[[The bill is to get a lot more oversight and regulation in the industrial food realm]]
You DO understand how regulatory authority works, doncha?
Hint: not the way you appear to believe it does.
[[self regulation ain't working]]
This is simply stupid.
There hasn't been "self-regulation" in agriculture or food distribution in over a century. On top of which, you'll get nowhere real fast citing unsupported claims
[[There are lots of exemptions in this bill for people who sell direct, gross under $500K (but of course one has to actually read the bill instead of simply sending scary emails around).]]
And exemptions are fine, and so is noting the particulars. But here's the thing about regulatory enforcement that you'd appear to not understand:
The regulatory agency doesn't have to prove that you do not qualify for the exemption; YOU have to prove you DO.
Regulatory enforcement is not law enforcement. In law enforcement the burden of proof lies with the government to prove you broke the law. In regulatory enforcement the burden of proof is on the citizen to prove that the **government** broke the law ... the law which allows it to regulate.
Which means that any government agency which is lawfully allowed to "regulate" can claim anyone at any time is in violation of their regulation - even someone like you who sells direct to your customers and grosses $100K. If the USDA gets a complaint from, say, ME that you are in violation of this regulation, USDA has a lawful ability to investigate that complaint ... and shut you down until that complaint is resolved.
And if you don't think this sort of petty abuse of regulation is used by legions of latter-day Hatfields and McCoys to drive their competition out of business by using the government as a useful stooge, then you need to hang around the feed store on Thursday mornings a bit more and listen to the old boys talk. Anonymous complaints cannot be prosecuted.
Then, of course, you have another type of hyper-enforcement started by a government agent who has taken an instant dislike to someone, or who is otherwise too big for his britches, and who makes a crusade against, say, Boulder Belt Eco-Farm, just because he wants to. This agent can shut you down to investigate his belief that you are in violation of the regulation he is charged to impose - and if you live on this farm as well, he can kick you out of your home while it's going on. You'll have to hire a loyyer and CPA to represent you in federal administrative court, and you'll likely win, but at great [and nonrecoverable] financial cost.
...and then the agent takes a break before investigating you yet again for some other cause. The agent has loyyers and investigators on staff, paid by the taxpayers; you have to hire your own. Lather, rinse, repeat, until you can no longer afford to defend yourself against baseless charges. What legal claims do you have against the regulatory agency or the agent?
Zero, zip, zilch, nada, bupkus. The agent who has made it his mission to drive you out of business does not need to prove he has the legal authority to regulate, nor to investigate what he "believes" are violations of those regulations; further, he has immunity from prosecution, as does the agency he works for, against charges of malfeasance in the conduct of their official duties. They are not redressable by tort law. And forget criminal law. If you or I did this, it would be fraud. When the government does it, they don't even have to say "Ooopsy!"
And if you don't think THIS happens, then you haven't been watching the drama of PA raw milk clubs unfolding in the last several years.
Exemptions don't mean a damn.
SB 510 was a $500Billion authorization to hector and harass because as many as 3,000 Americans die from food poisoning each year [a very small proportion of which is actually contracted from food] ... which is just about as low a %age as you can find of any nation on the planet. By contrast, 30,000 die each year from complications of influenza [both figures from CDC; HHS repeatedly cited the 3,000 food poisoning deaths as justification for SB 510].
It would be cheaper to hire 3,000 personal chefs. But, since most death and illness from the bacteria of "food-borne illness" is not contracted from food, but from door-knobs, public surfaces, money, hand-shakes, etc, a refresher on basic hygiene would be more productive.
But that, then, wouldn't give alarmists the justification to raise alarm, nor government the justification for hoovering up more power for itself that it was never intended to have.