fallowfields
RFD America — I knew about this bill benefiting big agribusiness and big (faux) organic farmers. It was bound to happen. The small guys were becoming a nuisance.

This is a sad day for American family farmers. Today, the House passed Produce Traceability Initiative and House Bill 2749, Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009 by a vote of 283 to 142. The nanny State will now be able to control every piece of food consumers eat, down to the garlic that was used to make the garlic salt in our cupboards. What’s worse, not only will the Government be able to control what we eat, they now have complete control over what farmers grow and who we can sell our products to. The days of farmers markets, CSAs, and market gardens are long gone. Forever lost, thanks to the progressive fascists in Congress, is the ability of rural people to barter between ourselves for goods and services. We too, will be monitored by the Government to make sure our food is safe.




  1. amodedoma says:

    It would appear that all that money Monsanto’s been investing in lobbying congress is finally showing dividends. That’s very bad for the environment and the public at large, and no I don’t think GM (Genetically Modified not General Motors) products are safe and I want a choice of not buying them. Fortunately, here in Europe, washington lobbyists have no influence, yet.

  2. Ah_Yea says:

    The Obama Administration want to own and control us.

    I have used this example before and it certainly applies here.

    When you join the military, they give you:
    A) Housing
    B) Healthcare
    C) Employment
    D) Food

    The Obama Administration will give you:
    A) Housing
    B) Healthcare
    C) Employment
    D) Food

    The military provides all the basic necessities, and they own you.
    The Obama Administration will provide you with all the basic necessities, and they will own you just as sure.

    Obama is far worse than Bush.

  3. brm says:

    The next time we write a Constitution, can we please leave the Commerce Clause out of it?

  4. LibertyLover says:

    This is ridiculous.

    NOW do people see the two-headed snake?

  5. Ah_Yea says:

    Speaking of the Commerce Clause, I wonder if this would apply to a local grocer who sells in the local market. Wouldn’t that come under state’s rights?

  6. GF says:

    I never thought I could get rich selling asparagus on the black market. I’ll just make sure I get paid in gold.

    And congress thought the Tea Party march was scary. This may be the straw that breaks the back. That and BS legislation about regulating used toys at garage sales. Somebody get me a guillotine.

  7. bobbo, the devout evangelical anti-theist says:

    #5–Ah Yea==it should but it doesn’t. Cases are right on point. When you grow and sell intrastate, you still affect commerce.

    You know the first anti-discrimination against blacks was done under the commerce clause? Motels not renting to blacks affects commerce.

    Everything is commerce.

    “Usually” there are small business exemptions. Hard to believe this is going to do away with local farmers markets.

    Still the opponents of this overreaching paid for legislation don’t do themselves well when they argue: “Who grew those vegetables? How was your beef, chicken, and pork raised? If you don’t know the answers to these questions, you don’t know what true food security is….” I buy at several local Farmer’s Markets and I don’t know the foregoing.

    Why is everything in USA so corrupted by big business? Money corrupts, yes, but the people’s clear interest is also supposed to be relevant.

  8. Unimatrix0 says:

    When the 2010 elections get here, I don’t care if you vote democrat or republican. But do vote again EVERY incumbent running for reelection. These congress and senate critters have gone off the reservation and exists only for the sake of lobbyist and special interest group kick backs and payoffs. They no longer represent America or the constituents.

  9. Mr. Bill says:

    It will be killed in the Senate.

  10. AC_in_Mich says:

    #8

    Your suggestion won’t solve anything. The “newbies” will probably be more beholden to the campaign corporate contributors. It takes more money to get elected than re-elected and where do yo think that money comes from?
    The only way things will change is if we successfully remove corporate money from elections. That, more than anything, I think has made America into the United $tate$ of Money.

    AC

  11. RAAALF says:

    We have a small farm 1 acre, we supply 2 farmers markets. Its a bit of a hobby but it does supply us and those who purchase with quality non certified yet organic in our opinion veggies.

    I think well continue doing our thing, We have better stuff to do then worry about washington.

    NH Live Free or Die.

  12. Michael says:

    I’m sorry. Maybe I’m just dense. You all are against food safety?

  13. RAAALF says:

    sorry for a double just was thinking.

    If your against farmers markets, and home grown veggies than you are a racist plain and simple. I guess its because we are not lazy and we pick our own vegetables.

  14. Ralph, the Bus Driver says:

    What a bunch of effen ijits. This “report” is from a biased, “Libertarian” magazine that is anti anything government.

    This bill makes farmers identify and be responsible for their produce. The majority of food poisoning outbreaks over the past 15 years have been from produce, not meat. (Produce is often meant to be eaten raw while meat is cooked. Cooking generally kills most pathogens.)

    As it is now, when you buy a tomato in the store, you have no idea where that came from. You don’t know if it is a Mexican farm where they use raw pig shit as a fertilizer or a California farm where they “accidentally” sprayed their field with unpasteurized cow shit. Forget any sticker; currently there is no inspection or control over origin.

    We the people asked for this accountability. If you want to couch it in terms of “the government is intruding into our lives, oh no, the farmers can’t kill people” bullshit then you are just plain ignorant.

  15. Dallas says:

    I actually read the bill instead of the above fluffy rhetorical shit about chips embedded in tomatoes

    Improving the integrity of the food supply seems like a good idea. Evidently both Democrats and Republipukes agreed.

    Next time you get sick and hurl after eating a Chinese cow burger, you can check if indeed it had 4 legs instead of 6.

  16. badtimes says:

    The article lost me when they said “Forever lost … is the ability of rural people to barter between ourselves for goods and services.” You only have to think about that for a second to realize it’s pure BS.

  17. amodedoma says:

    #14 Not all, but most here are so blinded by their political convictions that they’re incapable of expressing their ideas in other terms. To these geniuses party line bullshit takes the place of reasoning or free thinking. Unfortunately many americans don’t eat fresh food. Pop something in the microwave and bing. They have no awareness of the value of quality nutrition, so they don’t know what they’re missing until they get an E Coli infection.

  18. Ken Mullings says:

    This is an excellent idea, and all the racist Obama-bashers can just go die of undiscovered ecoli in their Mexican-doodoo-laced lettuce. No one needs uncontrolled farmers growing God-knows-what and then selling it to the rest of us.

  19. alphgeek says:

    As someone who works within the food industry I think you should actually be thankful that the government cares enough to get involved with enuring that your food supply is safe.

    You really have no idea how bad some food producers would be without constant vigilance.

    Sensible food companies can be relied upon to be self-regulating but think about how many of your normal business dealings are with total morons. Then consider whether you would feel safe with morons preparing your food.

  20. Ah_Yea says:

    Hello Bobbo!

    “Money corrupts, yes, but the people’s clear interest is also supposed to be relevant.”

    That’s the quote of the day! And I couldn’t agree more.

  21. Seamus OK says:

    #7 you are wrong. The commerce clause only covers interstate commerce. So, if a farmer sells his stuff in-state, it would not be regulated by a federal law.

    By the way, have any of us actually read this bill, or even a fair summary of it, or are we all just reacting to the polemical headline?

    I for one would not call food safety a nanny-state issue.

  22. Tim says:

    #7, business will do whatever they can get away with. They are only as corrupt as the people we elect will let them be. The politicians have a hard time turning away their money.

  23. Sea Lawyer says:

    #23, no, bobbo is correct. In modern times, variaous court rulings have basically painted us into the position where even noneconomic activities that allow an individual to avoid engaging in commerce can be regulated under the commerce clause. That is the nonsensical world we live in unfortunately.

    Funny how our common law system allows judges to rule in ways that are completely contradictory to the very legal documents that give them their authority in the first place. And people think the Congress and the President need to be guarded against…

  24. MikeN says:

    Seamus, the Supreme Court has upheld under the commerce clause regulation on a farmer growing food for himself.

  25. Mr. Fusion says:

    #27, Lyin’ Mike,

    Close.

    The case was a wheat farmer trying to avoid the regulations by saying all his crop was for his personal use. There is no way he could have used the amount of wheat he had in several years.

    If he had actually grown a reasonable amount of wheat that his family would reasonable expect to consume in a year he would have been OK.

  26. Sea Lawyer says:

    #28, “If he had actually grown a reasonable amount of wheat that his family would reasonable expect to consume in a year he would have been OK.”

    Poor Fusion… you clearly haven’t read the relevent part of Wickard v. Filburn

    Home-grown wheat in this sense competes with wheat in commerce. The stimulation of commerce is a use of the regulatory function quite as definitely as prohibitions or restrictions thereon. This record leaves us in no doubt that Congress may properly have considered that wheat consumed on the farm where grown, if wholly outside the scheme of regulation, would have a substantial effect in defeating and obstructing its purpose to stimulate trade therein at increased prices.

    Congress, as part of its “regulatory” power, not only has the power to dictate all terms and conditions under which two parties may engage in economic activity, but can even compell them to engage in said activities when they otherwise wouldn’t.

  27. stopher2475 says:

    John should open a butcher shop with all the red meat he throws out.

  28. Li says:

    I’m all for improved food safety, but I’m of the informed opinion (I work in the science side of agriculture) that the path to a safer food system is through decentralizing the system, and -encouraging- small farmers and gardeners, even if it takes generous subsidies. The reason is obvious if you think about it; these nationwide outbreaks are only possible because very large farms are sending hundreds of tons of produce through very large processing operations. In such a system, point failures result in massive outbreaks and contamination. This bill, from all I’ve read about it, does little to improve this situation, and instead creates large costs for small growers that generally have much more safe produce than their large competitors. In fact, it attacks the safest group of farmers while protecting the real source of the problem, and that is just completely backwards.

  29. Terencia says:

    Is this pure Pelosi hatred? It certainly doesn’t give a fair view of the bill. According to the what I’ve read the annual fee is $500; nothing for even a backyard farmer (which will be exempt, by the way). And the following is a direct quote from the Washington Post:

    “Agriculture interests were able to win key concessions. Small farms are exempt from registration fees, ranchers and farmers now regulated by the Agriculture Department are excluded from the requirements of the bill and the FDA will have to consider the special concerns of small growers and organic farmers, among other provisions.”

    These types of regulations have been in place for seafood and juice industries for some time, with less food borne illness resulting. So, what’s the (or your) problem?

  30. Li says:

    Ah, good find on that Washington Post article, it seems that some of the most ridiculous aspects of the bill were removed and tempered before passage.


1

Bad Behavior has blocked 10674 access attempts in the last 7 days.