Not logged in, login or create an account

There are 5 replies To this message.

Author Topic: SB S 510
Click to reply to this message
  concerned
  Oakland, CA
Click to reply to this message
SB S 510    (Posted Wed, Aug 4 '10 at 07:15 UTC)

I am concerned about an e mail i received Below is a copy of it.

Dear health-giving-food lovers,

> Please send the following senators listed below my sample letter
> below, or write one and send yours.
> healthfully,
> aajonus
>
> Dear Congress(wo)man,
> I am deeply concerned with your sponsorship of Senate Bill 510.
> That bill represents another hideous attempt to place more power
> into the hands of centralized government and robs individual
> citizens and states. The greatest danger to mankind is that this
> bill allows complete manipulation of America's food supply and
> threatens to strip us of our freedoms to grow, sell, and buy food
> and make doing any of those natural things crimes punishable by
> imprisonment. It would be a crime to grow food and share it with my
> friends and neighbors. The act of generating and supporting this
> bill is in itself criminal to our Constitution to which you are not
> immune. Not only remove your sponsorship from Bill S510 but defeat
> it. Thank you.
>
> Sincerely,
> (your name)
>
> Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) is the sponsor of this bill.
>
> Co-sponsors are:
> Lamar Alexander [R-TN]
> Jeff Bingaman [D-NM]
> Richard Burr [R-NC]
> Roland Burris [D-IL]
> Saxby Chambliss [R-GA]
> Christopher Dodd [D-CT]
> Michael Enzi [R-WY]
> Kirsten Gillibrand [D-NY]
> Judd Gregg [R-NH]
> Thomas Harkin [D-IA]
> Orrin Hatch [R-UT]
> John Isakson [R-GA]
> Edward Kennedy [D-MA]
> Amy Klobuchar [D-MN]
> Ben Nelson [D-NE]
> Tom Udall [D-NM]
> David Vitter [R-LA]
>
> Write these senators today and tell them to revoke their support of
> Senate Bill 510!
> Senate Bill S510 Will Make It Illegal to Grow, Share, Trade or Sell
> Homegrown Food
> by Steve Green
>
> S 510, the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2010, may be the most
> dangerous bill in the history of the US.
> ?If accepted [S 510] would preclude the public?s right to grow,
> own, trade, transport, share, feed and eat each and every food that
> nature makes. It will become the most offensive authority against
> the cultivation, trade and consumption of food and agricultural
> products of one?s choice. It will be unconstitutional and contrary
> to natural law or, if you like, the will of God.? It is similar to
> what India faced with imposition of the salt tax during British
> rule, only S 510 extends control over all food in the US, violating
> the fundamental human right to food." ~ Dr. Shiv Chopra, Canada
> Health whistleblower.
> Monsanto says it has no interest in the bill and would not benefit
> from it, but Monsanto?s Michael Taylor who gave us rBGH and
> unregulated genetically modified (GM) organisms, appears to have
> designed it and is waiting as an appointed Food Czar to the FDA (a
> position unapproved by Congress) to administer the agency it would
> create ? without judicial review ? if it passes.
>
> S 510 would give Monsanto unlimited power over all US seed, food
> supplements, food AND FARMING
>
> History
> In the 1990s, Bill Clinton introduced HACCP (Hazardous Analysis
> Critical Control Points) purportedly to deal with contamination in
> the meat industry. Clinton?s HACCP delighted the offending
> corporate (World Trade Organization ?WTO?) meat packers since it
> allowed them to inspect themselves, eliminated thousands of local
> food processors (with no history of contamination), and centralized
> meat into their control. Monsanto promoted HACCP.
>
> In 2008, Hillary Clinton, urged a powerful centralized food safety
> agency as part of her campaign for president. Her advisor was Mark
> Penn, CEO of Burson Marsteller*, a giant PR firm representing
> Monsanto. Clinton lost, but Clinton friends such as Rosa DeLauro,
> whose husband?s firm lists Monsanto as a progressive client and
> globalization as an area of expertise, introduced early versions of
> S 510.
> S 510 fails on moral, social, economic, political, constitutional,
> and human survival grounds.
>
> 1. It puts all US food and all US farms under Homeland Security and
> the Department of Defense, in the event of contamination or an ill-
> defined emergency. It resembles the Kissinger Plan.
>
> 2. It would end US sovereignty over its own food supply by
> insisting on compliance with the WTO, thus threatening national
> security. It would end the Uruguay Round Agreement Act of 1994,
> which put US sovereignty and US law under perfect protection.
> Instead, S 510 says:
>
> COMPLIANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS.
> Nothing in this Act (or an amendment made by 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.
> 3. It would allow the government, under Maritime Law, to define the
> introduction of any food into commerce (even direct sales between
> individuals) as smuggling into ?the United States.? Since under
> that law, the US is a corporate entity and not a location, ?entry of
> food into the US? covers food produced anywhere within the land mass
> of this country and ?entering into? it by virtue of being produced.
>
> 4. It imposes Codex Alimentarius on the US, a global system of
> control over food. It allows the United Nations (UN), World Health
> Organization (WHO), UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and
> the WTO to take control of every food on earth and remove access to
> natural food supplements. Its bizarre history and its expected
> impact in limiting access to adequate nutrition (while mandating GM
> food, GM animals, pesticides, hormones, irradiation of food, etc.)
> threatens all safe and organic food and health itself, since the
> world knows now it needs vitamins to survive, not just to treat
> illnesses.
> 5. It would remove the right to clean, store and thus own seed in
> the US, putting control of seeds in the hands of Monsanto and other
> multinationals, threatening US security. See Seeds ? How to
> criminalize them, for more details.
>
> 6. It includes NAIS, an animal traceability program that threatens
> all small farmers and ranchers raising animals. The UN is
> participating through the WHO, FAO, WTO, and World Organization for
> Animal Health (OIE) in allowing mass slaughter of even heritage
> breeds of animals and without proof of disease. Biodiversity in
> farm animals is being wiped out to substitute genetically engineered
> animals on which corporations hold patents. Animal diseases can be
> falsely declared. S 510 includes the Centers for Disease Control
> (CDC), despite its corrupt involvement in the H1N1 scandal, which is
> now said to have been concocted by the corporations.
> 7. It extends a failed and destructive HACCP to all food, thus
> threatening to do to all local food production and farming what
> HACCP did to meat production ? put it in corporate hands and worsen
> food safety.
>
> 8. It deconstructs what is left of the American economy. It takes
> agriculture and food, which are the cornerstone of all economies,
> out of the hands of the citizenry, and puts them under the total
> control of multinational corporations influencing the UN, WHO, FAO
> and WTO, with HHS, and CDC, acting as agents, with Homeland Security
> as the enforcer. The chance to rebuild the economy based on
> farming, ranching, gardens, food production, natural health, and all
> the jobs, tools and connected occupations would be eliminated.
> 9. It would allow the government to mandate antibiotics, hormones,
> slaughterhouse waste, pesticides and GMOs. This would industrialize
> every farm in the US, eliminate local organic farming, greatly
> increase global warming from increased use of oil-based products and
> long-distance delivery of foods, and make food even more unsafe.
> The five items listed ? the Five Pillars of Food Safety ? are
> precisely the items in the food supply which are the primary source
> of its danger.
>
> 10. It uses food crimes as the entry into police state power and
> control. The bill postpones defining all the regulations to be
> imposed; postpones defining crimes to be punished, postpones
> defining penalties to be applied. It removes fundamental
> constitutional protections from all citizens in the country, making
> them subject to a corporate tribunal with unlimited power and
> penalties, and without judicial review.
>
> For further information, watch these videos:
> Food Laws ? Forcing people to globalize?
> Corporate Rule?
> Reclaiming Economies?


Ann B. Churchill
 rwilymz
 Edwardsville
Re: SB S 510    (Posted Wed, Aug 4 '10 at 09:55 UTC)

This bill would seem to be doing for fruits, vegetables and other produce what NAIS does for livestock.

...for no clear purpose.

Ross & Jeannie Laura Lane Lambs
 MOOREHAVEN
 Adair
Re: SB S 510    (Posted Thu, Aug 5 '10 at 04:52 UTC)Negative Rank

I swear...I'm gonna get out of the veggie business and dump this site....stupid posters like this really kill the real fresh produce posters commentary. If you're gonna be one of the Y2K fools ......go find another site to spew your ignorance.

Mr. Site Moderator.......get a grip, dude.

 Ohiorganic
 Eaton
Re: SB S 510    (Posted Fri, Aug 6 '10 at 03:42 UTC)Positive Rank

Wow lots of untruths in that letter and such a letter will get one ignored quickly but their elected official(s).

The bill is to get a lot more oversight and regulation in the industrial food realm (which sorely needs it as self regulation ain't working). 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).

it is good to read these bills and get educated AND than send a sane letter, fax or email to your reps-that will usually get some traction. but this sort of thing just sets the movement back several steps.

Lucy Goodman Boulder Belt Eco-Farm Eaton, OH http://boulderbelt.blogspot.com http://www.boulderbeltfarm.com
 concerned
 Oakland, CA
Re: SB S 510    (Posted Fri, Aug 6 '10 at 11:01 UTC)

I originally posted this letter, which I had received as an email. I doubted it was accurate, but had to ask others if there were any truth in it at all. I read a summary of the bill and did not find any reason for concern.Thank you EATON for your intelligent response. It was what I was hoping to hear.

Ann B. Churchill
 rwilymz
 Edwardsville
Re: SB S 510    (Posted Mon, Sep 17 '12 at 02:22 UTC)

[[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.

Would it?

Ross & Jeannie Laura Lane Lambs
Click to reply to this message