Journal Marxist Hacker 42's Journal: Flip-flopping on S510 again 9
I am always for consumer protections. But S510 as originally written would have made your backyard garden illegal, and killed small local and raw foods producers entirely.
The new version, however, contains protections for anybody who has under $500,000 in sales- they don't have to abide by the protections in this bill. And that's how it should be- if you want to take the risk with local, raw foods you should be able to. But huge agribusinesses that sell across state lines shouldn't be able to skimp on production costs.
However, it's now the 11th hour- quite literally. S510 either passes the Senate this week, or will have to start over again with the next Congress. So will you join me in signing this petition from Change.org?
I dunno (Score:1)
In general the Left thinks private industry is teh fail and govt. is the answer, and the Right thinks govt. is teh fail and private industry is the answer. So this bill is about more govt., versus say the Coburn [ning.com] alternative [senate.gov]. And I'd like to know why people like Lindsey Graham and John McCain voted against it. (And why no Democrat voted against it.)
So some people say it's a good bill, some say it's a baddie, and there's even people who say it's a "maybe" [grist.org] -- I think I tend to sympathize with what the 3rd pane
Backyard Gardens Illegal? Seriously? (Score:2)
I need to see a citation for this, or the original form of the bill, because this is an incredulous claim.
Sassafras is a banned food additive, but this only means that it cannot be used in foods intended for the consumption of others ("others" meaning more or less anyone outside of your immediate family).
Alcohol has to be explicitly allowed by law to make at home, but that's because Alcohol is a controlled substance.
Now, granted you cannot grow Cannabis in your own backyard anywhere in the USA (well, entire
Re: (Score:1)
I think the idea is that the original was a one-size-fits-all bill, typical of what one gets from the Progressive Left. A few tainted food events being in recent memory is being used as an excuse by an outgoing lame duck Dem-owned Congress to build up more govt. power and control, in this particular federal agency for this move. And in the sloppy rush to do so, some of the interesting ramnifications maybe weren't realized.
Declaring that the FDA can regulate all food distribution, and mandating that it requi
Re: (Score:2)
Let's try this again... can anyone give me the ACTUAL BILL or facts rather than injecting personal opinion and rhetorical hyperbole?
I mean can describe the functions of the PATRIOT act without calling it a that the Right-wing are using to bring the country into their perfect Big Brother state... so, can someone please point me to actual information rather than rhetoric?
(BTW, I'm not debating all the points that I disagree with, because they are UNIMPORTANT OPINION at this point. I need facts to build my own
Re: (Score:2)
Found it [govtrack.us]
Things to note:
All of the "who this applies to" is front-loaded.
Section 101 is already in application, it first simply reworks the target section to be a two point matter, followed by an additional section to require that anyone selling anything that is exposed to "food of concern" also will need to allow inspection from the Department of Agriculture at all times. This however specifically excludes restaurants and farms (you know, farms, like your backyard garden)
Section 102 mostly just concerns it
Re: (Score:2)
This article contains a link to HR875 & S425, the original bill, and explains the connection to backyard gardening ("Urban farming"):
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=12671 [campaignforliberty.com]
Clearly S510 is a much updated version, and the concerns no longer apply. No new agency anymore- this is under the FDA umbrella. Some new police powers, but certainly NOT enforcing a federal standard to use chemical pesticides. etc.
Re: (Score:2)
"I need to see a citation for this, or the original form of the bill, because this is an incredulous claim."
The original form of the bill stated that *any* food production had to have a USDA lab on site. That's where this comes from. It basically turned *food* into a controlled substance.
Still does in a way- as many civil libertarians are pointing out, this gives the FDA *absolute* power of recall over marketed goods in the current form. But it now only applies to farms and agribusinesses with more than
Re: (Score:2)
The original form of the bill stated that *any* food production had to have a USDA lab on site. That's where this comes from. It basically turned *food* into a controlled substance.
Here is the full text of S425 [govtrack.us], please point to where it states that all food production has to have a USDA lab on site.
The requirements are that you have to allow the USDA to inspect it at any time.
I've already attacked your broad argument, and I'm not going to address singular issues unless you reference specific points of the bill.
As an example of why I won't do that, I could claim that the PATRIOT ACT allows the government to declare an American citizen as a terrorist, and secret them away in the middle