If you listen to Obama's weekly address from 3/14/09 (which Obama has on You Tube) it sounds like he's going to save us all from this new crisis by making government in charge of what we eat. In his address he actually says "There are certain things we can't do on our own. There are certain things that only government can do.". It sounds like he's preparing us for HR 875 with his fear/crisis tactics.

Well, then you obviously didn't listen to the address very clearly, project gardener. The address was specifically about funding programs that have been underfunded and understaffed, appointment of new heads, and inspection. He was saying very clearly that the problems of the past have been due to companies being allowed to get away with irresponsible practices. He's right. You can't keep the money mongers in check. I can't. Only a government agency with the power to punish these companies for doing wrong and breaking laws can actually do this and they can't do it if they don't have staff to perform inspections (though it begs the question, who keeps THEM in check?). He repeated this over and over, so if you didn't get it it's because you either didn't listen or you are one of those that specifically chooses to paint the president in a bad light even when he says something good. The bill is supporting the creating of another agency while Obama was talking about existing ones. This bill has absolutely nothing to do with the address and you just used this thread as a means to push a political stance against the administration rather than reply to the actual issue.

Now, as far as the actual topic of the original post: This worries me. It's evident that the major biotech companies really control things in this country. Many people have had this misconception it is the oil industry, or "Big Oil", even though people can survive without oil. We can't survive without food or water, the real currencies of the world in hard times. If we get to a point when water no longer falls from the sky (as some have gotten to in this world), those that control fresh water will be in power. In some areas, the government is trying to gain such power by outlawing rain barrels, for example, and have been successful in areas such as Colorado. They can't do it everywhere because the outdated sewer systems actually benefit from rain barrel use in areas prone to flooding. Once those systems are fixed, though, watch out. In this country, the power lies with the businesses that control the food industry for now and it has been that way for a long time. I encourage anyone to read Michael Pollan's works on the food industry.

Often times in recent months republicans (particularly the extremists) have tried to paint a link of Monsanto and Obama through his near VP pick of Ann Venneman. Interestingly, they forget to mention that she is a Republican that served as George Bush's Secretary of Agriculture. My point isn't to blame one party or another. The point is that all major politicians regardless of party are under the thumb of huge agribusiness.

What do you suggest we do to stop this bill or at least slow it, freeman? I'm all ears (or eyes in this case).

Another issue (also opposed by Ron Paul) that should be of concern is the NAIS program - National Animal Identification System. Yet another way to use fear to control our food supply. And before anyone tries to misrepresent Obama again, the attempts at federalizing this and making it mandatory were started by the Bush admin, too. Unfortunately, Obama appears to be following suit. Further proof it doesn't matter what party because either no party has real control or both parties really have the same goals. I put a link below on that one. I pulled it from a "Daily Paul" of Ron Pauls since this thread was started based on one.

Here is a link that might be useful: NAIS Info

IANAL.

I just read the bill, and it doesn't seem at all how people are describing it. It's very broad and vague; it doesn't order any specific remedies at all. It simply states that the government will create an agency tasked to ensure proper procedures for preventing contaminated food from entering the market. It doesn't specify any specific procedures for doing so -- certainly none that would eliminate organic farming (unless you somehow think that organic farms produce food that is inherently contaminated).

Now, one could be troubled by the fact that the bill gives the power to create standards without specifying what those standards will be. In that regard, it depends on how much you trust the administration. If you think the administration is favorable to organic farms, then you have nothing to worry about. If you think they're hostile to organic farms, then perhaps you do.

No, this won't affect gardens. Unless you somehow think a garden is a "food establishment". No court in their right mind would interpret it that way, IMHO. And that'd be unconstitutional anyways, IMHO, under the right to privacy standard adopted by SCOTUS, so it'd just get overturned if anyone tried to enforce it in that manner.

Sorry, Karen, but history states otherwise. A precedent was set in 1942 by the Supreme Court in the case of Wickard v Filburn. When the US was experiencing the depression in full swing, the gov't subsidized wheat. Farmers had to stay within restrictions on what was grown to avoid flooding the markets. When Filburn grew excess wheat for home consumption, the SCOTUS decided he was in the wrong because that is wheat that he would have had to buy commercially. They essentially ruled that because he didn't buy it, he was hurting the economy. They recognized his one man contribution would not do harm, but if they allowed all farmers to do that it could cripple the economy again. The "Commerce Clause" was never intended for that purpose, but since it was so broad and unspecific it could be interpreted by judges anyway they see fit. The court stated that home grown wheat directly competes with wheat in commerce and used the Commerce Clause to exert power of the home use of that man's family crop.

So, when you start putting bills in place like the broad and vague one here, you risk someone telling you that your homegrown veges are a risk because they aren't inspected and monitored or you aren't registered as a "food establishment".

Example: Define food establishment. According to the bill it's anyone producing, processing, OR distributing food. In other words, distribution is not necessary to qualify. That means private use, too. That is a lot more specific than you would have people believe and the SCOTUS made a ruling on less specific grounds before.

Of course, Monsanto backs this bill and in reality probably wrote it considering it was introduced by the congresswoman married to a Monsanto employee. I mean, come on. How convenient is that? To assume there is no commercial agenda involved which would create a strategic control for Monsanto would be naive.

In response to Karen I've got to say that the most dangerous type of bill that congress can pass is one that is "very broad and vague." If the limitations of the resultant law are not well defined, it's too tempting and easy for some to use it for unitended purposes.

Lyndon Johnson said it best:
"You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered. "

joe.jr317

"What do you suggest we do to stop this bill or at least slow it, freeman?"

I did two things. First, I started this thread to alert others and second, I emailed my congressmen and voiced my concern.

Wickard v Filburn is completely different. I can only assume that you're not familiar with the Right to Privacy standard. It basically states that the state must pass a strict scrutiny standard -- to demonstrate a compelling national interest that could not be achieved without abridging an individual's rights -- for any law that attempts to interfere with a person's private life. In Wickard v Filburn, they passed this standard under the argument that the compelling national interest -- wheat price controls -- could not be achieved with individuals growing wheat in their gardens. The compelling national interest in this case -- keeping contaminated food out of the nation's food supply -- is unaffected by individuals growing their own food, as they don't contribute to the food supply.

And furthermore, nobody in their right mind would interpret the bill in this way anyways, as people aren't dumb enough to think that the bill is about gardens. There's this strange notion common in America that law is all about technicalities. That if a law *can* be read in one way, it *must* or *will* be read in that way. But that's not how things work. A major portion of interpreting the law is legislative intent -- what legislators were trying to achieve when they wrote the law, even when they were less than articulate in their phrasing. There's absolutely no way anyone could look at the legislative record here and come up with the impression that their goal was to shut down *gardens*.

But again, IANAL.

I see (and mostly agree) with what you're saying karen, but it is possible this legislation could put undue strains through paperwork and fees on small farms thus effectively shutting them down.
Many folkz here sell or intend to sell their products commercially (at farmers markets, etc). they would then be part of the food supply and subject to the legislation.
And while laws aren't based on technicalities, when legislation is broad the first person to interpret it in a more or less favorable manner sets the precedent upon which it is later based. An unscrupulous politician (isn't that redundant) might intentionally leave legislation vague with the full intent of later making a case that benefits his pockets and effectively narrows the scope of the legislation.
And no, I have not read the bill. what I wrote is mostly based on my experiences with politics, laws, and people.
The LBJ quote is still right!

I agree -- this is really about farms, not gardens. And I, too, don't like its vagueness. But in practice, how onerous the requirements are will really depend on how the administration decides to enforce it.

Hopefully we'll get a more explicit bill that limits the scope, so that we balance the needs of food safety with the needs of small farmers. The last thing I want is to push more and more food production towards giant agribusiness.

Before the ball rolls too far off the playing field, one must ask one's self, why is Monsanto pushing for this bill to be passed post haste?

My personal thought are that Monsanto does not give a hoot about the safety of food, rather they have great interest something hidden within the framework of the proposal. They don't call them "special-interest" groups for nothing!

What libs shouting freedom but making rules. The war on EVIL BUSINESS continues. Evil business is You and I trying to make a living. Sh*t if everyone wants to write me checks for nothing so be it. And now you know how they get into office. They prey on the greedy uneducated poor person who multiplies like a rabbit. Resist or Submit.