R. Shackleferd
Banned
- 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tainted milk and baby forumula, anyone?
answer my question anyone?
Show me exactly where, in the bill, it says that you can't grow your own food. LOL.
Absolutely. Environmentalist bloggers would rather Alex Jones their way through things or endorse an ever increasing nanny state.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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 presentationAmazing, Big Gov Dan and his left leaning friends (those thanking him) like this bill!
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?More Gov't Regulating life!
you must have missed the variety of instances when potentially toxic materials were found in food shipmentsNow 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 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 chanceMORE food safety?
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 stocksWhy not shore up existing programs, regulatory bodies and inspection processes instead of something like this, that creates MORE Gov't?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?