Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

FDA begins implementing sweeping food-safety law
Washington Post ^ | January 4, 2013 | Brady Dennis

Posted on 01/04/2013 7:45:19 PM PST by Vince Ferrer

The Obama administration moved ahead Friday with the first major overhaul of the nation’s food-safety system in more than 70 years, proposing tough new standards for fruit and vegetable producers and food manufacturers.

The long-awaited proposals by the Food and Drug Administration are part of a fundamental change aimed at preventing food-borne outbreaks — caused by everything from leafy greens to canteloupes to peanut butter — rather than simply reacting to them. Every year, contaminated foods sicken an estimated 48 million Americans and kill 3,000.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: agenda21; bho44; bhofda; fda; foodsupply
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-114 next last
To: exDemMom

“How on earth is the free market going to assure that?”

The same way it assures everything else, and infinitely more effeiciently than government. It amazes me how quickly after new frontiers of regulation open up people forget that somehow people got along before. In a few decades they’ll probably wondered how we lived without socialized healthcare and ate without a national food distribution genteel, or didn’t drown in the melted polar ice cap seas without the ban on CO 2.

“Abuse of any part of the constitution happens because voters keep electing people who promise goodies in exchange for power.”

Which is why we are not a democracy and have a Constitution in the first place. It defeats its own purpose to throw up your hands and say, “Oh well, voters screwed it up. Whattya gonna do?” I am under no delusion that the Constitution isn’t dead letter. It hasn’t really been in force for more than 150 years, and hasn’t bothered anyone’s conscience since the New Deal. But that doesn’t mean we have to join in.


61 posted on 01/05/2013 10:28:35 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: freedomfiter2

The Constitution actually expanded the power of government, or rather further centralized it. Nevertheless, following your line of thought both it and Magna Carta were smaller units of government limiting a bigger one. Such power sharing and limiting goes on amongst gangsters. Moreso, probably, because it is harder for them to monopolize force, living as they do not only in competition with rival gangs but also in the shadow of government.

Roberts’ decision was the opposite of gangsterism, which would be more akin to him selling his vote to some private concern. It was a power grab for the centralist of central government, and as such was pure statism.


62 posted on 01/05/2013 10:36:20 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

The general welfare clause is limited by the following expressed legislative powers. They can lay and collect taxes to provide for the general welfare pursuant to the limited power of Congress as further laid out in the article. If that were not the case, why would they bother listing further what they can and cannot do? Why list the common defense, even? Congress could be dealt with in one sentence, reading “The Congress shall have the power to do whatever it wants to provide for the general welfare.”

By the way, you’ll see what you mention is only the power to tax. That is not the power to spend, to regulate, or whatever else you desire. Once you have the money, you can only do with it not whatever provides for the general welfare, but what the Constitution further says is Congress’ power. This is born out by the 10th amendment, which clarifies that all power not explicitly granted to the central government is reserved by the states and the people. There’s no way either group gave up whatever is in the general welfare, for that is according to how it’s interpreted nowadays to give up nearly all power.

Madison is clear as a bell on this issue. So is Hamilton, when he wasn’t advocating for his own pet projects.


63 posted on 01/05/2013 10:56:08 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
In the case of food safety, I have a feeling that people would react strongly and negatively should the government fail to fulfil its constitutional duty to promote the general welfare.

Of course you are correct, even though some have chosen to take issue with your statement. I wonder if your detractors were the same folks who blasted government for allowing China to export melamine in food to the US, and not doing more to stop it.

I'll be the first to say that the FDA is a huge, overreaching, and bureaucratic nightmare. I know because I used to deal with them on a regular basis. However, most people don't have a clue what it was like prior to its formation, because they haven't bothered to read about all the deaths and illnesses that occurred from our food supply due to the reasons you cite. The FDA could be a much better organization, but it is a hell of a lot better now than it was before it came into being.

64 posted on 01/05/2013 11:01:48 AM PST by Mase (Save me from the people who would save me from myself!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

“people will needlessly get hurt or even killed by the time a problem is even discovered.”

And no one will ever suffer with the feds in charge. Why, before the FDA bodies were writhing in street, without anyone even guessing why. Now, no one’s heard of such a thing as tainted food, let alone eaten it. Every time a leaf of lettuce is contaminated a federal official’s senses tingle, and he sends helpers to the four corners of the country to find it. No one ever gets special treatment. They never ban substances that aren’t an actual danger or punish businesses that don’t endanger the public.

Also, water isn’t wet and hamburgers eat people.

Salt bans, by the way, have only been on local level Cities don’t need no general welfare clause. Although, I wouldn’t object too fiercely to a 9th amendment challenge on a salt rights basis.


65 posted on 01/05/2013 11:06:12 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Mase

If ever I wonder how we let Leviathan grow to such gargantuan proportions, I’ll only need remind myself that even Freepers defend the elastic, if not unlimited, general welfare clause. The rest of us wonder why there’s even be a Constitution if it worked like that, meanwhile you’re content to sit content with the hope that now you won’t ne poisoned.


66 posted on 01/05/2013 11:12:02 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Mase

“they haven’t bothered to read about all the deaths and illnesses that occurred from our food supply”

Read what, The Jungle? Pffft. Thank God for the government, for now we have clean food and eight hour workdays, children don’t work in factories, and the air and water are cleaner than ever. Pay no attention to how things were improving right before governmemt swooped in to fix them. Regulations must be assumed to have maximal impact, and it must be forever the dark ages without them because...well, some reason. Pay no attention, either, to all the bad things monstrous agencies pile on top of the good results we don’t know wouldn’t have happened anyway, because, come on, that’s just mean.

By the way, what is with all the easy macrofying? Since when is it THE food supply, instead of the millions of little interactions food production and consumption is actually made up of? They like you thinking nationally like that. Then it’s only a matter of the government grabbing control of the thing that’s already national in your mind.

We have, for instance, this purported simultaneous national hunger and national obesity problem, somehow, which we mostly care about “for the children.” Food safety has already been established as in the interest of the general welfare. Why not “food security” and healthy eating? Will you let children be fat and go hungry, like how we used to let people be poisoned by tainted food? The answer is clear: we must nationalize the food distribution system. We must force parents to follow nationally designed food plans at home. Food is too important to be left to the vagaries of the market. Look what the free market has given us so far!/s

This may sound like reductio ad absurdum, but it’s only a matter of time. The only reason, I guess, most people think the feds controlling food safety is natural and constitutional, and that life without it is unimaginable-—aside from the usual socialistic arguments—is because it has been around for so long. Time covers a multitude of sins.


67 posted on 01/05/2013 11:33:05 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Vince Ferrer
He is already hitting hard the low cost restaurant industry with ObamaCare

These businesses were also the target of those pushing for taxes for those making over $250,000. I believe most of the franchises are in this range.

They couldn't get them thru taxes so they're going after them thru regulation.

These business employ a huge number of workers. Pure evil is at work.

68 posted on 01/05/2013 12:10:19 PM PST by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
I have no issue with the federal government fulfilling its constitutional duties.

General Welfare? You need to do some reading about what our Founding Fathers meant by general welfare. The market place does a fine job of regulating food safety. The government adds little value at great expense. The USDA's budget is over $135 Billion per year. A good chunk of what the pencil necked geeks sitting in Washington is create regulations forcing farmers into following useless and expensive regulations. Those pencil necked geeks never worked on a farm, and they look down their nose at the what they consider red neck or huckleberry farmers. So we pay taxes to pay for the USDA and then we have to pay higher prices at the grocery store.

To hell with the USDA. I am willing to take my chances with food safety without them ... actually, I do all the time. I grow vegetables, hunt and fish. I have never been sick.

69 posted on 01/05/2013 2:27:30 PM PST by ConservativeInPA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: DBrow

I get your point, but isn’t that like discussing where the deck furniture is positioned as we rapidly approach the iceberg?


70 posted on 01/05/2013 3:19:54 PM PST by exnavy (Fish or cut bait ...Got ammo, Godspeed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...

Thanks Vince Ferrer.


71 posted on 01/05/2013 3:28:15 PM PST by SunkenCiv (Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
And no one will ever suffer with the feds in charge. Why, before the FDA bodies were writhing in street, without anyone even guessing why.

Actually, that was pretty much true. People got sick from foodborne illnesses all the time. Vendors committed all kinds of unethical acts in order to increase their profits. For example, flour was diluted with clay and tricks were played to make rotten meat look palatable. If it weren't for the highly unethical practices of unregulated vendors of both food and drugs, leading to many illnesses and deaths, the FDA would never have been established. As far as I know, only the poorest countries do not have an FDA type agency.

72 posted on 01/05/2013 6:39:51 PM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

I want safe food, and looking to big government for it is the sure path to failure. It is also unconstitutional.

I shudder to think what else you’d like the government to control.


73 posted on 01/05/2013 6:51:40 PM PST by dinodino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Mase
Of course you are correct, even though some have chosen to take issue with your statement. I wonder if your detractors were the same folks who blasted government for allowing China to export melamine in food to the US, and not doing more to stop it.

Indeed. I remember quite a few threads here on Free Republic about the melamine problem, and I don't recall seeing a single poster claiming that free market forces were adequate to handle the situation. The sentiment that government should have done more seemed almost unanimous at the time. I even see posters complaining about food imports from places like Mexico, because they don't think Mexican produced foods are as safe... they apparently take the function of the FDA so much for granted that they think a safe food supply occurs all by itself.

I'll be the first to say that the FDA is a huge, overreaching, and bureaucratic nightmare. I know because I used to deal with them on a regular basis. However, most people don't have a clue what it was like prior to its formation, because they haven't bothered to read about all the deaths and illnesses that occurred from our food supply due to the reasons you cite. The FDA could be a much better organization, but it is a hell of a lot better now than it was before it came into being.

I don't deal with the FDA, but I have plenty of experience with other government agencies (especially the CDC). Being in the Army myself, I've come to realize that we all work together and depend on each other. And yes, I know how unwieldy a bureaucracy can be. The ideal government agency would be one that is ruthlessly pared back to its constitutional functions. Unfortunately, when agencies like the FDA or EPA overstep their constitutional bounds, the reaction of many people here on FR is to call for them to be eliminated--which really is not a solution at all.

74 posted on 01/05/2013 6:54:36 PM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

What other countries do about regulating what their citizens is irrelevant. Please stay the hell out of MY pantry. If you want food regulations, lobby for State and local, not Federal. If you are confused as to why, read the Constitution.


75 posted on 01/05/2013 6:54:36 PM PST by dinodino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
Harass farmers and ranchers even More?
76 posted on 01/05/2013 7:03:45 PM PST by SisterK (Freedom to Fascism. Aaron Russo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
Maintaining food safety is a huge challenge.

Most of what my family consumes is raised/grown/produced right here at home. We are pretty safe.
77 posted on 01/05/2013 7:12:31 PM PST by jy8z (From the next to last exit before the end of the internet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: dinodino
I want safe food, and looking to big government for it is the sure path to failure. It is also unconstitutional.

I shudder to think what else you’d like the government to control.

Okay, as a reminder, I'll put it here again:
The first clause of Article I, Section 8, reads, "The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."

If you do not believe that the government actually has a constitutional duty to promote the general welfare, do you also believe that the government should not maintain a military? Because I see the military mentioned there, too, in the exact same clause.

What other countries do about regulating what their citizens is irrelevant. Please stay the hell out of MY pantry. If you want food regulations, lobby for State and local, not Federal. If you are confused as to why, read the Constitution.

I consider being able to go to the store and buy safe, wholesome food an enhancement of my freedom. Not having to worry about getting deathly ill from tainted food leaves me with more time to worry about other things. Apparently, you don't feel that way.

BTW, your state has a health department that regulates your local grocery stores and restaurants. Food, however, comes under federal jurisdiction because it is rarely grown, processed, and sold in the same state where it is grown.

78 posted on 01/05/2013 8:00:04 PM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

I consider being able to go to the store and buy safe, wholesome food an enhancement of my freedom. Not having to worry about getting deathly ill from tainted food leaves me with more time to worry about other things. Apparently, you don’t feel that


More regulation is enhancmeent of freedom? Wow, I’ve heard it all now. What else will you sell for enhancement of your freedom?

There is no difference between liberals and conservatives, the answer to every problem is MORE GOVERNMENT.


79 posted on 01/05/2013 8:11:16 PM PST by PeterPrinciple ( Lord save me from some conservatives, they don't understand human nature any better than liberals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Vince Ferrer

Has anyone noticed the run of “Hunger in America” commercials lately?

They are trying to infer that just about anyone in your neighborhood is struggling with putting food on the table.

Propaganda to de-stigmatize food stamps, IMO.


80 posted on 01/05/2013 8:55:48 PM PST by Rebelbase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-114 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson