmer who sells products direct to consumers. I want to protect the privacy of those who purchase from me and do not want to turn over to FDA any customer information I have in my records. What are the potential penalties if I refuse?
A10: Under HR 2749, FDA would have access to all records relating to the food producer’s distribution of products. Failing to provide records to FDA would constitute adulteration. [10a] The criminal penalty for refusing access to records would be up to ten years imprisonment. [10b] The civil fines could be up to $100,000 for an individual and $7.5 million for a corporation. [10c]
[10a] Section 207(a)-pp. 119-120
[10b] Section 134-p. 100
[10c] Section 135(a)-p. 101
More HR 2749 information is posted through links at http://tinyurl.com/mnm34s
Anyone with additional questions is encouraged to contact the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund directly by calling 703-208-3276 or emailing info@farmtoconsumer.org
Our postal address is
PMB #106-380
4200 Wisconsin Avenue, NW
Washington, District of Columbia 20016
United States
More Info at Farm to Consumer Legal Defense fund http://www.ftcldf.org/news/news-15june2009.htm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.