Re: Senate Bill 510 potentially illegalizes gardens/seed saving
BB, first, the link you gave refers to HR 875 not S510. Additionally, I have recently found Snopes to be suspiciously like a voice for the "party line". I have found Natural News and Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, to be knowledgeable and honest.
Some other facts excerpted from other sites:According to the National Independent Consumers and Farmers Association, which opposes the legislation, “S.B. 510 will have the unintended destructive consequence of eliminating small farms and consumer access to local food.”
While the legislation does not overtly seek to shut down farms, it does expand the government’s power to inspect the small, local operations that sell food such as vegetables, milk or homegrown meats. And unfortunately, according to the NICFA, it would also give inspectors the power to feasibly shut down a farm upon inspection.
....any time the government is able to regulate what is grown in private businesses or family-owned farms, it is taking rights away from everyone.
With the economy struggling and high unemployment threatening people’s livelihoods, let’s hope the government can come up with something better than new regulation that will only harm small businesses.
http://www.wnewsj.com/main.asp?SectionI ... eID=185120******************************
Wonder why the National Guard or Federal agents have effectively imposed martial law by quarantining your town? Under S.B. 510’s House counterpart bill, H.R. 2749
(which has already passed the House!)(Section 133b, “Authority to Prohibit or Restrict the Movement of Food”), sponsored by Congressman Dingell, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will have the power to prohibit all movement of all food within a geographic area, whether the food is in your grandmother’s grocery bag in her Toyota Hybrid or on a flatbed. No court order will be needed, just a phone call to the appropriate state official and a public announcement will be sufficient.
.............. Amazed that U.S. food safety regulations strangely match those of other countries? Well, Section 306 of S.B. 510 would require “Recommendations to harmonize requirements under the Codex Alimentarius.”
(How long have we been aware of the dangers of Codex Alimentarius? I've been watching it for at least 4 -5 years, other people probably much longer.)http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-ne ... e-entirely************************
Will the Food Safety Bill Make Food Safe?By Alison Rose Levy 10/28/2010
I read the bill and the proposed amendment and spoke with leading experts from organizations that support — and others that oppose — the bill to answer a few basic questions:
1) Are small and/or local suppliers exempt from onerous provisions that would drive them out of business?
..... the proposed Tester Amendment (up this week for a vote for inclusion in S510) would, if included, go even further. It would definitely make small providers adhere to more modest reporting requirements, and exempt them from the extensive ones required of larger companies. The flexibility would also extend to food products sold locally.
Concerned consumers can write their Senators to request inclusion of the complete language of the Tester Amendment, which would also exempt home gardens.
James S. Turner, Chairman of Citizens for Health:
Quote:
“We have the most contaminated food supply of any industrialized country because of the way FDA applies laws,” says Turner, who I interviewed this week (listen here). “The problem is that the words written on paper and the way the FDA typically enforces are two different things.”
2) How exactly will S510 make food safer?
...... the FDA’s stated aim will be to enforce labeling, tracking and monitoring practices, not safer growing practices. In addition, S510 aims to coordinate with Homeland Security to decrease any perceived risks of terrorism impacting the U.S. food supply.
S510 neither mandates nor mentions the safer practices that health consumers and small, farm-friendly groups typically ask for, such as a ban on the use of:
con. here:
http://www.allvoices.com/s/event-454806 ... Vucy5vcmcv**********************
For those interested in comparing the actual contents of the bill to claims made on both sides, a summary is available here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z ... D&summ2=m&Here are a few highlights which, IMHO, can be easily used/interpreted to benefit the corporate giants, especially Monsanto:
Quote:
expand the authority of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to inspect records related to food, including to: (1) allow the inspection of records of food that the Secretary reasonably believes is likely to be affected in a similar manner as an adulterated food; and (2) require that each person (excluding farms and restaurants) who manufactures, processes, packs, distributes, receives, holds, or imports an article of food permit inspection of his or her records if the Secretary believes that there is a reasonable probability that the use of or exposure to such food will cause serious adverse health consequences or death.
Quote:
(Sec. 105) Sets forth provisions related to produce safety, including to require the Secretary to: (1) establish science-based minimum standards for the safe production and harvesting of those types of fruits and vegetables that are raw agricultural commodities to minimize the risk of serious adverse health consequences or death;
Quote:
(Sec. 404) Declares that nothing in this Act shall be construed in a manner inconsistent with the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization or any other treaty or international agreement to which the United States is a party
(How do you read this? My interpretation is that the US must make its laws in conformity with international treaties, agreements and organizations to which it is a party. IOW, global control over food supplies)Quote:
(Sec. 406) Requires the Secretary, acting through the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, to study the transportation of food for consumption in the United States, including an examination of the unique needs of rural and frontier areas with regard to the delivery of safe food.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z ... D&summ2=m&This bill may not say specifically that I can't grown my own tomatoes and share them with my neighbors, or that I can't save my own seed from Heirloom plants, but you can bet I'm staying below the radar, because the rules are there and the interpretation is left to the FDA and DHS. and I don't think this is JMHO.