• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

senate bill s510 makes it illegal to grow, share, trade or sell hoemgrown food.

Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
316
Reaction score
117
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Senate Bill S510 Makes it illegal to Grow, Share, Trade or Sell Homegrown Food |

"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."

Now that you're scared, here's a link to the actual bill

S. 510: FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (GovTrack.us)

I think environmentalists and organic food eating sissies should endorse libertarianism as a way to save their precious homegrown foods. Instead I always hear a lot of "wouldn't it be nice if"'s from environmentalists and organic hippies that fantasize about a big tyrannical state that takes away HFC and Fried Foods and other things that are deemed more dangerous than the expansion of the State. Environmentalists have brought this on themselves. It's time for environmentalists to embrace the free market. San Fransico soda bans and New York salt bans are not done to show support for healthy organic hippie goodness. The state works against EVERYONE. Dismissing everything as some kind of corporate state-capitalist scheme to kill and enslave people with HFC does nothing to protect your organic crops and hippie life style.
 

Johnny

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
571
Reaction score
205
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
This bill is wrong on so many levels.
 

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,925
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
We gotta get rid of them Liberals. Some of us saw this tyranny heading our way. It'll be a great day in this country when everyone can see it.
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Senate Bill S510 Makes it illegal to Grow, Share, Trade or Sell Homegrown Food |

"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."

Now that you're scared, here's a link to the actual bill

S. 510: FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (GovTrack.us)

I think environmentalists and organic food eating sissies should endorse libertarianism as a way to save their precious homegrown foods. Instead I always hear a lot of "wouldn't it be nice if"'s from environmentalists and organic hippies that fantasize about a big tyrannical state that takes away HFC and Fried Foods and other things that are deemed more dangerous than the expansion of the State. Environmentalists have brought this on themselves. It's time for environmentalists to embrace the free market. San Fransico soda bans and New York salt bans are not done to show support for healthy organic hippie goodness. The state works against EVERYONE. Dismissing everything as some kind of corporate state-capitalist scheme to kill and enslave people with HFC does nothing to protect your organic crops and hippie life style.
I have just read the summary of this bill, and nowhere does it say that growing food is illegal. What this bill does is to allow the CDC to track food borne illness, requires inspection of some food items entering our food supply, provides Homeland Security greater ability to track food that has been altered (which terrorists could do), and places greater protection on food that is imported (good idea, considering some of the crap coming from China that would not meet our safety standards.

All in all, I like this bill. It does provide a measure of protection from tainted, or altered food, and it does NOT prevent ANYONE from growing their own. My only concerns are the cost, and if the Federal Government has the Constitutional authority to do this.
 
Last edited:

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
106,866
Reaction score
50,789
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
The source is a conspiracy nut blog, the bill has languished in committee for a year with almost no action, and it does not do what the blog claims. Now that is impressive.
 
Last edited:

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,925
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I have just read the summary of this bill, and nowhere does it say that growing food is illegal. What this bill does is to allow the CDC to track food borne illness, requires inspection of some food items entering our food supply, provides Homeland Security greater ability to track food that has been altered (which terrorists could do), and places greater protection on food that is imported (good idea, considering some of the crap coming from China that would not meet our safety standards.

All in all, I like this bill. It does provide a measure of protection from tainted, or altered food, and it does NOT prevent ANYONE from growing their own. My only concerns are the cost, and if the Federal Government has the Constitutional authority to do this.
The summary of the Obamacare bill didn't say anything about a paramilitary unit that answers only to the POTUS, either.
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The summary of the Obamacare bill didn't say anything about a paramilitary unit that answers only to the POTUS, either.
Show me exactly where, in the bill, it says that you can't grow your own food. LOL.
 
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
316
Reaction score
117
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I have just read the summary of this bill, and nowhere does it say that growing food is illegal.
I had a feeling that the environmentalist conspiracy blogs that are covering this bill are jumping at the gun abit. I figured it would just be a good way to do an "if it were true, then--" rant. I'm going to play devils advocate a little bit here though.

What this bill does is to allow the CDC to track food borne illness, requires inspection of some food items entering our food supply, provides Homeland Security greater ability to track food that has been altered (which terrorists could do), and places greater protection on food that is imported (good idea, considering some of the crap coming from China that would not meet our safety standards.
As you've said, this bill has the possibility of stiffling production and therefor incuring a higher cost and therefor a higher price. As for imported food, why can't the free market decide that produce from China isn't good enough for them? Isn't it hard to contaminate food anyways? It sounds to me it would be pretty easy to track such a crime which is why it hasn't been done. That's why it's probably better and more successful to commit identity theft and blow yourself up beyond recognition.
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I had a feeling that the environmentalist conspiracy blogs that are covering this bill are jumping at the gun abit. I figured it would just be a good way to do an "if it were true, then--" rant. I'm going to play devils advocate a little bit here though.



As you've said, this bill has the possibility of stiffling production and therefor incuring a higher cost and therefor a higher price. As for imported food, why can't the free market decide that produce from China isn't good enough for them? Isn't it hard to contaminate food anyways? It sounds to me it would be pretty easy to track such a crime which is why it hasn't been done. That's why it's probably better and more successful to commit identity theft and blow yourself up beyond recognition.
Tainted milk and baby forumula, anyone? Hell, Chinese pet food killed a lot of dogs and cats not long ago. The free market didn't find that either.
 
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
316
Reaction score
117
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The source is a conspiracy nut blog, the bill has languished in committee for a year with almost no action, and it does not do what the blog claims. Now that is impressive.
Absolutely. Environmentalist bloggers would rather Alex Jones their way through things or endorse an ever increasing nanny state.
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
answer my question anyone?
I did. I answered your question with another question. Now I believe in free markets, but I am not an anarchist. We do need some level of regulation to keep them honest.
 

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,925
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Show me exactly where, in the bill, it says that you can't grow your own food. LOL.

My point is, that just because it isn't in the summary, doesn't mean it isn't in the bill. Your attempt to prove a negative was a predictable failure.

oh, yeah...LOL
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
106,866
Reaction score
50,789
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Absolutely. Environmentalist bloggers would rather Alex Jones their way through things or endorse an ever increasing nanny state.
The point is, the blog has exactly zero credibility, and this is a nothing bill that ain't moving anywhere, and does not do what your OP claimed. You cannot spin this into anything but just that. It took almost, but not quite, 2 minutes to discover this was a complete nonstory.
 
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
316
Reaction score
117
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I did. I answered your question with another question. Now I believe in free markets, but I am not an anarchist. We do need some level of regulation to keep them honest.
Contaminated food will occur in regulated markets just as much as it will in free markets. We see this in our regulated markets with, well, milk, baby formula, pet food.. Since fraud is a form of aggression and since businesses would like their customers to feel a sense of security the free market would be just as well equipped at setting standards. They would like to make records and do survalience of their shops, distribution centers and transportation and do other forms of quality control that exist today without Government intervention. If farms do not meat this quality and commerce standard, the store may not order more of their food if their customers feel that their food is contaminated. I mean how many self righteous product hounds are there that avoid "made in china" but end up buying "made in china" because our regulated markets and the state don't allow us to compete cost effectively or the ability for consumers to keep their wealth. If the Government regulates imports while it regulates domestic production what will we have left? Is the Government going to pass a healthy eating bill that requires it's citizens to buy a food subscription because all of the big food companies are too big to fail? If there was more unregulated domestic competition, would chinese baby formula and pet food be necessary? The state created this dependency on cheap foreign imports. Why should we trust the state to solve this problem with domestic regulations?
 
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
316
Reaction score
117
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The point is, the blog has exactly zero credibility, and this is a nothing bill that ain't moving anywhere, and does not do what your OP claimed. You cannot spin this into anything but just that. It took almost, but not quite, 2 minutes to discover this was a complete nonstory.
I don't think you understand my intent on posting a conspiracy link. The stagnance of the bill is irrelevant. If environmentalists and organic food hippies are to believe that the state is capable of such things said in the OP, then environmentalists shouldn't look to the state whenever some species of animal is dying or fighting on behalf of the obese to make them eat healthier.

I would have posted an article from the hill regarding this but the forum rules require that my thread title be the same title as the source I choose. I know what happens to threads that have boring thread titles. Nobody posts in them. "Yawn, boring. *marks read*". As far as I can tell, the bill isn't stagnant. It still has legs. Senate Strikes Bipartisan Agreement on Food Safety
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
My point is, that just because it isn't in the summary, doesn't mean it isn't in the bill. Your attempt to prove a negative was a predictable failure.

oh, yeah...LOL
I said prove it. You haven't.
 

Barbbtx

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
8,467
Reaction score
1,993
Location
W'Ford TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
The point is, the blog has exactly zero credibility, and this is a nothing bill that ain't moving anywhere, and does not do what your OP claimed. You cannot spin this into anything but just that. It took almost, but not quite, 2 minutes to discover this was a complete nonstory.
The bill is real.
It looks to me like it's just more regulations, more paper work, more government intervention to stifle the free market. If it passes costs will necessarily sky rocket. There's nothing I saw that exempts small farmers who sell at farmers markets etc. or those who sell/share with friends and family. Nanny state business as usual.
What did we do before we had the FDA. Oh, I know. We made sure our food was good and safe because we needed repeat customers. The free market can't work without customers, competetion and a good product.
I'm sure their are some good ideas in it. However, as with most the crap laws we pass, they wouldn't be necessary if we just ENFORCED the ones we already have.
 

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,083
Reaction score
3,918
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
When I see the word "security" and "safety" in any bill, it gives me pause.

Just because the bill doesn't specifically say that they're going to come out and shut down community gardens, doesn't mean that the wording of this law can't be twisted to accomplish just that. The corporate food industry has been actively trying to shut down community gardens in big cities for more than a decade now, and also place restrictions on home-grown food making it to public spaces.

I can just see the corporate powers salivating over this one. The danger of food is coming from corporate agriculture, not community gardens that grow organic. No one has ever gotten listeria from eating a home grown tomato.

The number of food inspections done by the government in the U.S. has dropped sharply from a decade ago. Why are regulators becoming more and more hesitant to enforce sanitation and testing laws on corporate agriculture?

This is just another bill to give industry the license to come down on individuals.
 

justabubba

long standing member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
50,494
Reaction score
32,231
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
just read the summary
does not appear to do what the OP indicated
false alarm

return to your home gardens in peace
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
106,866
Reaction score
50,789
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
The bill is real.
It looks to me like it's just more regulations, more paper work, more government intervention to stifle the free market. If it passes costs will necessarily sky rocket. There's nothing I saw that exempts small farmers who sell at farmers markets etc. or those who sell/share with friends and family. Nanny state business as usual.
What did we do before we had the FDA. Oh, I know. We made sure our food was good and safe because we needed repeat customers. The free market can't work without customers, competetion and a good product.
I'm sure their are some good ideas in it. However, as with most the crap laws we pass, they wouldn't be necessary if we just ENFORCED the ones we already have.
I never claimed the bill was not real, what I said was the bill has not, in nearly a year, left committee and does not do what the OP claimed.
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
I have just read the summary of this bill, and nowhere does it say that growing food is illegal. What this bill does is to allow the CDC to track food borne illness, requires inspection of some food items entering our food supply, provides Homeland Security greater ability to track food that has been altered (which terrorists could do), and places greater protection on food that is imported (good idea, considering some of the crap coming from China that would not meet our safety standards.

All in all, I like this bill. It does provide a measure of protection from tainted, or altered food, and it does NOT prevent ANYONE from growing their own. My only concerns are the cost, and if the Federal Government has the Constitutional authority to do this.
Amazing, Big Gov Dan and his left leaning friends (those thanking him) like this bill!

More Gov't Regulating life! Now I did my digging and couldn't find a reliable source to back the wild claims in the OP, nor did the summary contain anything that screamed OMG, however, it was another layer of Bureaucracy to fix... what? MORE food safety? Why not shore up existing programs, regulatory bodies and inspection processes instead of something like this, that creates MORE Gov't?
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Amazing, Big Gov Dan and his left leaning friends (those thanking him) like this bill!

More Gov't Regulating life! Now I did my digging and couldn't find a reliable source to back the wild claims in the OP, nor did the summary contain anything that screamed OMG, however, it was another layer of Bureaucracy to fix... what? MORE food safety? Why not shore up existing programs, regulatory bodies and inspection processes instead of something like this, that creates MORE Gov't?
Yes, big government Dan, who expressed his concern whether the Federal government had jurisdiction, and also expressed concern about how much it would cost. All I did was post how the conclusion of the OP was wrong, and you go off on your personal attack tangent again.

Reading is fundamental, troll.
 

Barbbtx

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
8,467
Reaction score
1,993
Location
W'Ford TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
I never claimed the bill was not real, what I said was the bill has not, in nearly a year, left committee and does not do what the OP claimed.
The HC bill and cap and trade bill sat around collecting dust for a long time to.
 

justabubba

long standing member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
50,494
Reaction score
32,231
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Amazing, Big Gov Dan and his left leaning friends (those thanking him) like this bill!
in reading the summary, i find that there is nothing in senate bill s510 that makes it illegal to grow, share, trade or sell home grown food, in contrast to the OP's presentation
which was a conclusion shared by dan

More Gov't Regulating life!
such as telling a woman what she cannot do with her body kind of regulation of one's life? or the telling gay couples that they cannot have legal recognition similar to the marriage of a man and woman; that kind of regulation of someones' lives?
Now I did my digging and couldn't find a reliable source to back the wild claims in the OP, nor did the summary contain anything that screamed OMG, however, it was another layer of Bureaucracy to fix... what?
you must have missed the variety of instances when potentially toxic materials were found in food shipments
you must also think that a terrorist would never use our food supplies as a way to introduce biological agents against us ... so why regulate and monitor it [/sarcasm]
MORE food safety?
you would be the FIRST person to whine that Obama failed to protect us if the nation was afflicted by foreign food stuffs, either intentionally or by chance
Why not shore up existing programs, regulatory bodies and inspection processes instead of something like this, that creates MORE Gov't?
what new agency does this establish ... or does it actually beef up the systems we now have, by tightening what and how they monitor our food stocks
 
Top Bottom