Skip to main content

It seems that all the worst of the "food safety" bills have been rolled into one Frankenstein version that Henry Waxman as associated with drafting - HR 2749.  Now, for some reason, ithey have passed it off to Dingell who already had another "food safety" bill, HR 759, which covers tracing (NAIS) and globalization of food.

HR 2749, if one looks closely, is fascist.  And all the things that people were criticizing the other bills such as HR 875 for - all denied by DeLauro and FWW - turn out to be not only true but worse than the worse that was reported.  

For those who want to see a bit of what Waxman will would do to this country, here are some of the provisions, which can be found at FOOD FREEDOM.

Alarming Provisions:

Some of the more alarming provisions in the bill are:

* HR 2749 would impose an annual registration fee of $500 on any "facility" that holds, processes, or manufactures food.  [isn't this every home in the US, every garden?]  Although "farms" are exempt, the agency has defined "farm" narrowly. [What is the definition?]  And people making foods such as lacto-fermented vegetables, cheeses, or breads would be required to register and pay the fee, which could drive beginning and small producers out of business during difficult economic times.  [Yes.  There are laws against this corporate-size-destroys-the-little-guy policy, aren't there?  Are home bread or cheese or lacto-fermented vegetable makers who make for their own families included in this?]

* HR 2749 would empower FDA to regulate how crops are raised and harvested.  It puts the federal government right on the farm, dictating to our farmers.  [What is missing in pointing out this astounding control, is that it opens the door to CODEX and WTO "good farming practices" will include the elimination of organic farming by eliminating manure, mandating GMO animal feed, imposing animal drugs, and ordering applications of petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides.  Farmers, thus, will be locked not only into the industrialization of once normal and organic farms but into the forced purchase of industry's products.  They will be slaves on the land, doing the work they are ordered to do - against their own best wisdom - and paying out to industry against their will.  There will be no way to be frugal, to grow one's own grain to feed the animals, to raise healthy animals without GMO grains or drugs, to work with nature at all.  Grassfed cattle and poultry and hogs will be finished.  So, it needs to be made clear where control will take us.  And weren't these the "rumors on the internet" that were dismissed but are clearly the case?]

* HR 2749 would give FDA the power to order a quarantine of a geographic area, including "prohibiting or restricting the movement of food or of any vehicle being used or that has been used to transport or hold such food within the geographic area."  [This - that has been used to transport or hold such food - would mean all cars that have ever brought groceries home so this means ALL TRANSPORTATION can be shut down under this.  This is using food as a cover for martial law.]  Under this provision, farmers markets and local food sources could be shut down, even if they are not the source of the contamination.  The agency can halt all movement of all food in a geographic area.  [This is also a means of total control over the population under the cover of food, and at any time.]

* HR 2749 would empower FDA to make random warrantless searches of the business records of small farmers and local food producers, without any evidence whatsoever that there has been a violation.  [If these bills cover all who "hold food" then this allows for taking of records of anyone at any time on no basis at all.] Even farmers selling direct to consumers would have to provide the federal government with records on where they buy supplies, how they raise their crops, and a list of customers.

[NAIS for animals and all other foods?]

* HR 2749 charges the Secretary of Health and Human Services with establishing a tracing system for food.  Each "person who produces, manufactures, processes, packs, transports, or holds such food"  [Is this not every home in the US?]  would have to "maintain the full pedigree of the origin and previous distribution history of the food," and "establish and maintain a system for tracing the food that is interoperable with the systems established and maintained by other such persons."  The bill does not explain how far the traceback will extend or how it will be done for multi-ingredient foods.  With all these ambiguities, [with all these ambiguities, it is dangerous, period, separate from the money]  it's far from clear how much it will cost either the farmers or the taxpayers.  [It is massive and absurd and burdensome beyond the capacity of people to comply - is this not fascism? - so it is a set up for being used to impose penalties endlessly and/or to eliminate anyone at will.]

*  HR 2749 creates severe criminal and civil penalties, including prison terms of up to 10 years and/or fines of up to $100,000 for each violation for individuals.  [Does it include judicial review, Congressional oversight, a defined and limited set of penalties and punishments for a defined set of "crimes"?  Or is it entirely ambiguous and left to the whim and sole power of "the Administrator"?  Who is that person set to be?  Is it Michael Taylor, Monsanto lawyer and executive, as Food Democracy has said?  That is, do these bills set up an agency by which the entire US food supply will be turned over to the control of a multinational corporation under WTO regulations (and not to US farmers and not to US laws under the Constitution), with boundless freedom to do what it wants, and one infamous for harm to farmers and lack of safety of food?]

If it was not clear before how frightening these bills were, this small section of provisions, should make their actual fascism clear now.  It goes way beyond "food safety" to absolute control over farms, animals, food, and us, including our movements and access to food at all.

Why is there a diarist at Dailykos saying the bills are basically okay?  Or worst,  why are they saying the bills need a bit more of this or that inpection?    Can't they read?   Do they not to care these bills would destroy farmers and our own rights to produce and choose food (and food supplements) and set up multinationals with absolute police state control over everything we do related to food?  Seems about as far as one could get from progressive and democratic and liberal.    Why are they so encouraging of the bills, so reassuring to those here about the bills?  Do they not understand they are serving the purposes of the corporations who wrote them, the same ones exposed by Food, Inc?

It's clear in the movie who the bad guys are.  Just remember they're the same companies which wrote the "food safety" bills.  Don't be lured in by the words "food safety" - the wolf's trick in Little Red Riding Hood of promising safety, the better to eat her.    

People can call Waxman or any other legislator at 202 224-3121.

But to get a huge number of emails to Congress on this, go here
and share this article and link with everyone you possibly can.  Ask them to send it out everywhere as well.  The bill is on the way to the House for a vote.

Originally posted to Scaredhuman on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:56 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Seems to be a regressive non-tax, tax ploy (0+ / 0-)

    If I just had one day when I wasnt all confused

    by FuzzyDice on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:59:15 AM PDT

  •  Government control is a good thing (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Get used to it.

  •  any other sources then youtube (8+ / 0-)

    and food freedom blog?

    need to know a lot more before hand (and before I hand you the tinfoil. Giving you the benefit of the doubt.)

    (+0.12, -3.33) I didn't vote for the Unitary Exec. Not sure what some of you folks voted for!

    by terrypinder on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 09:00:40 AM PDT

    •  The Food Freedom link gives you the whole bill. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Look it up.  

    •  Funny, your limited focus on "establishment" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      since there is so much showing that the bill is dangerous from so many directions.

      But in terms of definitions, this definition is from HR 875 which is contained in large measure in HR 2749.

      Food and Water Watch said that HR 875  does not include "language" that would regulate, penalize, or shut down backyard gardens.  How true.  It carefully avoids just such "language."  Yet, it can regulate homes and gardens, nonetheless.

      Look very carefully at this section of the bill, showing homes, and thus gardens, are easily included.  

      Place it in its context.

      "FWW's Myths and Facts
H.R. 875 – The Food Safety Modernization Act

      MYTH:    H.R. 875 "makes it illegal to grow your own garden" and would result in the "criminalization of the backyard gardner."

      FACT:    There is no language in the bill that would regulate, penalize, or shut down backyard gardens. This bill is focused on ensuring the safety of foods sold in supermarkets."

      Though private residences are not specifically included, nor are they specifically excluded. While this does not immediately affect home owners growing tomatoes in the backyard, entered testimony leaves the door open for just that in the future. Referring back to the Bio-Terrorism Act, in a discussion on this very topic and entered in the official record of debate on the interim rule, the same argument exists here and no new definitions or exclusions have been provided in HR 875 - and "reasonable" is a subjective term in theory as well as practice...

      Here are the relevant terms to keep an eye on:


      (A) IN GENERAL- The term 'food establishment' means a Slaughterhouse (except those regulated under the Federal Meat Inspection Act or the Poultry Products Inspection Act), factory, Warehouse, or facility owned or operated by a person located in Any State that processes food or a facility that holds, stores, Or transports food or food ingredients.

      Notice that every home in the country "holds" food and also "transports" it(some call it lugging) back from the grocery store.  Will they be included, too?

      Comment by a mother:  He, no.  They're going to be magnanimous and say that, while they could, they won't right now.

      Excerpted from the same Interim Rule:

      "(Response) FDA has concluded that private individual residences are Not ``facilities'' for purposes of the registration provision of the Bioterrorism Act. Under the Bioterrorism Act, the term `facility'' Includes ``any factory, warehouse, or establishment.''

      Congress did not Specify any definition for these terms.

      Under their common meanings, the terms can include private residences.

      For example, according to Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary (1994), the most relevant definition of "establishment" is:

      ``a business firm, club, institution, or residence, including its possessions and employees.''


      ``[I]n determining whether Congress has specifically addressed The question at issue, the court should not confine itself to examining A particular statutory provision in isolation * * *.

      It is a fundamental canon of statutory construction that the words of a Statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in The overall statutory scheme. ''' FDA v. Brown & Williamson TobaccoCorp., 529 U.S. 120, 121 (2000).

      Other parts of the registration Provisions in section 415 of the FD&C Act  Indicate that Congress only intended businesses to register, and raise a  question as to whether Congress intended that private individual residences, even though food Is manufactured/processed, packed, or held at such residences, be considered facilities.

      For instance, a registrant is required to submit``the name and Address of each facility at which, and all trade names Under which, the registrant conducts business * * * `` (21 U.S.C.350d(a)(2)).

      Thus it is unclear whether Congress intended all Individual private residences at which food is manufactured/processed, Packed, or held to be included in the term ``facility.'' Furthermore, The requirement that a facility submit its ``name'' as well as its ``trade names'' raises a question as to whether Congress intended ``facility'' to include private individual residences since
      it is Unlikely that a home would have a name or a trade name.

      Where the words  Of the statute are ambiguous, an agency may make a reasonable Interpretation of the statute.
      Chevron, USA, Inc. V. NRDC, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-843 (1984); Brown & Williamson, supra, at 132.

      Consistent with the language of section 415(a)(2) discussed
      Previously, the agency concludes that interpreting the term``facility'' to exclude private individual residences is a reasonable
      Construction for purposes of registration.  

      This interpretation, however, does not necessarily preclude a reasonable construction of other provisions of the FD&C Act to Include such residences."

      The context:

      Australia is harmonized with the US under HACCP .  As the following comment indicates, the control of food in homes and for sale from homes, is already subject to the very government control at issue here which people call a myth.

      "i wanted to point out that in australia to sell food at a stall or charity fundraiser all ingredients are to be listed, and if you even heat and serve a pastie or pie, someone has to have done a HACCAp course, and keep thermometer reading on the warmer! ditto the fridge etc. I planned to make jam to sell, my home kitchen does not meet their standards, but by any normal home standards it is to make a few dollars i now need to HIRE the local halls kitchen to cook up 10lbs of jam, by the time i pay that, buy the jars etc i would be making less than 25c a jar. and yes i could just do it here, but! the local council can buy a jar, ask where it was cooked and packed, ask to come into my home, and i MUST comply! or, to see reciepts for hall or hired commercial kitchen, and fine me if i cannot prove it was made in an "approved " area.

      "... regardless of us growing bartering, and i heartily endorse that, the laws can , and will be used to catch us at some point. have you heard and seen the home invasion of a small food co op in usa a while ago? family held for hours under arms, food taken, and yet they cannot seem to find a charge that stands? but no apology and NO return of their carefully grown and preserved food either."

      A video of the Stowers who were the ones raided.


    •  What are you talking about? This diarist (0+ / 0-)

      provided sections of the bill so we can see what it's about - where else have you seen it?  And they provided a link to the full bill.  And on top of that provided two great youtube videos to give the background threat.  So, why are you talking "tin foil" anything?  

      •  I read the bill and saw not one of the (0+ / 0-)


        Sometimes, progressives can be exceptionally dumb when it comes to things like this.

        (+0.12, -3.33) I didn't vote for the Unitary Exec. Not sure what some of you folks voted for!

        by terrypinder on Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 05:05:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You would need to provide parts of the (0+ / 0-)

          bill and show how the interpretations are wrong to be taken seriously since the facts of the bill were presented plainly as were the questions about them.  So, just saying you read it and didn't see it, doesn't show anything.  

  •  First, (8+ / 0-)

    the word, fascist is thrown around here like "happy" at a birtday party.  Second, is there a definition in the bill of the term, "facility"?  Generally, that is the norm in legislation.

    •  "Facility" - (9+ / 0-)

      TITLE 21 CHAPTER 9 SUBCHAPTER IV §350d of the US Code:

      (b) Facility
      For purposes of this section:
      (1) The term “facility” includes any factory, warehouse, or establishment (including a factory, warehouse, or establishment of an importer) that manufactures, processes, packs, or holds food. Such term does not include farms; restaurants; other retail food establishments; nonprofit food establishments in which food is prepared for or served directly to the consumer; or fishing vessels (except such vessels engaged in processing as defined in section 123.3(k) of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations).
      (2) The term “domestic facility” means a facility located in any of the States or Territories.
      (A) The term “foreign facility” means a facility that manufacturers, processes, packs, or holds food, but only if food from such facility is exported to the United States without further processing or packaging outside the United States.
      (B) A food may not be considered to have undergone further processing or packaging for purposes of subparagraph (A) solely on the basis that labeling was added or that any similar activity of a de minimis nature was carried out with respect to the food.

      "I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it." - Franklin D. Roosevelt

      by jrooth on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 09:15:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  thank you (5+ / 0-)

        and so it seems it doesn't include my kitchen -- however, one, must of course, look at the definition of "establishment."  One day, Congress will learn how to write non-bullshite annoying legislation which limits litigation.

      •  Good but other statutes apply and it's (0+ / 0-)

        ambiguous and thus will need to be interpreted and we can see who will do that interpreting.  Nowhere are homes and gardens excluded.

        But under HR 875, variances or exemptions are offered to ... foreign countries.

        (d) Variances- States and foreign countries that export produce intended for consumption in the United States may request from the Administrator variances from the requirements of the regulations under subsection

        What's more, it is all subject to interstate commerce.

        C. 406. PRESUMPTION.

        In any action to enforce the requirements of the food safety law, the connection with interstate commerce required for jurisdiction shall be presumed to exist ...

        •  How do other statutes apply (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          given that the definition I quoted comes from the part of the code that is being amended by the portion of the bill that mentions "facilities?"

          Are you seriously going to maintain that a definition which explicitly excludes "farms; restaurants; other retail food establishments; nonprofit food establishments in which food is prepared for or served directly to the consumer; or fishing vessels" would be read by any court to include home gardens and kitchens?

          "I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it." - Franklin D. Roosevelt

          by jrooth on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 09:37:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The wide openness of including those who "hold (0+ / 0-)

            food" leave this open to interpretation and given how many lies we've been told about the bills' safety, it is absurd to believe assurances now.  One need only look at who is behind the bills and who plans to run this totalitarian agency to say these bills need to be scrapped.  Of look at what laws in Europe which are matched to these have done there.  The threats here are endless.

            •  What happened in Europe? n/t (0+ / 0-)
              •  A planned decimation of farms by WTO through (0+ / 0-)

                the EU, using laws "harmonized" with these bills.


                One of our first tasks, as I saw it, was to warn the Poles just what ‘joining the EU’ would mean for the farming population, for rural communities and for the renowned biodiversity of the countryside.

                Through the auspices of a senior civil servant in Warsaw, Jadwiga and I were able to address a meeting with the Brussels-based committee responsible for negotiating Poland’s agricultural terms of entry into the EU. It proved to be an ominous foretaste of things to come.

                The first thing that struck us was the fact that out of the twelve people sitting in the room at the European Commission, not one was Polish. I explained to the attendant body that in a Country where 22 percent of the working population are involved in agriculture, and the majority on small farms, it would not be a good idea to follow the same regime as had been operated in the UK and other EU member countries, in which ‘restructuring’ agriculture had involved throwing the best farmers off the land and amalgamating their farms into large scale monocultural operations designed to supply the predatory supermarket chains. You could have heard a pin drop.

                After clearing her throat and leaning slowly forward, the chair-lady said: “I don't think you understand what EU policy is. Our objective is to ensure that farmers receive the same salary parity as white collar workers in the cities. The only way to achieve this is by restructuring and modernising old fashioned Polish farms to enable them to compete with other countries agricultural economies and the global market. To do this it will be necessary to shift around one million farmers off the land and encourage them to take city and service industry jobs to improve their economic position. The remaining farms will be made competitive with their counterparts in western Europe.”

                There in a nutshell you have the whole tragic story of the clinically instigated demise of European farming over the past three decades. We protested that with unemployment running at 20 percent how would one provide jobs for another million farmers dumped on the streets of Warsaw? This was greeted with a stony silence, eventually broken by a lady from Portugal, who rather quietly remarked that since Portugal joined the European Union, 60 percent of small farmers had already left the land. “The European Union is simply not interested in small farms,” she said.

                And here's what they are ending up with - CAFOs.

                Oh, and they are using "hygiene" there, too, to get rid of farmers.  Milking a cow by hand is now defined as unsanitary so small farmers who have milked that way for centuries but can't afford the energy consuming, green house gas emitting corporate milking machines, are out of business.

          •  Here is how it works. Part VIII (0+ / 0-)

      •  Some help with that. Part VI (0+ / 0-)

    •  When you're standing neck deep in control, the (0+ / 0-)

      word "fascist" seems the one to throw around and the more the better.

  •  Waxman is not going to destroy small farms... (8+ / 0-)

    ..this diary is bull.

    Waxman is one of the good guys. Food safety is a serious issue and the ones that need government oversight are the big agribusinesses that have operated way too long in dangerous and unregulated practices.

    Don't be mislead by this type of fearmongering.

    •  Waxman is pushing a vicious bill from big ag and (0+ / 0-)

      the pharmaceuticals.  How good is he to do that?  And his "reptutation" is irrelevant.  He could be being used, he could be bought out, he could be a fool.  All that matters is the bill itself which will destroy small farmers and control everything done on anything left.  Who cares who Waxman is except as someone who signed on - for whatever reason - to harm us all and our country this way.

      •  You do not have a shred of evidence (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        that this bill supports Big Ag, which reliably bristles against any sort of regulation or oversight whatsoever. Nor do you have any evidence that the bill targets my kitchen. The distinction between private and commercial kitchens is well established, which is why I have never had to spend tens of thousands of dollars building a commercial-grade kitchen in order to serve meat to my guests.

        The purpose of this bill, whose language is quite clear, is to make it easy to prevent disasters like the melamine tainted food, the multiple beef recalls and the peanut butter recall from happening, and if they happen, to establish a chain that allows investigators to quickly determine who did it and why and shut down distribution of the affected food. It's a public health bill, which is exactly what I would expect from Rep. Waxman, and it concerns food safety.

        The one thing that could be problematic is NAIS, both in terms of the cost burden and the implementations currently in use. Otherwise, this seems to be well addressed to preventing the numerous food-related disasters that the Bush administration allowed to happen under their absurdly lax, Big Ag friendly food "policies."

        [F]or too many, the cruelty of our system is part of its appeal. - eightlivesleft

        by oldjohnbrown on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 11:07:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Foreign countries, if you read the comments, (0+ / 0-)

          get an exemption.  And if you read the comments, you also saw they developed this whole farcical "food safety" trap.

          These bills do not threaten big g anymore than HACCP did, because they wrote it and hope to run it.  

          Here's what it will do to small farmers, though.

          That ’game’ was all too familiar to me. Spend hours out of your working day filling in endless forms, filing maps and measuring every last inch of your fields, tracks and farmsteads; applying for ‘passports’ for your cattle and ear tags for your sheep and pigs; re-siting the slurry pit and putting stainless steel and washable tiles on the dairy walls; becoming versed in HASAP hygiene and sanitary rules and applying them where any food processing was to take place; and living under the threat of convictions and fines should one put a finger out of place or be late in supplying some official details

        •  More than a shred. Part IX (0+ / 0-)

    •  food safety is a horseshit pretext (2+ / 0-)

      for protecting big producers. The only way to enforce it is with licenses and processes that can be gamed and exploited. So what happens is that small producers get put out of business for not following safety procedures that don't work while the big guys continue to poison us with toxic factory sludge. This is not an area that can be effectively regulated without destroying the small-margin producers who actually produce real food from nature.

      •  "Food safety" is a lie they are using to try to (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        World Patriot

        take complete control.  

        Here's how it works

        Tayloring the Message: The Trust for America’s Health
        The public should familiarize itself with three key reports produced by The Trust for America’s Health: “Keeping America’s Food Safe: A Blueprint for Fixing the Food and Safety System at the US Department of Health and Human Services,”(1) “Fixing Food Safety: Protecting America’s Food Supply from Farm-to-Fork,”(2) and the “Blueprint for a Healthier America: Modernizing the Federal Public Health System to Focus on Prevention and Preparedness.”(3)

        President Obama’s nominee for Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration Margaret Hamburg, MD, sits on the board of directors at the Trust for America’s Health.  Hamburg, a well-connected player in the public health field, also serves on the board of directors of the Rockefeller Foundation. Among other things, the Rockefeller’s vast fortune is responsible for funding foundations and institutes that spread unsafe genetically-engineered food crops around the world.(4)  Sadly, those who hoped that Obama’s election would herald positive changes have repeatedly found themselves duped: the deep corporate ties of his appointees guarantee a continuation of corporate control over the US government, a veritable concierge service on steroids for private interests.

        A notable craftsman at the Trust for America’s Health is none other than the notorious Michael R. Taylor, JD.  Taylor penned a paper included as an appendix of “Keeping America Safe: A Blueprint for Fixing the Food Safety System at the Department of Health and Human Services” called “Restructuring Food Safety at HHS: Design and Implementation.”  In it, Taylor prescribes the creation of a new Food Safety Administration that consolidates all safety functions formerly performed by a host of other government regulatory agencies and institutes on a federal level the use of industry-friendly “risk assessment” methods.

        Monsanto’s Jack of All Trades
        Most people who know Michael Taylor’s name recall that he worked as Monsanto’s lawyer at King & Spalding for years before being appointed to the FDA to oversee the swift introduction into the marketplace of GMOs.  He did so by ramming through a faux scientific regulatory conceit called “substantial equivalence.”

        Industry-independent scientists have rightly criticized the concept of substantial equivalence as an inappropriate method for determining safety, calling it “a pseudo-scientific concept because it is a commercial and political judgment masquerading as it if were scientific.  It is, moreover, inherently anti-scientific because it was created primarily to provide an excuse for not requiring biochemical or toxicological tests.  It therefore serves to discourage and inhibit potentially informative scientific research.”(5)

        FDA scientists at the Division of Food Chemistry and Technology wanted to see testing performed to ensure that GMO foods didn’t increase levels of naturally occurring toxins, create new, previously unidentified toxins, increase the tendency to gather toxic substances from the environment such as pesticides or heavy metals, and alter the level nutrients.(6)  Ignoring their scientific objections, the politically-appointed Taylor let loose GMO technology on the nation of guinea pigs without requiring any legitimate safety and toxicology investigations to protect public health.  He also ensured that the public would remain ignorant of GMOs in their food by instituting a no-labeling policy.   Now, almost 80% of the food sold in grocery stores contains GMOs.  Monsanto subsequently rewarded Taylor for his government work by making him its Vice President of Public Policy.

        These days, we find that Taylor has morphed from Monsanto’s VP into a “research professor” at George Washington University School of Public Heath and Health Services.  He also spends his time writing policy at a number of industry-funded think tanks, including Resources for the Future, Resolve Inc, the Food Safety Research Consortium, and the Alliance to End Hunger, ...

        Taylor has spent years churning out the necessary conceptual building blocks in cross-pollinating think tanks and foundations to create the intellectual framework for legislative proposals like these food “safety” bills.
        The reports produced by the Trust of America’s Health rely heavily on “risk assessment, management and communication,” a form of message control hatched at the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, a corporate-funded affair that provides “scientific” justification for a wide range of policies corporations want to see implemented.   Using this method of risk analysis, the necessary justification can be produced for just about whatever outcome is wished by the underwriters.

    •  If he's so good, why is he wrecking farming? (0+ / 0-)

      He can't have it both ways.  He's looking like hell in this, like DeLauro does now.

  •  Food "facilities" are typically defined as... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oldjohnbrown, terrypinder, alguien

    any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined animal-feeding operation. That's how it has been defined in recent bills related to food safety. (I can source it if you want me to dick around in the Fed Register)

    Considering that they have exempted farms, those required to spend the $500 is quite narrow.

  •  Scare tactics and FEAR can be used by (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oldjohnbrown, terrypinder, trumpeter

    purists on both sides. I doubt Waxman is being something that is "designed to destroy small farms".

    Have you done your homework? Give us more than just a couple alarmist Youtube videos.

  •  fearmongering. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    terrypinder, World Patriot

    I won't be thrown off by your fearmongering. The intent of this Bill is extremely troubling to me. This bill is getting down to the micro part of food production which happens to be the level currently threatning the existence of agro giants like monsanto and cargill, as well as the level from which truly healthy food will be grown. A bill in the larger interest of food safety would call out mega solutions first, since all of our serious food safety problems exist within the mega corporate horror world of industrial food production. Just go watch "Food Inc" and let's talk afterwards. There is a clear and robust reaction at the grassroots level against industrial food production. Monsanto et al know this very well. Even a cursory examination of this bill reveals its corporate authorship and direction. Waxman is either misled or complicit in this. While Scaredhuman may not have all the legal or cultural ducks in a row, this diary points to a very real and (yes) fascist, outcome. Do you really think in a world where trillions of dollars go to mega banks, mega defense, and mega insurance, that mega ag doesn't rule just as totally ?

  •  You aren't helping your cause (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    terrypinder, Rich in PA, trumpeter

    with your over-the-top hyperbole. It makes it quite easy to dismiss your objections to the bill as lacking any merit.

    Better beans and bacon in peace than cakes and ale in fear... Aesop

    by mr crabby on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 09:32:21 AM PDT

    •  The problem is that the size of what they are (0+ / 0-)

      doing can't be described in micro terms that might make you comfortable.  The level of control the bill would establish is fascist in quality and the combination of government and corporate control is fascist by definition.  Those are realities and it's why the compromising the organic community had thought to do with these bills is absurd.  They have to be stopped.

      "It also gives us a very special, secret pleasure to see how unaware the people around us are of what is really happening to them."  Hitler

    •  No need for an excuse (0+ / 0-)

      Why is it that people like to say that something about the way the writer presents information "makes it quite easy to dismiss your objections to the bill as lacking any merit?" It is obvious that any excuse will do. Maybe if I forget to dot an "i" that can be used as an exuse to bury one's head in the sand and dismiss my comment. An excuse to do or not do something is merely a smokescreen for prior intent.

      •  Trolls here are doing their paid job to try (0+ / 0-)

        to discredit what is here but all that is here is the bill and logical connections to it so there is no counter arguments, only "any excuse will do," as you say.

        Their job is to keep people from listening so they will stay doubting of or disconnected from or fully uninformed of what is going on.  

        "It also gives us a very special, secret pleasure to see how unaware the people around us are of what is really happening to them."  -  Hitler

    •  Am I wrong but isn't most of the material on (0+ / 0-)

      bill in an article that was quoted?  And in videos?  You objecting to the use of the word fascism?  How much more would it take for you to see what's this is?

  •  DeLauro a HUGE disappointment here in CT (0+ / 0-)

    Her husband, Stan Greenberg is a lobbyist for Monsanto. What they do with GMOs, "Terminator" and "suicide" genes, and patenting crops so native peoples have to pay royalities to grow them, in addition to their war against Organic farmers, is just despicable. Rosie went along with all this corporate shit. It's time for someone to challenge her.

    •  This is what should happen when representatives (0+ / 0-)

      betray such fundamentals to our lives - they need to be called out for it.  People in her district need to expose her connections to big ag and her large PAC donations and her husband's obviously not rejected or non-existent Monsanto connection.  

  •  You want to have it both ways--I get it! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    terrypinder, lyubansky

    You want, I assume a safe food supply and a real monitoring/control of agribusiness.  But you don't want government authority over producers you happen to consider "jus' folks," who would never ever represent any kind of problem, because they're small and cuddly and have cool bumper stickers on their trucks!

    I'd like to have it both ways, too.  But we can't.

    Al que no le guste el caldo, le dan dos tazas.

    by Rich in PA on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 09:42:54 AM PDT

    •  Easy to get what we need. Get rid of HACCP. (0+ / 0-)

      HACCP was the beginning of the problem and these bills will multiple all the things it did wrong.  HACCP was the first "food safety" plan, also brought to us by the WTO and the multinationals.  It wiped out local processors and centralized our food system, and reduced inspections, and gave industry what they wanted.

      Easy to see what they did to us.

      Get rid of HACCP and go back to inspecting, not paperwork the corporations control and not surveillance, monitoring, licensing, fees, warrantless entry, taking of records, and massive punishments for the sectors of the food system not responsible for the disasters in the first place - farmers, gardeners, farmers markets, church kitchens, coops, etc.  

      HACCP got rid of 72 local processors none of whom had ever had a problem.  Left ConAngra and Tysons and Cargill with all their filth, holding even more control over our food.  

      Get rid of it.

  •  promoting local control of food (0+ / 0-)

    is a #1 concern right now, for all kinds of reasons. This is something that left and right actually can come together on - everyone but Monsanto, ADM, and their whores in the federal government, actually - and this bill needs to be broken.

    I'd like to see Waxman try to regulate Michelle's organic garden. :-)

    •  You're so right about local control of food. A (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sychotic1, World Patriot

      stronger way to look at this - what do we need to have happen?  Decentralization of the food supply.  Local control.  This bill and the others are the polar opposite.  Local control means less greenhouse gases, organic means the same.  Every things this bill will do vastly increases transport, petrochemicals, CAFOs, etc.

      Here's a good look at what that means.

      What you said about Michelle Obama raises a question - why is Obama pushing for this?  Why did he put Taylor on the transition team?  Why is he pushing biotech since it grossly increases use of pesticides and thus greenhouse gases and overuses water?  He needs to be held accountable for being the opposite of green and having his wife grow a little garden outside the White House doesn't make up for the horror of having Monsanto run the entire US food supply from inside the White House.  PR.  Greenwashing.  Dressing up to look "organic" while setting up to kill it.

      •  Obama has given us bad signs on food issues from (0+ / 0-)

        the beginning, actually. If he got us the other stuff we could fight some of this, but the locavore/organic/etc. movement is growing and growing and there are going to be concerted efforts from big ag to destroy it, which Obama will probably not oppose. I think the best we can hope for is that the horse has already gotten out the barn door, and won't be stopped by corporate-government intimidation.

      •  A wolf (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        A wolf in sheep's clothing is still a wolf. Maybe the Obamas know something that we don't. Maybe they know that an organic garden will keep them healthy while the rest of us get sick from CAFOs and GMOs that are flooding our food supply courtesy of the USDA and chemical companies such as Monsanto.

        •  Yes, about wolf in sheep's clothing. And the (0+ / 0-)

          garden will be good for them and good for PR to fool people into believing he is pro-organic for everyone and not just himself and his family.  

          Big ag has called organic "elitist" but it's what they eat.  For most people, organic means "clean" and "safe" and also ... free, as in independent of corporations.  

          This battle is for freedom which, interestingly, is intimately related to the quality of our food and to our health.

          Appreciate your posting.

          •  PR (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            And PR is everything in this age, isn't it? Remember all of the PR that Bush's crew subjected us to? He was portrayed as a working cowboy, just a good old boy, down on the ranch, cutting wood with the rest of us. Media spin, nothing more. Sure, it appears that he cut a few pieces of wood for the camera, just as Mrs. Obama is growing a garden in full view of the cameras. A two-fold purpose to the garden - personal health and PR spin for the proles.

  •  See FOOD, Inc. review (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Factory food sickens humans, livestock and the environment.

    What we eat has changed more in the last 50 years than in the last 10,000. So asserts Robert Kenner’s new film, FOOD, Inc., which opens nationwide June 19th.  

    The vast bulk of food production is now controlled by just a few mega-corporations with one value: profit. Relying on genetic engineering, pesticides and antibiotics, factory food is cheap, requiring little land. But the external costs to our health, the environment and the natural food industry are enormous.

    Then parse this legislation... Big Ag is going for total control.

  •  All of this food talk is making me hungry (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sychotic1, lyubansky

    I think I'll go into my "facility" (non-profit food establishment) and "process" myself a nice sandwich.

    Is it OK to "hold" it while I eat?  

  •  Please (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Where is the scary Codex Alimentarius hoopla where you try to assert that soon all nutritional food will be banned and anything with "nutrients" will be regulated as a drug?

    As I posted in another over the top diary the other day.... the right-wing nut have always sound vacuous reasons to convince themselves that the Government was working to take away their guns... now we have left-wing nuts convinced the government will take away our vegetables.

    Thinking men cannot be ruled. --Ayn Rand

    by Wisper on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 11:22:39 AM PDT

    •  Watch Food, Inc. They already are taking your (0+ / 0-)

      vegetables.  Or controlling what you get of them.

      Codex in the bills, courtesy of B. Mosher who posted this after reading one of the bills.  And Codex supposedly goes into place by December 31 of this year.  Knowing the worldwide resistance to it and that it is recognized as fascist, hey have proudly hidden it into these bills.  

      The really scary stuff is the direct paraphrasing of Codex Alimentarius initiatives opportunistically wedged between seemingly rational improved safeguards for the general public in food production and distribution that will be readily accepted by a populace scared to death by their peanut butter and baby formula. These provisions are dissected into a form that most people won't have the time or patience to digest, due to incomprehensibility that one gifted in legalese can create when they want certain negative specifics overlooked in deference to the overall facade they wish to be seen.

      The most drastic change this bill tries to impose is the re-definition and restructuring of the "Food and Drug Administration,"the FDA.

      in the bill's own words:

      "Renaming and Reservation of Agency Identity- The Food and Drug Administration in the Department of Health and Human Services is hereby renamed the Federal Drug and Device Administration and may be referred to as 'FDA'."

      I find it pretty sinister, completely revamping the direction of a well known agency, yet keeping the acronym exactly thesame, leaving unwitting people to assume that nothing's changed...

      there's also a provision that automatically transfers previously registered food related businesses under a recognized, long-standing code of law to the restrictions and responsibilities of this bill:

      "(C )Transitional Provision- During the 6-month period following the date of the enactment of this Act, a food establishment is deemed to be registered in accordance with this section if the establishment is registered under section 415 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 350d)."

      So this bill, if passed, automatically registers unwitting farmers and processors to its provisions, without notice - there's got to be something illegal in that - basically shifting restrictions and responsibilties from one contract to another without consent.

      ...This change brings all kinds of new areas under their jurisdiction, from surveillance of businesses and livestock, to the main crux of the fear of Codex standards being implemented - a complete and total revamping of what can be labeled as a "contaminant."

      Previously, dietary supplements, such as vitamins and minerals, couldn't be regulated by the FDA.  Under this bill, a food-borne illness outbreak is defined as:

      "the occurrence of 2 or more cases of a similar illness resulting from the ingestion of a common food."

      Now, those things that cause an "outbreak" are considered "contaminants."

      [This article explains who is behind the bills and about CODEX.]

      both vitamin c and magnesium can cause diarrhea in some people at currently acceptable dosage levels. Magnesium will do it to almost anyone if they take the entire current RDA (500 mg.) at the same time. If two people get diarrhea from either of these substances, their status as "contaminants" will be cemented, putting them under the regulation of these agencies under DHHS.

      More on the contaminant thing...

      The bill states that the Administrator of Food Safety only has to come up with a list of "contaminants" they will regulate SIX MOTHS AFTER enactment of the bill. This means that congress will have a bill in front of them that every fan of peanut butter will want passed from its name alone, yet not have any idea what this person, (be they an employee of Monsanto, or a pharmaceutical company, or a tobacco executive, or a health-food guru,) intends to regulate or outlaw. Codex specialists insist that codex will eventually implement a Napoleonic code of what we'll be allowed to consume. This sure sounds like a beginning of that to me.

      back to the "outbreak" issue...

      the bill constantly focuses on what it calls "specific categories of consumers" like in this section:

      "(B ) Comprehensive Analysis- The program shall be based on a comprehensive analysis of the hazards associated with different food and with the processing of different food, including the identification and evaluation of--

      (1) the severity of the potential health risks;

      (2) the sources of potentially hazardous contamination or practices extending from the farm or ranch to the consumer that may increase the risk of food-borne illness;

      (3) the potential for persistence, multiplication, or concentration of naturally occurring or added contaminants in food;

      (4) the potential for hazardous contamination to have cumulative toxic effects, multigenerational effects, or effects on specific categories of consumers;

      (5) opportunities across the food production, processing, distribution, and retail system to reduce potential health risks; and

      (6) opportunities for intentional contamination of food or food ingredients"

      now earlier in the bill they refer to a few "specific categories of consumer" as babies, the old, or the infirmed, (I'm assuming here that "infirmed" encompasses the immuno-compromised.)

      so if any two people in these groups are negatively affected by any "ingestion of a common food" that product, and anything in it becomes a potential "contaminant" subject to regulation or dis-allowance.

      so if two AIDS patients drink raw milk from the local Amish farm, and get sick, everyone at the farm is now liable both civilly (crushing their livelihood) and criminally - punishable with up to five years in a non-mortal case, and ten in a case where someone were to die. Not only that, but then raw milk would be federally regulated (kind of like a controlled substance,) or outright outlawed.

      This bill, as the author of the article above states, can mandate treatments for crops and livestock that it deems necessary to prevent contamination, such as mandating which products are acceptable to do so - I'm sure DOW lobbyists are squeeling with delight for the prospects of the new toxic pesticides they're developing...

      You may think that all this regulation and oversight may pertain solely to those who distribute food as a business, but no - this pertains to your home garden. There's a provision that demands:

      "a comparison of the safety of commercial processing with the health hazards associated with food that is harvested for recreational or subsistence purposes and prepared noncommercially..."

      [A woman in the EU has been charged for growing herbs.  Watch the video explaining about CODEX.]

      so at some point in the near future, if you grow your own food, you may be required by law to spray it with round-up.

      All in all, I haven't seen a more devastating attempt at infringement on an individual's personal way of life than the USA PATRIOT act. This must be stopped... at all costs.

      And for those who've never heard of it, Codex is not just fascist in how things would be dealt with or in it being a merger of government and corporate control but it's historically fascist as in real Nazis and currently connected to them.

      And it is estimated to kill millions.

  •  This is the dumbest thing I've read all day (3+ / 0-)

    HR 2749 would give FDA the power to order a quarantine of a geographic area, including "prohibiting or restricting the movement of food or of any vehicle being used or that has been used to transport or hold such food within the geographic area."  This - that has been used to transport or hold such food - would mean all cars that have ever brought groceries home so this means ALL TRANSPORTATION can be shut down under this.  This is using food as a cover for martial law.]

    ZOMG!  Oh Noez!  One time I carried a pack of gum in my pocket ALL DAY.  I even crossed the border between DC and Maryland!!!  Can the Government quarantine my favorite Lucky Brand jeans??!?!?!? Would they take ALL of my pants?  Or kick me out of my own home since I used it to store my "Food Smuggling Accessoreies"??  DEAR GOD!!  I COULD BE HOMELESS!  THE GOVERNMENT IS TRYING TO TAKE MY HOUSE AND LEAVE ME NAKED IN THE STREETS!

    Will the mysterious MIE (Men in Eggplant) agents show up at my door and "disappear" me or zap me with their special Monsanto Beam to wipe out all memory of what Heirloon Tomatoes taste like.   THE HORROR!!!

    This is stupid.

    I would have at least given you some serious snark cred if your last Bullet Point of CRAZY was "Soylent Green is PEOPLE!!!!".   Now THAT would have been funny.

    Thinking men cannot be ruled. --Ayn Rand

    by Wisper on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 11:31:57 AM PDT

  •  Show me the necessity for these measures (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    There are none.

    These measures are draconian.  

    While the major food producers literally make people ill with their synthetic food additives, excess SUGAR, FAT and SALT, and death-dealing OVER-REFINED dead foods, why are the corporate mouthpieces bearing down on local producers with legislation like this?

    While giant meat producers break every regulation on the books and poison consumers regularly, why are they given pass after pass, and instead the small producer is forced to submit to draconian measures?

    It appears to be an effort to squash the competition (no matter how small!) of the transnational and other corporate entities.  This bill assists the Giant Food Processing Industry and Agri-Business at the expense of the small growers and local food industry made up of small businesses.

    This HR 2749 is unacceptable!

    (It really looks like it could have been born out of the fear-mongering of the Bush Reich Homeland Security mindset;  but it is phony because the only parties to suffer here are the small food businesses while the giant companies keep lumbering on as they are always permitted to.  The bigger the corporation, the bigger the campaign donation.  Therefore it does bear the markings of FASCISM.)


  •  HR 2749 - Another abuse in a very long line (0+ / 0-)

    I'm glad people are looking at this. It is no wonder that Waxman offered to hold 875 and not let it out of committee!! Go figure - and then he can't even put his name on the bill that his own office leaked over a week ago - fitting...

    This bill is merely a combination of the WORST parts of 875 and 759 - in addition to tacking numbers in where they were unspecified before (its ONLY saving grace, not that any Mom and Pop place could afford an extra $500 a year to appease the national food Gestapo and WTO)

    And all the poor folks that hitched their wagons to the wrong stars (OCA, Locovore, Crooks & Liars, FWW) are out trying to let even more people know they still cannot even read English - How cool...

    People who can might appreciate the levity and candor -


Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site