ten buck$ says he got what he voted for...Hahahahah. Let me guess many of these small organic farmers support the CSPI or similar groups when they seek to impose stricter rules on larger non-organic farms.
The sad part is that the cantelopes weren’t tainted from where they grew, but from a contaminated truck which hauled them.
Once again, the overreach is staggering!
OOOOOps!
the Libs yapping about organic are now the target.
I buy “ organic “, non antibiotic, etc meats from wholefoods..veggies and fruits, well, it depends.
Leave it to the capitalist private sector..Let the consumer decide.We’re not stupid.
ten buck$ says he got what he voted for...he’s going to totally alienate all the small scale organic hippy farmers , who were one of his ,admittedly minor , solid bases of support . I love it .
Remember that most regulations are written by the huge food conglomerates themselves. These regs seem to put many restrictions on those conglomerates, but they can afford to comply with them. Small farmers can't. That's the strategy.
They are not trying to protect us. They are protecting themselves from competition.
If there really is concern about solving a problem, it seems that farmers who sell their own produce at the farm or at nearby cooperatives that clearly identify the source farms should be exempt from these rules. At that point, the consumer has the ability to make responsible choices.
When it is possible, we want it outlawed.
I seriously doubt it. CSPI loves corporate farming and corporate feeding..........they seek to destroy all mom and pop endeavors that involve food and beverage - whether growing, processing, or serving.
Probably these food safety “activists” are simply more of the Move On .org crowd…trying to make as many people as miserable as possible, not be able to run a small business, and eventually starve us all to death.
What we're not going to hear from constitutionally clueless Mr. Halper of the LA Times concerning this story is the following. Although constitutionally clueless Mr. Crawford was undoubtedly properly diplomatic when he was confronted by the likewise constitutionally clueless FDA inspector, please take note. As a consequence of Mr. Halper's parents, the parents of Mr. Crawford, and the parents of the FDA inspector, not making sure that their sons and daughters were taught about the federal government's constitutionally limited powers, neither the LA times or Mr. Crawford was able to point out the following major constitutional problem with the FDA's proposed rules concerning organic farming methods.
Simply put, Mr. Crawford wasn't prepared to point out to the FDA inspector that the states have never delegated to Congress, via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate intrastate agricultural production. But since constitutionally clueless federal government bureaucrats are likely not going to understand the significance that the word “agriculture” is not used in the Constitution, it is good that the Supreme Court has officially clarified this agricultural limit on federal government powers, in terms of the 10th Amendment nonetheless, as the following excerpt from a case opinion clearly shows.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited. None to regulate agricultural production is given, and therefore legislation by Congress for that purpose is forbidden (emphasis added).” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Note that although Mr. Crawford's agricultural production is constitutionally protected from any federal interference whatsoever as long as he doesn't take it out of the state to sell it, in which case the feds can properly regulate his produce under the Commerce Clause imo, the state that Mr. Crawford is farming in is free to regulate his produce, ultimately in accordance with what the produce quality that voters in his state want.
Also consider that there are undoubtedly federal bureaucrats and lawmakers who will argue, contrary to the idea of the main reason why the Founding States decided to constitutionally enumerate the federal government's limited powers, that since the Constitution doesn't say that they can't do something, like establishing a constitutionally indefensible federal spending programs like Obamacare Democratcare, then they can do it.
However ...
Note that the excerpt above from United States v. Butler contains the following wording.
“To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited.”
So the Constitution's silence on issues like agriculture, public healthcare and immigration as a few examples, are properly interpreted to mean that Congress doesn't have the power to regulate intrastate agricultural produce and other applicable issues any more than it can make laws to regulate our 1st Amendment-protected rights!
Next, note that one of the reasons that parents are not making sure that their children are taught how to argue the federal government's constitutionally limited powers is the following imo. After Butler was decided, FDR's activist majority justices seized the opportunity provided by another agriculture-related case, Wickard v. Filburn, to unconstitutionally expand Congress's Commerce Clause powers. In fact, not only does the Wickard v. Filburn opinion not refer to the 10th Amendment-related agricultural precedent in the prevoius United States v. Butler case (corrections welcome), but using terms like "some concept" and "implicit," here is what was left of the 10th Amendment in the Wickard opinion after FDR's activist justices got finished with it.
“In discussion and decision, the point of reference, instead of being what was “necessary and proper” to the exercise by Congress of its granted power, was often some concept of sovereignty thought to be implicit (emphases added) in the status of statehood. Certain activities such as “production,” “manufacturing,” and “mining” were occasionally said to be within the province of state governments and beyond the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause.”—Wickard v. Filburn, 1942.
FDR's corrupt justices essentially watered down 10th Amendment-protected state sovereignty to a wives' tale.
Again, the country is reaping the consequences of parents not making sure that their children are being taught the federal government's constitutionally limited powers. And Judge Andrew Napolitano will take about three minutes of your time to read those powers to you.
Judge Napolitano & the Constitution
Shoot, shovel, shut up.
Many of those, of course [assuming the numbers are even close to accurate] have no idea of how to clean the food or cook it. This is an example of the liberal communist view that the people are too stupid to even cook their own dinner without the state's help.