Herbal Legacy subscribers, it is time to take action! Last week the
Senate passed a bill (S.510 FDA Food Safety Modernization Act) that
massively increases the scope of what the FDA can do. Dr. Shiv Chopra
had this to say about the bill:

"If accepted [S 510] would preclude the public's right to grow, own,
trade, transport, share, feed and eat each and every food that nature
makes . It will become the most offensive authority against the
cultivation, trade and consumption of food and agricultural products
of one's choice. It will be unconstitutional and contrary to natural
law or, if you like, the will of God."

The bill goes to the House of Representatives, and it is important for
you to contact your Representative now to stop this bill from becoming
law!

Citizens for Health is making it easy for you to contact your
representative - just visit:

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o...ction_KEY=5285

enter your zip code and it will bring up a letter that you can read
and edit and will be sent directly to your representative.

If you would like more information before sending the e-mail, here is
a link to a summary of the bill, followed by an article about the
bill:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...10&tab=summary

When it comes to S. 510, the question that you need to ask yourself is
this....

Do you trust the FDA?

If not, then there are some very real reasons for you to be
concerned.

The following are 12 reasons why S. 510 could be absolutely disastrous
for small food producers and for the U.S. economy....

#1 All food production facilities in the United States will be
required to register with the U.S. government. No food will be allowed
to be grown, distributed or sold outside this bureaucratic framework
unless the FDA allows it.



#2 Any food that is distributed or sold outside of U.S. government
control will be considered illegal smuggling.



#3 The FDA will hire an army of new inspectors to enforce all of the
new provisions in the bill.



#4 The FDA will be mandated to conduct much more frequent inspections
of food processing facilities.



#5 The fees and paperwork requirements will be ruinously expensive for
small food producers and organic farms.



#6 Senate Bill 510 would place all U.S. food and all U.S. farms under
the Department of Homeland Security in the event of a major
"contamination" or an "emergency". What exactly would constitute a
"contamination" or an "emergency" is anyone's guess.



#7 S 510 mandates that the FDA facilitate harmonization of American
food laws with Codex Alimentarius.



#8 S 510 imposes an annual registration fee on any facility that
holds, processes, or manufactures food. It also includes draconian
fines for paperwork infractions of up to $500,000 for a single
offense. Just one penalty like that would drive a small food producer
out of business.



#9 S. 510 would give the FDA tremendous discretion to regulate how
crops are grown and how food is produced in the United States.
Basically, small farmers and organic farmers will now be forced to
farm exactly how the federal government tells them to. It is feared
that the U.S. government would soon declare that many organic farming
methods are "unsafe" and would outlaw them. In addition, there is the
very real possibility that at some point the U.S. government could
decide that the only "safe" seed for a particular crop is genetically
modified seed and would require all farmers to use it.



#10 S 510 will give the FDA the power to impose a quarantine on a
specific geographic area. Basically the FDA would have the power to
stop the movement of all food in an area where a "contamination" has
been identified. This would be very close to being able to declare
martial law.



#11 S 510 will give the FDA the power to conduct warrantless searches
of the business records of small food producers and organic farmers,
even if there has been no evidence at all that a law has been broken.



#12 Opponents of S. 510 believe that it would eliminate the right to
clean and store seed. Therefore, control of the U.S. seed supply would
be further centralized in the hands of Monsanto and other
multinational corporations.



As mentioned above, this bill gives the FDA a ton of discretion. It is
written very broadly and very vaguely. It opens the door for all kinds
of abuses, but that doesn't mean that the FDA will behave
unreasonably.

Article Source:
http://www.truthistreason.net/senate...tory-of-the-us



Please take a minute and contact your representative today:



http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o...ction_KEY=5285

Yours in the Natural State!
Dr. Karl D. Buchanan

In article ,
"Steve Peek" wrote:

As I understand it, the USDA is charged with facilitating farm sales,
and the FDA with consumer protection. The USDA has far greater funding
than does the FDA. Presently, if there is reason to believe that food
products are tainted, e,g. rat shit in the peanuts, melamine and
cyanuric acid replacing high protein flour, or salmonella on eggs, they
can only request that the responsible party voluntarily recall their
product. Under the new bill, the FDA could unilaterally issue a recall.
I find this a reason to support the bill.

Herbal Legacy subscribers, it is time to take action! Last week the
Senate passed a bill (S.510 FDA Food Safety Modernization Act) that
massively increases the scope of what the FDA can do. Dr. Shiv Chopra
had this to say about the bill:

"If accepted [S 510] would preclude the public's right to grow, own,
trade, transport, share, feed and eat each and every food that nature
makes . It will become the most offensive authority against the
cultivation, trade and consumption of food and agricultural products
of one's choice. It will be unconstitutional and contrary to natural
law or, if you like, the will of God."

Having read the summary and watched the two videos at
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-510&tab=summary I
can say that the above description by Dr. Shiv Chopra is completely
false. The FDA would be, if the bill passes, charged with setting
regulations. These regulations may be objectionable or not, however they
can't be judged until they are written.

Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) has proposed amendments that would exempt small
producers that sell to the public, hotels, and restaurants from
regulations. Whether this is for stainless steel kitchens, or simply
testing, I don't know. At some level, regulations would seem pointless,
e.g. produce given or swapped with neighbors, or local sales for less
than $5,000. Stainless steel kitchens would be beyond the financial
abilities of small producers, but testing based on units produced would
be fairer.

As far as raw milk, and raw almonds, it seems that if they were subject
to inspection, had a government warning sticker, and and full disclosure
of their production, an adult should be able to buy them using their own
best judgement.

In any event, until now the USDA has been in control and has fought
slaughter house, and peanut producer inspections. I realize that giving
the FDA expanded authority will just make them a target for lobbyists,
but since the system as it exists now isn't functioning I would favor
letting the FDA try to protect the consumer.

My liberal reflex is that suppressing this bill (S-510) would maintain
the status quo to the advantage of mass producers whose business
organizations lobby Congress.

I don't have all the answers, so I hope this opinion will generate
further comment.

Recommended reading:
Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition, and Health,
Revised and Expanded Edition (California Studies in Food and Culture)
by Marion Nestle
http://www.amazon.com/Food-Politics-...alifornia/dp/0
520254031/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1244222934&sr=1-2
€ ISBN-10: 0520254031


The bill goes to the House of Representatives, and it is important for
you to contact your Representative now to stop this bill from becoming
law!

Citizens for Health is making it easy for you to contact your
representative - just visit:

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o...ction_KEY=5285

enter your zip code and it will bring up a letter that you can read
and edit and will be sent directly to your representative.

If you would like more information before sending the e-mail, here is
a link to a summary of the bill, followed by an article about the
bill:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...10&tab=summary

When it comes to S. 510, the question that you need to ask yourself is
this....

Do you trust the FDA?

If not, then there are some very real reasons for you to be
concerned.

The following are 12 reasons why S. 510 could be absolutely disastrous
for small food producers and for the U.S. economy....

#1 All food production facilities in the United States will be
required to register with the U.S. government. No food will be allowed
to be grown, distributed or sold outside this bureaucratic framework
unless the FDA allows it.



#2 Any food that is distributed or sold outside of U.S. government
control will be considered illegal smuggling.



#3 The FDA will hire an army of new inspectors to enforce all of the
new provisions in the bill.



#4 The FDA will be mandated to conduct much more frequent inspections
of food processing facilities.



#5 The fees and paperwork requirements will be ruinously expensive for
small food producers and organic farms.



#6 Senate Bill 510 would place all U.S. food and all U.S. farms under
the Department of Homeland Security in the event of a major
"contamination" or an "emergency". What exactly would constitute a
"contamination" or an "emergency" is anyone's guess.



#7 S 510 mandates that the FDA facilitate harmonization of American
food laws with Codex Alimentarius.



#8 S 510 imposes an annual registration fee on any facility that
holds, processes, or manufactures food. It also includes draconian
fines for paperwork infractions of up to $500,000 for a single
offense. Just one penalty like that would drive a small food producer
out of business.



#9 S. 510 would give the FDA tremendous discretion to regulate how
crops are grown and how food is produced in the United States.
Basically, small farmers and organic farmers will now be forced to
farm exactly how the federal government tells them to. It is feared
that the U.S. government would soon declare that many organic farming
methods are "unsafe" and would outlaw them. In addition, there is the
very real possibility that at some point the U.S. government could
decide that the only "safe" seed for a particular crop is genetically
modified seed and would require all farmers to use it.



#10 S 510 will give the FDA the power to impose a quarantine on a
specific geographic area. Basically the FDA would have the power to
stop the movement of all food in an area where a "contamination" has
been identified. This would be very close to being able to declare
martial law.



#11 S 510 will give the FDA the power to conduct warrantless searches
of the business records of small food producers and organic farmers,
even if there has been no evidence at all that a law has been broken.



#12 Opponents of S. 510 believe that it would eliminate the right to
clean and store seed. Therefore, control of the U.S. seed supply would
be further centralized in the hands of Monsanto and other
multinational corporations.



As mentioned above, this bill gives the FDA a ton of discretion. It is
written very broadly and very vaguely. It opens the door for all kinds
of abuses, but that doesn't mean that the FDA will behave
unreasonably.

Article Source:
http://www.truthistreason.net/senate...ngerous-bill-i
n-the-history-of-the-us



Please take a minute and contact your representative today:



http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o...ction_KEY=5285

Yours in the Natural State!
Dr. Karl D. Buchanan
--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyE5wjc4XOw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_vN0--mHug

Billy wrote:
In article ,

[SNIP]
Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) has proposed amendments that would exempt small

producers that sell to the public, hotels, and restaurants from
regulations. Whether this is for stainless steel kitchens, or simply
testing, I don't know. At some level, regulations would seem
pointless,
e.g. produce given or swapped with neighbors, or local sales for less
than $5,000. Stainless steel kitchens would be beyond the financial
abilities of small producers, but testing based on units produced
would
be fairer.

As far as raw milk, and raw almonds, it seems that if they were
subject
to inspection, had a government warning sticker, and and full
disclosure
of their production, an adult should be able to buy them using their
own
best judgement.

When I first read about Testers's amendment, I have decided to be for
the bill. However, I am sure the bill will not help the consumer one bit
and not improve the food safety at all. It is the skeptic in me.
Somewhere along the line big Corp will gut the bill.

My understanding, small farms and farmers markets are exempt from FDA
and USDA inspections unless something has gone wrong. Thanks to Sen.
Tester.

In my state of Michigan, one can purchase a cow directly from a farmer.
The farmer will take it to a local license deer processor to have it
processed. The deer processors usually butcher them in their home
garage. Just like the Pailins Alaska butchering a Caribou in their
garage.

--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)

Billy wrote:
In article ,
"Steve Peek" wrote:

As I understand it, the USDA is charged with facilitating farm sales,
and the FDA with consumer protection. The USDA has far greater funding
than does the FDA. Presently, if there is reason to believe that food
products are tainted, e,g. rat shit in the peanuts, melamine and
cyanuric acid replacing high protein flour, or salmonella on eggs,
they can only request that the responsible party voluntarily recall
their product. Under the new bill, the FDA could unilaterally issue a
recall. I find this a reason to support the bill.

Herbal Legacy subscribers, it is time to take action! Last week the
Senate passed a bill (S.510 FDA Food Safety Modernization Act) that
massively increases the scope of what the FDA can do. Dr. Shiv Chopra
had this to say about the bill:

"If accepted [S 510] would preclude the public's right to grow, own,
trade, transport, share, feed and eat each and every food that nature
makes . It will become the most offensive authority against the
cultivation, trade and consumption of food and agricultural products
of one's choice. It will be unconstitutional and contrary to natural
law or, if you like, the will of God."

Having read the summary and watched the two videos at
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-510&tab=summary I
can say that the above description by Dr. Shiv Chopra is completely
false. The FDA would be, if the bill passes, charged with setting
regulations. These regulations may be objectionable or not, however
they can't be judged until they are written.


I don't have a dog in this fight but where the USA goes Oz often follows so
I had to check it out.

I found the interpretation of the critics to be quite alarming so I had to
look at the source document to see what they were on about. Here it is:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...10es.tx t.pdf

Not wanting to spend hours on a 300 page document I followed just one thread
of commentary about the bill preventing seed saving and exchange. The bill
says nothing explicitly about the issue, seeds are not mentioned. The
critics construct a long chain of interpretation that starts from provisions
to maintain suitable conditions in food processing facilities and ends up
with total control of all seeds. This is extreme paranoia.

If you want to see the symptoms of someone sucked up by a tornado who will
never see Kansas again look he

http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/200...minalize-them/

If this the best they can do I wonder about the quality of the rest of their
analysis. Is there is any more balanced and reasonable commentary out
there? I am not saying that this bill is totally benign but the case being
made against it here is very poor.

I cannot imagine why this is headed OT. If goverment control of seeds isn't
on topic what is?

David

In article ,
Dan L wrote:

Billy wrote:
In article ,

[SNIP]
Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) has proposed amendments that would exempt small

producers that sell to the public, hotels, and restaurants from
regulations. Whether this is for stainless steel kitchens, or simply
testing, I don't know. At some level, regulations would seem
pointless,
e.g. produce given or swapped with neighbors, or local sales for less
than $5,000. Stainless steel kitchens would be beyond the financial
abilities of small producers, but testing based on units produced
would
be fairer.

As far as raw milk, and raw almonds, it seems that if they were
subject
to inspection, had a government warning sticker, and and full
disclosure
of their production, an adult should be able to buy them using their
own
best judgement.

When I first read about Testers's amendment, I have decided to be for
the bill. However, I am sure the bill will not help the consumer one bit
and not improve the food safety at all. It is the skeptic in me.
Somewhere along the line big Corp will gut the bill.

My understanding, small farms and farmers markets are exempt from FDA
and USDA inspections unless something has gone wrong. Thanks to Sen.
Tester.

In my state of Michigan, one can purchase a cow directly from a farmer.
The farmer will take it to a local license deer processor to have it
processed. The deer processors usually butcher them in their home
garage. Just like the Pailins Alaska butchering a Caribou in their
garage.

Good chance it would be cleaner than one cleaned on a conveyor belt.
Packing house employees seem to be an at risk group, when it comes to
carpal tunnel syndrome (repetitive motion).
--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyE5wjc4XOw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_vN0--mHug

Billy wrote:
In article ,
Dan L wrote:

Billy wrote:
In article ,

[SNIP]
Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) has proposed amendments that would exempt
small

producers that sell to the public, hotels, and restaurants from
regulations. Whether this is for stainless steel kitchens, or simply

testing, I don't know. At some level, regulations would seem
pointless,
e.g. produce given or swapped with neighbors, or local sales for
less
than $5,000. Stainless steel kitchens would be beyond the financial
abilities of small producers, but testing based on units produced
would
be fairer.

As far as raw milk, and raw almonds, it seems that if they were
subject
to inspection, had a government warning sticker, and and full
disclosure
of their production, an adult should be able to buy them using their
own
best judgement.

When I first read about Testers's amendment, I have decided to be for
the bill. However, I am sure the bill will not help the consumer one
bit
and not improve the food safety at all. It is the skeptic in me.
Somewhere along the line big Corp will gut the bill.

My understanding, small farms and farmers markets are exempt from FDA
and USDA inspections unless something has gone wrong. Thanks to Sen.
Tester.

In my state of Michigan, one can purchase a cow directly from a
farmer.
The farmer will take it to a local license deer processor to have it
processed. The deer processors usually butcher them in their home
garage. Just like the Pailins Alaska butchering a Caribou in their
garage.

Good chance it would be cleaner than one cleaned on a conveyor belt.
Packing house employees seem to be an at risk group, when it comes to
carpal tunnel syndrome (repetitive motion).
true


--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)

In article ,
Dan L wrote:

Billy wrote:
In article ,
Dan L wrote:

Billy wrote:
In article ,

[SNIP]
Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) has proposed amendments that would exempt
small

producers that sell to the public, hotels, and restaurants from
regulations. Whether this is for stainless steel kitchens, or simply

testing, I don't know. At some level, regulations would seem
pointless,
e.g. produce given or swapped with neighbors, or local sales for
less
than $5,000. Stainless steel kitchens would be beyond the financial
abilities of small producers, but testing based on units produced
would
be fairer.

As far as raw milk, and raw almonds, it seems that if they were
subject
to inspection, had a government warning sticker, and and full
disclosure
of their production, an adult should be able to buy them using their
own
best judgement.

When I first read about Testers's amendment, I have decided to be for
the bill. However, I am sure the bill will not help the consumer one
bit
and not improve the food safety at all. It is the skeptic in me.
Somewhere along the line big Corp will gut the bill.

My understanding, small farms and farmers markets are exempt from FDA
and USDA inspections unless something has gone wrong. Thanks to Sen.
Tester.

In my state of Michigan, one can purchase a cow directly from a
farmer.
The farmer will take it to a local license deer processor to have it
processed. The deer processors usually butcher them in their home
garage. Just like the Pailins Alaska butchering a Caribou in their
garage.

Good chance it would be cleaner than one cleaned on a conveyor belt.
Packing house employees seem to be an at risk group, when it comes to
carpal tunnel syndrome (repetitive motion).
true

Going verbose on me? Uh-huh.
--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyE5wjc4XOw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_vN0--mHug

Sorry, I copied this from another group. It appears some of the "facts" are
not facts.

In article ,
"Steve Peek" wrote:


Sorry, I copied this from another group. It appears some of the "facts" are
not facts.

No problem "we" were able to get it right. I thought the site
http://www.truthistreason.net/ was a tip off especially the recommended
list of sites. Sort of a wingnut alert which I saved just to see what
they are up too.
I'm in the process of cataloguing my saved seeds and marking my early
catalogues with seeds of interest. Found OCA Oxalis tuberosa said to
be a lost Inca tuber. A late fall baby potato like plant. This found
in Nichols.

--
Bill S. Jersey USA zone 5 shade garden

Daniel Moynihan and Dennis Kucinich in 2012 !

"Bill who putters" wrote in message

Found OCA Oxalis tuberosa said to
be a lost Inca tuber. A late fall baby potato like plant. This found
in Nichols.

'Lost'????? It's grown commercially in NZ where it is known as NZ yam.
http://www.garden-nz.co.nz/grow-your...-your-own.html

In article ,
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:

"Bill who putters" wrote in message

Found OCA Oxalis tuberosa said to
be a lost Inca tuber. A late fall baby potato like plant. This found
in Nichols.

'Lost'????? It's grown commercially in NZ where it is known as NZ yam.
http://www.garden-nz.co.nz/grow-your...-your-own.html

Farml do you know of any other lost vegetables ?

--
Bill S. Jersey USA zone 5 shade garden

Daniel Moynihan and Dennis Kucinich in 2012 !

In article ,
Bill who putters wrote:

http://www.garden-nz.co.nz/grow-your...-your-own.html

I wonder if Colorado Potato bugs eat them ??

--
Bill S. Jersey USA zone 5 shade garden

Daniel Moynihan and Dennis Kucinich in 2012 !

"Bill who putters" wrote in message
In article ,
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:
"Bill who putters" wrote in message

Found OCA Oxalis tuberosa said to
be a lost Inca tuber. A late fall baby potato like plant. This found
in Nichols.

'Lost'????? It's grown commercially in NZ where it is known as NZ yam.
http://www.garden-nz.co.nz/grow-your...-your-own.html

Farml do you know of any other lost vegetables ?

The only one that garden magazines regularly put into that group would be
the Wollemi Pine, however, since no-one except maybe at a pinch, a lost
Aboriginal knew it might perhaps have ever existed, I wouldn't even include
that as being 'lost'. It was just never known by anyone in the western
world until 'discovered'.

I don't think any plants are ever lost except in the case of species
extinction. Plants in certain cultures might be unknown, but that is not
the same thing as 'lost'.

In article ,
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:

"Bill who putters" wrote in message
In article ,
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:
"Bill who putters" wrote in message

Found OCA Oxalis tuberosa said to
be a lost Inca tuber. A late fall baby potato like plant. This found
in Nichols.

'Lost'????? It's grown commercially in NZ where it is known as NZ yam.
http://www.garden-nz.co.nz/grow-your...row-your-own.h
tml

Farml do you know of any other lost vegetables ?

The only one that garden magazines regularly put into that group would be
the Wollemi Pine, however, since no-one except maybe at a pinch, a lost
Aboriginal knew it might perhaps have ever existed, I wouldn't even include
that as being 'lost'. It was just never known by anyone in the western
world until 'discovered'.

I don't think any plants are ever lost except in the case of species
extinction. Plants in certain cultures might be unknown, but that is not
the same thing as 'lost'.

semantics

plural noun [usu. treated as sing. ]
the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a
number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal
semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense,
reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics, which
studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics,
which studies the cognitive structure of meaning.

€ the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text : such quibbling over
semantics may seem petty stuff.
DERIVATIVES
semantician |?s?man?ti sh ?n| noun
semanticist noun

--
Bill S. Jersey USA zone 5 shade garden

"Always tell the truth and you don't have to remember anything."
--Mark Twain.

"Bill who putters" wrote in message
In article ,
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:
"Bill who putters" wrote in message
In article ,
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:
"Bill who putters" wrote in message

Found OCA Oxalis tuberosa said to
be a lost Inca tuber. A late fall baby potato like plant. This
found
in Nichols.

'Lost'????? It's grown commercially in NZ where it is known as NZ
yam.
http://www.garden-nz.co.nz/grow-your...row-your-own.h
tml

Farml do you know of any other lost vegetables ?

The only one that garden magazines regularly put into that group would be
the Wollemi Pine, however, since no-one except maybe at a pinch, a lost
Aboriginal knew it might perhaps have ever existed, I wouldn't even
include
that as being 'lost'. It was just never known by anyone in the western
world until 'discovered'.

I don't think any plants are ever lost except in the case of species
extinction. Plants in certain cultures might be unknown, but that is not
the same thing as 'lost'.

semantics

Sigh!

You asked a dumb question. I tried to give a response in unambiguous
English but it seems that didn't work so I'll put it another way.

How would I know of any "OTHER LOST" vegetables when I never knew that oca
was supposed to be 'lost' in the first place.