Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old 30-03-2009, 07:28 PM posted to rec.gardens.edible
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Dec 2007
Posts: 101
Default H.R. 875 Food Safety Act

I emailed 3 of my senators/congressman(and the White House) 'bout it, but I
don't know if it will do any good. There was a town hall meeting last
weekend in town, with 3 of our state reps, and in response to a question,
they actually admitted that they don't read the bills they vote on. They
didn't even say their assistants/interns do for them. Their excuse is that
there's too many of them and it would take too long. Well what the hell are
we paying them for?! I even usually read the User Terms and Agreement things
when I sign up anywhere online, MySpace, Yahoo, Facebook, wherever. And I
have a busy schedule too...I have to do just about all the 'grunt' work on
our farm and work on the website and make flyers and do all the business
paperwork and crap, yet I make sure to find the time I don't agree to
anything I don't understand. Here's what I emailed(feel free to adapt it to
your circumstances to contact your state reps):

I am a small (organic) farmer and am very concerned about the repercussions
if H.R. 875 were to pass. We are lucky to make enough money to get by, but
having to pay licensing/inspection fees plus additional taxes would be
beyond our means. The wording 'food production facility' needs to be less
vague. By that wording, if you have a potted herb in your kitchen
windowsill, you could be considered a food production facility. If the
government wants safe food, they should A: pay for the farms to be inspected
themselves, and B: focus on the fact that the recent contaminated food
outbreaks were more often than not the fault of big companies who could have
afforded to enact safety measures. I would also like to point out that the
recent peanut butter contamination took place in the processing plant, not
where the nuts were grown. We grow enough produce not only to sell, but to
eat as well, so we make sure it's safe.

Victoria, zone 5a
--
What would YOU do for a Klondike Bar?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.myspace.com/vhestin
http://www.geocities.com/hopespringsfarm


  #2   Report Post  
Old 30-03-2009, 08:35 PM posted to rec.gardens.edible
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 301
Default H.R. 875 Food Safety Act


"Lilah Morgan" wrote in message
ers2...
I emailed 3 of my senators/congressman(and the White House) 'bout it, but I
don't know if it will do any good. There was a town hall meeting last
weekend in town, with 3 of our state reps, and in response to a question,
they actually admitted that they don't read the bills they vote on. They
didn't even say their assistants/interns do for them. Their excuse is that
there's too many of them and it would take too long. Well what the hell
are
we paying them for?! I even usually read the User Terms and Agreement
things
when I sign up anywhere online, MySpace, Yahoo, Facebook, wherever. And I
have a busy schedule too...I have to do just about all the 'grunt' work on
our farm and work on the website and make flyers and do all the business
paperwork and crap, yet I make sure to find the time I don't agree to
anything I don't understand. Here's what I emailed(feel free to adapt it
to
your circumstances to contact your state reps):

I am a small (organic) farmer and am very concerned about the
repercussions
if H.R. 875 were to pass. We are lucky to make enough money to get by, but
having to pay licensing/inspection fees plus additional taxes would be
beyond our means. The wording 'food production facility' needs to be less
vague. By that wording, if you have a potted herb in your kitchen
windowsill, you could be considered a food production facility. If the
government wants safe food, they should A: pay for the farms to be
inspected
themselves, and B: focus on the fact that the recent contaminated food
outbreaks were more often than not the fault of big companies who could
have
afforded to enact safety measures. I would also like to point out that the
recent peanut butter contamination took place in the processing plant, not
where the nuts were grown. We grow enough produce not only to sell, but to
eat as well, so we make sure it's safe.

Victoria, zone 5a


Monsanto and HR 875, Take Two
http://crooksandliars.com/nonny-mous...r-875-take-two

Still impossible to tell who are the crooks and who are the liars, but
I'm not counting on the Monsanto shill. And, it may cause just as much
suspicion from both sides as it attempts to alleviate it.


  #3   Report Post  
Old 30-03-2009, 09:28 PM posted to rec.gardens.edible
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Oct 2006
Posts: 340
Default H.R. 875 Food Safety Act

In article ,
"cat daddy" wrote:

"Lilah Morgan" wrote in message
ers2...
I emailed 3 of my senators/congressman(and the White House) 'bout it, but I
don't know if it will do any good. There was a town hall meeting last
weekend in town, with 3 of our state reps, and in response to a question,
they actually admitted that they don't read the bills they vote on. They
didn't even say their assistants/interns do for them. Their excuse is that
there's too many of them and it would take too long. Well what the hell
are
we paying them for?! I even usually read the User Terms and Agreement
things
when I sign up anywhere online, MySpace, Yahoo, Facebook, wherever. And I
have a busy schedule too...I have to do just about all the 'grunt' work on
our farm and work on the website and make flyers and do all the business
paperwork and crap, yet I make sure to find the time I don't agree to
anything I don't understand. Here's what I emailed(feel free to adapt it
to
your circumstances to contact your state reps):

I am a small (organic) farmer and am very concerned about the
repercussions
if H.R. 875 were to pass. We are lucky to make enough money to get by, but
having to pay licensing/inspection fees plus additional taxes would be
beyond our means. The wording 'food production facility' needs to be less
vague. By that wording, if you have a potted herb in your kitchen
windowsill, you could be considered a food production facility. If the
government wants safe food, they should A: pay for the farms to be
inspected
themselves, and B: focus on the fact that the recent contaminated food
outbreaks were more often than not the fault of big companies who could
have
afforded to enact safety measures. I would also like to point out that the
recent peanut butter contamination took place in the processing plant, not
where the nuts were grown. We grow enough produce not only to sell, but to
eat as well, so we make sure it's safe.

Victoria, zone 5a


Monsanto and HR 875, Take Two
http://crooksandliars.com/nonny-mous...r-875-take-two

Still impossible to tell who are the crooks and who are the liars, but
I'm not counting on the Monsanto shill. And, it may cause just as much
suspicion from both sides as it attempts to alleviate it.


I wrote my local U.S. Corporate Representative Congresswoman and my U.S.
Corporate Representative Senators last week that I personally was
against the bill. I doubt my letters will have any impact at all. Google
"food safety bill farmers market". Enjoy the read. Since the
introduction of this bill, does it seem that all news of the food safety
bill is silent on TV and newspapers. All praise the internet!

Enjoy Life ... Dan

--
Garden in Zone 5 South East Michigan.
  #4   Report Post  
Old 30-03-2009, 10:51 PM posted to rec.gardens.edible
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,179
Default H.R. 875 Food Safety Act

In article ,
"Dan L." wrote:

In article ,
"cat daddy" wrote:

"Lilah Morgan" wrote in message
ers2...
I emailed 3 of my senators/congressman(and the White House) 'bout it, but I
don't know if it will do any good. There was a town hall meeting last
weekend in town, with 3 of our state reps, and in response to a question,
they actually admitted that they don't read the bills they vote on. They
didn't even say their assistants/interns do for them. Their excuse is that
there's too many of them and it would take too long. Well what the hell
are
we paying them for?! I even usually read the User Terms and Agreement
things
when I sign up anywhere online, MySpace, Yahoo, Facebook, wherever. And I
have a busy schedule too...I have to do just about all the 'grunt' work on
our farm and work on the website and make flyers and do all the business
paperwork and crap, yet I make sure to find the time I don't agree to
anything I don't understand. Here's what I emailed(feel free to adapt it
to
your circumstances to contact your state reps):

I am a small (organic) farmer and am very concerned about the
repercussions
if H.R. 875 were to pass. We are lucky to make enough money to get by, but
having to pay licensing/inspection fees plus additional taxes would be
beyond our means. The wording 'food production facility' needs to be less
vague. By that wording, if you have a potted herb in your kitchen
windowsill, you could be considered a food production facility. If the
government wants safe food, they should A: pay for the farms to be
inspected
themselves, and B: focus on the fact that the recent contaminated food
outbreaks were more often than not the fault of big companies who could
have
afforded to enact safety measures. I would also like to point out that the
recent peanut butter contamination took place in the processing plant, not
where the nuts were grown. We grow enough produce not only to sell, but to
eat as well, so we make sure it's safe.

Victoria, zone 5a


Monsanto and HR 875, Take Two
http://crooksandliars.com/nonny-mous...r-875-take-two

Still impossible to tell who are the crooks and who are the liars, but
I'm not counting on the Monsanto shill. And, it may cause just as much
suspicion from both sides as it attempts to alleviate it.


I wrote my local U.S. Corporate Representative Congresswoman and my U.S.
Corporate Representative Senators last week that I personally was
against the bill. I doubt my letters will have any impact at all. Google
"food safety bill farmers market". Enjoy the read. Since the
introduction of this bill, does it seem that all news of the food safety
bill is silent on TV and newspapers. All praise the internet!

Enjoy Life ... Dan


In case you haven't seen it

http://www.fedcoseeds.com/seeds/monsanto.htm

Monsanto Buys Seminis

Maybe you¹ve never heard of Seminis, but if you¹ve ever perused these
pages, you¹ve almost undoubtedly tasted Seminis. Celebrity, Big Beef and
Sweet Baby Girl tomatoes, North Star, Red Knight and Fat ¹n Sassy
peppers, Mars and Candy onions, Yellow Doll and Jade Star watermelons,
the Seneca squashes‹all are Seminis varieties. Seminis was our largest
supplier, selling us 70 items in the 2005 catalog, accounting for more
than 11 per cent of our seed business. In addition to offering a superb
line, they shipped on time, supplied high quality seed with good
germination, and backed their products with excellent variety
descriptions and sales materials.
In January 2005 Monsanto announced that they were buying Seminis for
$1.4 billion in cash and assumed debt. Noted for its aggressive advocacy
of genetically modified crops and its dominance in biotechnology,
Monsanto will now have a major presence in the vegetable seed business
for the first time. No one knows if or when they will incorporate
transgenes into their vegetable varieties.
The Monsanto buyout presented us with a serious ethical dilemma. In
striving to carry the best possible varieties at reasonable prices, we
have based our selections largely on the merits of the varieties, rarely
on our supplier preferences. Could we be purveyors of Monsanto products
and still sleep well at night? Many of our customers have depended upon
Seminis¹ good genetics. However much we may think we require these
varieties in the short run, they come at a devastating social cost,
ultimately the complete alienation of sower from seed.
Fedco Drops Monsanto/Seminis
We responded to the news by polling our customers. Should we drop the
Seminis/Monsanto line, phase it out, keep it but give it its own
customer code, or maintain it without change? We received an
unprecedented 1,157 responses. 54.8% voted for us to drop the
Seminis/Monsanto line immediately, and an additional 17% to phase it out
over time. Many included thought-provoking comments such as these:
€ Drop the Seminis varieties unless this puts the entire coop in
jeopardy.
€ Every dollar that goes to Monsanto does not go to a producer who is
protective of agriculture, our world, our health.
€ You don¹t need to sell your soul for a Sunsugar.
€ Let the customers decide!
€ Phase out as you find quality replacements.
€ Call upon my sense of adventure to try the new varieties you find!
€ Unbury the supplier codes and make them more prominent.
€ Give your customers a choice on their purchases for a transitional
periodŠtax the bŠds for the public goodŠand spread the money like manure
for our new crop of seed providers‹breeders, growers and distributors.
€ It¹s a hard thing to fight a Monsanto when we¹re so deeply embedded in
a system that produces Monsantos. Sort of like Jefferson hating slavery
while owning slaves.
€ Buyers¹ choice is real democracy. We, the buyers either keep them in
business or put them out of business.
€ Double the retail price for Monsanto seed and send the additional
receipts to those who suffer from Monsanto like Percy Schmeiser.
€ Monsanto should be Rounded Up and composted.
€ We¹ll survive on the sweet tastiness of the moral high ground.
After our staff expressed a clear preference for taking decisive action,
our purchasing team decided not to do business with Monsanto. We chose
instead to purchase a one-year supply of the available Seminis items in
March before the merger was consummated, and not to replace those
varieties when they ran out. We have clearly identified these varieties
in the catalog and assigned them their own customer code of .
You will notice some gaps in the catalog. Not all the Seminis varieties
were available in the spring, so we have had to drop some of them and
limit sizes of others. Our trials work last summer and for the next two
years is focused on finding replacements. In a few cases we will be able
to find other suppliers or to start our own seed production. We
preferred, where possible, to give our customers and ourselves a short
transition time to find alternatives instead of going cold turkey.
Why Drop Monsanto?
The current industrial seed system rests upon the unholy trinity of
biotechnology, corporate concentration and intellectual property rights.
Each is mutually reinforcing and none of the three stands without the
support of the other two.
1) Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin has warned that ³the process of
genetic engineering has a unique ability to produce deleterious effects²
and argues that varieties produced by recombinant DNA technology ³need
to be specially scrutinized and tested.² As yet, almost all documented
tests have been conducted by the very biotech industries which stand to
profit from the products being tested. The fox guarding the chicken coop
indeed!
An even more compelling argument against genetic engineering than the
safety concerns (which might be alleviated were the biotech industry to
embrace mandatory labeling permitting an audit trail of their products)
is its structural effects upon the seed industry. The biotech revolution
promised much but delivered little. Unanticipated obstacles pushed
research and development costs far higher than expected, driving a
series of consolidations in which small companies were either swallowed
up or forced to make complex licensing agreements with the big guys in
order to survive.
Monsanto is the leading proponent and practictioner of genetic
engineering. Monsanto seeds and biotech traits accounted for 88% of the
total acreage of genetically modified seeds planted worldwide in 2004,
an area that has multiplied more than forty-fold since 1996 to encompass
167 million acres.
2) We would do well to heed eminent University of Wisconsin plant
breeder Dr. William F. Tracy: ³placing the responsibility for the
world¹s crop germplasm and plant improvement in the hands of a few
companies is bad public policy.ŠThe primary goal of private corporations
is to make profit, andŠthis goal will be at odds with certain public
needs.ŠThe future of our food supply requires genetic diversity but also
demands a diversity of decision makers.²
A hyper-concentrated seed system neglects so-called minor crops,
regionally-adapted and specialty niche varieties, and those not suited
for long distance shipping or global markets, deeming them to be of
little economic importance. We can blame the documented declines in the
nutritional content of vegetables grown in the United States since 1950
on the corporatization of our food system. Decades of selecting
cultivars for rapid growth, yield and pest resistance (traits valued by
corporate breeders wishing to maximize returns) at the expense of taste
and nutritional content have taken their toll. By basing our food system
primarily on the goal of increased production, we have, according to
Wendell Berry, ³achieved stupendous increasesŠ at exorbitant biological
and social costs.²
The seed industry is concentrating into fewer and fewer corporate hands.
Seminis controlled 40% of the United States vegetable seed market and
supplied the genetics for 75% of the tomatoes and 85% of the peppers on
supermarket shelves. With the absorption of Seminis, Monsanto vaulted
ahead of DuPont as the world¹s largest seed company. After the merger,
for the first time the world¹s top ten seed companies control half the
market. In fact, the four biggest ones have 36%.
3) In 1930, Luther Burbank, testifying before Congress, complained that
plant breeders derived no economic benefits from their work and should
be rewarded if we wanted to stimulate the development of superior
varieties. Of course, he had a point. The debate should be about what
are the best mechanisms to reward breeders and encourage research in the
public interest. The seed industry has advanced one point of view,
lobbying persistently for stronger and stronger patent protection for
their ³proprietary intellectual property,² while at the same time
gutting and privatizing a once-thriving public research apparatus at our
land-grant universities.
The catch is that plants, unlike widgets which cannot reproduce
themselves (at least not yet!), are living beings which can and do,
through their seed. The ³intellectual property² that is protected in a
manufacturing patent‹the original idea that makes the product novel and
useful‹translates poorly into the improvement of life forms, which has
typically been the work of generations of farmers, observing mutations,
selecting for desired traits, sharing and exchanging seeds, and building
gradually upon one another¹s efforts. Who can own a mutation, occurring
freely in nature? By tradition, our biological heritage was held in
common. Sharing, not secrecy, was the dominant paradigm. The industry¹s
attempt to impose a proprietary model upon a product bountifully given
by nature is a radical departure from our agricultural tradition.
The original Plant Variety Protection Act in 1970, the culmination of 40
years¹ lobbying by the seed industry, protected varieties from others¹
use for 17 years, but with important exceptions. Farmers were allowed to
save seed, replant it, and even sell it to neighbors, and breeders were
permitted to use it for research purposes.
Court decisions in 1980, 1985 and 2001, however, have brought all
products of plant breeding under the standard utility patent. Unlike
PVP, utility patents protect not just finished varieties, but also
individual components of those varieties and processes used to create
those varieties. There are no exemptions for farmers to save seed and
none for research and breeding.
These court decisions now allow proteins to be patented, DNA sequences
to be patented, individual mutations to be patented, single nucleotide
polymorphisms to be patented, genes, cells, tissue cultures and specific
plant parts to be patented. The proliferation of patents and overlapping
intellectual property rights has privatized what was once a vast
commons, stifled free exchange of germplasm, diminished scientists¹
freedom to operate, choked off creativity and escalated development
costs exponentially, thereby setting off further rounds of consolidation
and concentration. The justification for ³intellectual property²
rights‹to stimulate research‹has been turned on its head.
No company has been more aggressive than Monsanto in defending its
³intellectual property.² Monsanto currently holds 647 plant biotech
patents, more than any other company. When farmers purchase seed
containing Monsanto¹s patented technology, they are required to give up
their age-old right to save their own seed, to grant Monsanto broad
rights to access their personal records and to come on to their property
to inspect their crops. According to Monsanto vs. U.S. Farmers (#9756),
a report published by the Center for Food Safety, Monsanto maintains a
staff of 75 employees with an annual budget of $10 million for the sole
purpose of investigating and prosecuting farmers for patent
infringement. It has a toll-free number that allows farmers and
businesses to place confidential calls to snitch on alleged patent
infringers and it hires private investigation firms such as Pinkerton to
spy on suspected farmers. It has investigated hundreds of farmers, sent
scores of threatening letters and made out-of-court settlements for
alleged patent violations. The 90 lawsuits it has filed represent just
the tip of the iceberg.
Getting off the Seed Grid*
We have chosen to use Monsanto¹s buyout of Seminis as a wake-up call. We
do so because Monsanto epitomizes the road down which we no longer
choose to goŠthe road that leads to our complete surrender of control of
our seed and therefore of control of our food system.
When one-fourth of our seed business is with multinational corporations
engaged in genetic engineering research, too many of us have allowed
seed to become just another industrial input rather than a life force.
In the 1980s many organic farmers in Maine were so dependent on chicken
manure from DeCoster, a huge operation with disgraceful labor relations,
that Bowdoin College economist David Vail called them ³chickenshit
farmers.² Thanks in part to Vail and MOFGA, they broke their addiction
and evolved. We have become chicken-seed farmers, similarly addicted to
multinational corporations.
Today we stand in relation to the seed about where the pioneering
organic farmers of forty years ago stood in relation to the land and
their communities. We have revitalized our soils with compost and green
manures. We have revitalized our markets with local connections through
restaurants, CSA¹s and farmers markets. We have revitalized our soils
and our markets, but what have we done for the seed?
Eleven years ago in our 1995 catalog when we first asked, ³Do you know
where your seed comes from?² we carried around 30 small-farm grown
varieties. In this 2006 catalog we have 190 such varieties. Seed work is
slow work, we build our seed firmament stone by stone, we find and
replace varieties one by one, but seed work is the foundation on which
all agriculture depends. As keynoter Dennis Kucinich said at the Common
Ground Fair, ³If we are what we eat, we should take care how our food is
made so that we know what we are to become.² So that we may become truly
what we wish to be, we invite you to begin the next step with us on the
road to seed diversity.
*I am indebted to Laura DeLind of Michigan State University for coining
the phrase.
Fedco Seeds, PO Box 520, Waterville, ME 04903
(207) 873-7333
-----

If your eyeballs haven't fallen out yet, you should at least glance at
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/f...monsanto200805
--

- Billy
"For the first time in the history of the world, every human being is
now subjected to contact with dangerous chemicals, from the moment of
conception until death." - Rachel Carson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WI29wVQN8Go

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1072040.html
  #5   Report Post  
Old 30-03-2009, 11:08 PM posted to rec.gardens.edible
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,096
Default H.R. 875 Food Safety Act

In article
,
Billy wrote:

We would do well to heed eminent University of Wisconsin plant
breeder Dr. William F. Tracy: ³placing the responsibility for the
world¹s crop germplasm and plant improvement in the hands of a few
companies is bad public policy.ŠThe primary goal of private corporations
is to make profit, andŠthis goal will be at odds with certain public
needs.ŠThe future of our food supply requires genetic diversity but also
demands a diversity of decision makers.²


What I walked away with. Diversity of decision makers in a world where
the images are trivial and uniform. Profit driven not health driven and
as the adage reminds if you lose it nothing else matters.

Bill who would like to break bread with Dr. Tracy

--
Garden in shade zone 5 S Jersey USA

We have 5% of the world's population; we have 25% of the world's
known prison population.








  #6   Report Post  
Old 31-03-2009, 01:12 PM posted to rec.gardens.edible
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Mar 2009
Posts: 5
Default H.R. 875 Food Safety Act

Lilah Morgan wrote:
I emailed 3 of my senators/congressman(and the White House) 'bout it, but I
don't know if it will do any good. There was a town hall meeting last
weekend in town, with 3 of our state reps, and in response to a question,
they actually admitted that they don't read the bills they vote on. They
didn't even say their assistants/interns do for them. Their excuse is that
there's too many of them and it would take too long. Well what the hell are
we paying them for?! I even usually read the User Terms and Agreement things
when I sign up anywhere online, MySpace, Yahoo, Facebook, wherever. And I
have a busy schedule too...I have to do just about all the 'grunt' work on
our farm and work on the website and make flyers and do all the business
paperwork and crap, yet I make sure to find the time I don't agree to
anything I don't understand. Here's what I emailed(feel free to adapt it to
your circumstances to contact your state reps):

I am a small (organic) farmer and am very concerned about the repercussions
if H.R. 875 were to pass. We are lucky to make enough money to get by, but
having to pay licensing/inspection fees plus additional taxes would be
beyond our means. The wording 'food production facility' needs to be less
vague. By that wording, if you have a potted herb in your kitchen
windowsill, you could be considered a food production facility. If the
government wants safe food, they should A: pay for the farms to be inspected
themselves, and B: focus on the fact that the recent contaminated food
outbreaks were more often than not the fault of big companies who could have
afforded to enact safety measures. I would also like to point out that the
recent peanut butter contamination took place in the processing plant, not
where the nuts were grown. We grow enough produce not only to sell, but to
eat as well, so we make sure it's safe.

Victoria, zone 5a




http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...=t0%3Aih%3A710



SEC. 405. CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES.

(a) Civil Sanctions-

(1) CIVIL PENALTY-

(A) IN GENERAL- Any person that commits an act that violates the food safety law (including a regulation promulgated or
order issued under the food safety law) may be assessed a civil penalty by the Administrator of not more than $1,000,000
for each such act.

(B) SEPARATE OFFENSE- Each act described in subparagraph (A) and each day during which that act continues shall be
considered a separate offense.


so, by not putting chemicals into your garden, it will be possible to be fined $1,000,000. if you grow an edible plant
on your property the argument could easily be made that you are technically under this jurisdiction. THis is what the
bill states and you can bet $1,000,001 that Monsato (or whoever else Rosa Delauris is bending over for) will pay for the
legal cases against any little person who challenges this.





http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...=t0%3Aih%3A836

SEC. 506. REGULATIONS.

The Administrator may promulgate such regulations as the Administrator determines are necessary or appropriate to
perform the duties of the Administrator.

"We'll take any measure what so ever to ensure that you are putting chemicals into your garden."




what in this bill ISN'T good for Monsanto? The fact that the company with which Stanley Greenburg is paid from Monsanto
to represent, will also be paid to sway the opinion of the advisory committee. So if the congress woman's husband is
taking kickbacks from Monsato (but not "working" for them) - you can bet that she too is receiving generous benefits
too, and America will become a dictatorship giving one guy (or the way the money flows) control over what any American
is allowed to grow and eat.




Lilah Morgan wrote:
I emailed 3 of my senators/congressman(and the White House) 'bout it, but I
don't know if it will do any good. There was a town hall meeting last
weekend in town, with 3 of our state reps, and in response to a question,
they actually admitted that they don't read the bills they vote on. They
didn't even say their assistants/interns do for them. Their excuse is that
there's too many of them and it would take too long. Well what the hell are
we paying them for?! I even usually read the User Terms and Agreement things
when I sign up anywhere online, MySpace, Yahoo, Facebook, wherever. And I
have a busy schedule too...I have to do just about all the 'grunt' work on
our farm and work on the website and make flyers and do all the business
paperwork and crap, yet I make sure to find the time I don't agree to
anything I don't understand. Here's what I emailed(feel free to adapt it to
your circumstances to contact your state reps):

I am a small (organic) farmer and am very concerned about the repercussions
if H.R. 875 were to pass. We are lucky to make enough money to get by, but
having to pay licensing/inspection fees plus additional taxes would be
beyond our means. The wording 'food production facility' needs to be less
vague. By that wording, if you have a potted herb in your kitchen
windowsill, you could be considered a food production facility. If the
government wants safe food, they should A: pay for the farms to be inspected
themselves, and B: focus on the fact that the recent contaminated food
outbreaks were more often than not the fault of big companies who could have
afforded to enact safety measures. I would also like to point out that the
recent peanut butter contamination took place in the processing plant, not
where the nuts were grown. We grow enough produce not only to sell, but to
eat as well, so we make sure it's safe.

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Innovations in Management Tools, Food Safety and Technology [email protected] Gardening 0 29-06-2005 08:26 AM
STANDARDS FOR GM FOOD SAFETY CRUCIAL David Kendra sci.agriculture 0 20-09-2003 03:32 PM
Yet another toxin to be put into GM food without proper testing of its safety Torsten Brinch sci.agriculture 0 26-04-2003 01:30 PM
bunch plants act like trash collectors SlimFlem Freshwater Aquaria Plants 2 20-04-2003 07:16 AM
Yet another toxin to be put into GM food without proper testing of its safety Torsten Brinch sci.agriculture 0 08-03-2003 09:24 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:13 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 GardenBanter.co.uk.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Gardening"

 

Copyright © 2017