Posted by LydiaScott on 03/06/09 03:36 AM Last updated 03/29/09 06:36 AM [Newer: HR 875 is being steamrolled thru the House and we have to pick up the pace!] [Older: Fed lends Two Trillion with no oversight!]

 HR 875  http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:1:./temp/~c1112RD9bb:e11439:  

This bill is sitting in committee and I am not sure when it is going to hit the floor.  One thing I do know is that very few of the Representatives have read it.  As usual they will vote on this based on what someone else is saying.  Urge your members to read the legislation and ask for opposition to this devastating legislation.  Devastating for everyday folks but great for factory farming ops like Monsanto, ADM, Sodexo and Tyson to name a few.

I have no doubt that this legislation was heavily influenced by lobbyists from huge food producers.  This legislation is so broad based that technically someone with a little backyard garden could get fined and have their property siezed.   It will affect anyone who produces food even if they do not sell but only consume it.  It will literally put all independent farmers and food producers out of business due to the huge amounts of money it will take to conform to factory farming methods.  If people choose to farm without industry standards such as chemical pesticides and fertilizers they will be subject to a vareity of harassment from this completely new agency that has never before existed.  That's right, a whole new government agency is being created just to police food, for our own protection of course.

 DO NOT TAKE MY WORD FOR IT, READ THIS LEGISLATION FOR YOURSELF.  The more people who read this legislation the more insight we are going to get and be able to share.  Post your observations and insights below.  Urge your members to read this legislation and to oppose the passage of this legislation.

Pay special attention to

• Section 3 which is the definitions portion of the bill-read in it's entirety.
• section 103, 206 and 207- read in it's entirety.

Red flags I found and I am sure there are more...........

• Legally binds state agriculture depts to enforcing federal guidelines effectively taking away the states power to do anything other than being food police for the federal dept.
• Effectively criminalizes organic farming but doesn't actually use the word organic.
• Affects anyone growing food even if they are not selling it but consuming it.
• Affects anyone producing meat of any kind including the processing wild game for personal consumption. 
• Legislation is so broad based that every aspect of growing or producing food can be made illegal.  There are no specifics which is bizarre considering how long the legislation is.  
• Section 103 is almost entirely about the administrative aspect of the legislation.  It will allow the appointing of officials from the factory farming corporations and lobbyists and classify them as experts and allow them to determine and interpret the legislation.  Who do you think they are going to side with?  
• Section 206 defines what will be considered a food production facility and what will be enforced up all food production facilities.  The wording is so broad based that a backyard gardener could be fined and more.
• Section 207 requires that the state's agriculture dept act as the food police and enforce the federal requirements.  This takes away the states power and is in violation of the 10th amendment.
• There are many more but by the time I got this far in the legislation I was so alarmed that I wanted to bring someone's attention to it. (to the one person who reads my blog)

Didn't Stalin nationalize farming methods that enabled his administration to gain control over the food supply?  Didn't Stalin use the food to control the people?

Last word...... Legislate religion and enforce gag orders on ministers on what can and can't be said in the pulpit, instituting regulations forcing people to rely soley on the government, control the money and the food.  What is that called?  It is on the tip of my tongue..........

I haven't read any of the Senate's version of the bill as I have been poring thru the House's version.  Here is the link and I hope some of you can take a look and post your observations and insights below.  One thing I am pretty sure of is that very few if any Senator's have actually read the legislation and when it comes up for a vote they will more than likely take someone else's word on how they should vote.  The other thing I am pretty sure about is that the legislation was probably written by lobbyists and industry experts.

S 425  http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:s425: 

Things you can do

1. Contact your members at 202-224-3121 and ask them to oppose HR 875 and S 425.  While you are at it ask them if they personally have read the legislation and what their position is? If they have not read the legislation ask them to read it and politely let them know that just because other representitives are not reading the legislation and voting on it does not mean they can do the same.  
2. Get in touch with local farmers and food producers by attending a local farmers market and asking them how business is.  
3. Attend a local WAPF meeting, this is a good start to learning about what is going on in farming and local & state initiatives .  The website is http://www.westonaprice.org/localchapters/index.html
4. Check out the Farmers Legal Defense Fund at http://www.ftcldf.org/index.html
5. Find out who sits on your states agriculture and farming committee and contact them with your concerns.
6. Continue to contact your elected officials and let them know your position on legislation and why.
7. Get active at the local and state levels, this is the quickest way to initiate change.

Posted 03/06/09 06:27 AM MidWestLadyFarmer Winigan, MO

Thanks for the post.

Posted 03/06/09 08:07 AM BBLiberty Pekin, IL

Yes, thanks for bringing this to our attention. I will be contacting farmers in the Peoria, IL area.

Posted 03/06/09 08:21 AM libertyspirit Modesto, CA

I also appreciate your post and will be letting others know about this. I will be bringing this up, as well, when I contact my congressman today about a couple of other isssues.

Posted 03/06/09 08:52 AM Freedom London, United Kingdom

Thanks for posting this! digg it http://digg.com/politics/HR_875_The_Food_Police_Criminalizing_Organic_Farmin g

Posted 03/06/09 09:03 AM Sigy380 Jackson, TN

Thanks Lydia, You can't deny that they have done their homework. As so many people have prepared themselves to be able to grow their own food while awaiting the worst, they have to come up with a plan. If the worst actually becomes our reality and we have the Real ID, they have to have some way to control our being able to simply feed ourselves. Conspiracy doesn't have to be a theory!

Posted 03/07/09 9:56 PM thudson Seattle, WA

I've read the text of this bill several times, and there is nothing restricting backyard gardeners or organic farmers. This bill would affect large agro-business, and insure that their desire for profits would not mean the death of our children. Please point out what text prohibits backyard gardening. Also, you should divulge any consulting contracts you have with interested parties.

Posted 03/07/09 11:28 PM altamira Lockhart, TX

thudson said: "Please point out what text prohibits backyard gardening. Also, you should divulge any consulting contracts you have with interested parties." The bill does not explicitly prohibit backyard gardening. What is does is include backyard gardens in the definition of Food Production Facilities. Here's the definition (section 3-14) -------------------------------------- (14) FOOD PRODUCTION FACILITY- The term ‘food production facility’ means any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined animal-feeding operation. --------------------------------------- This is a broad definition that could include backyard gardens, a backyard chicken pen with 2 or 3 hens, a backyard bee hive, etc. One might hope that regulations and courts would clarify the law in such a way as to exempt food produced for one's own use. But don't forget U.S. Supreme Court decisions, such as the New Deal era opinion which held that a farmer growing corn to feed his own pigs was engaged in interstate commerce, because growing his own corn meant that he did not purchase as much corn, thus having an effect on the interstate market for corn. Having laws on the books that could conceivably be construed in such as way as to regulate backyard or homestead food production is awfully risky. In addition to this, the law could very well put small farmers out of business, as it is generally far more burdensome for them to comply with regulations than it is for large companies -- plus small farmers do not have the wherewithal to bribe regulators, whereas large corporations do (I use the term bribe somewhat broadly to include such things as free trips, pretty women, and cases of expensive whiskey).

Posted 03/08/09 12:38 PM Lil Merc San Diego, CA

Thank you for directing our attention to this vital information. I will pass this on to everyone that I can. These people should be charged for even attempting this! This is our right, it is our body. What's next? We are so past the need for another Tea Party!

Posted 03/08/09 2:42 PM wilsonpwt Groveport, OH

This issue should be larger than anything else currently on the table. Just the fact it is so little publicized is a red flag. HR 875 and Senate Bill 425 under the guise of 'Food Safety' helps the goals of Codex Alimentarius and the World Trade Organization. Absolute Control of our food and medicine is the ultimate control. As it is already, pharmaceuticals kill 100,000 per year in the United States. Common Law vs Napoleon Law - HR875 uses Napoleon Law

Posted 03/09/09 08:02 AM karamojong Waco, TX

Thanks for sharing! Send it to our politicians sure, but I think we need to send it to the media! Local and national! Let's really get it out there! Maybe someone will pay attention.

Posted 03/10/09 2:46 PM Kimberlee Huntington Beach, CA

I sent a hand written letter to our Senator yesterday. I am taking this to all of our local organic growers and grocery stores to get them on board and I'll keep at it until we stop this nonsense. War in the name of peace, enslavement in the name of liberty. It's been backwards for way too long now and it is the PEOPLE that need to fight for freedom, but not from other countries, from our own government. Funny that as I type this the helicopters are flying over.

Posted 03/10/09 5:48 PM StatusQuoJoe Phoenix, AZ

Big time! Steve Quayle Story of the Day #2! Woohoo!

Posted 03/11/09 09:04 AM Chips Austin, TX

The most immediate necessity is the addition at the end of EXCLUSIONS ((13)(A) of Sec. 3, Definitions), of: ", or nonprofit home or community gardens intended for production of food for participants and their families." (or similar, unambiguous language.) "Food production facilities" (discussed in a post above) are specifically excluded. However, this in no way denies great ambiguity in general. The definition of PROCESS is ambiguous; for purposes of the Act, it can be argued that simply growing food could be interpreted as "manufacturing" it, and chopping, slicing, dicing, mincing, cutting, (and otherwise handling), and cooking the food could be construed as "preparation". One valid definition of FOOD ESTABLISHMENT, as defined by the Act, would be, “a facility owned or operated by a person located in any State that processes food or holds or stores food”. While "food production facility", as a term, is defined, "facility" is not; this could be interpreted as meaning your house! Given the above, anyone’s home garden, or a couple of chickens in the back yard, could be construed as a Category 1, 2, 3 or 4 Food Establishment. Listed as EXCLUSIONS are: · Food production facilities (farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, etc.) – which can easily be argued are NOT home gardens; · Nonprofit food establishment in which food is prepared for or served directly to the consumer – while this looks like a possible valid exemption for a home garden, it’s also ambiguous; it could be interpreted as meaning a soup kitchen or Meals On Wheels facility, but not a home garden.

Posted 03/11/09 09:52 AM Chips Austin, TX

Hmm. On second thought, the most immediate necessity it to defeat the bill. Barring that, the addition of unambiguous language exempting home gardens is essential.

Posted 03/12/09 11:48 AM wilsonpwt Groveport, OH

Representative Rosa L. DeLauro (D - CT) is the woman who sponsored Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009 HR875: 1. Her husband, Stan Greenberg, has MONSANTO as a client. 2. She received $180k in donations from agribusiness PAC's. 3. She's pals with Rahm Emanuel. Considering the above points and the fact that there are 39 cosponsors and a Democrat majority, this could be a tough battle. Stop Federal Takeover of Food Regulation in H.R. 875 This is a good article with links for contacting: http://www.naturalnews.com/025824.html

Posted 03/13/09 2:53 PM Kimberlee Huntington Beach, CA

Lydia, This article concerns me. http://www.organicc onsumers. org/articles/ article_15270. cfm Government's Drug War Test Kits Give False Positives on Organic and Natural Products Healthy Counterculture Lifestyles Profiled and Targeted Press Release Organic Consumers Association, October 9, 2008 Straight to the Source WASHINGTON, DC – For decades law enforcement agencies including local police, DEA and U.S. Customs have used what is known as "presumptive field drug-test" kits to confirm that suspected materials are illegal drugs. The tests, which use powerful acids to react with suspected substances, change color to indicate the presence or absence of drugs. However, there is now conclusive evidence the field drug tests falsely indicate the presence of drugs when used on numerous natural products such as soap, soy milk, essential oils and chocolate. Developed over 60 years ago, these tests are made by the giant homeland security company Armor Holdings, a subsidiary of BAE Systems. At a cost of less than five dollars each, the field drug tests can be found in nearly every police car, border checkpoint, jail and in most schools. In August and September of this year, Canadians Ron Obadia and Nadine Artemis, founders of Living Libations who make raw organic chocolate and natural personal care products, were arrested while trying to cross the US border, after a false-positive drug test on their chocolate products. Their eight month old son was taken from them, and U.S. border agents interrogated them separately and attempted to coerce confessions, even telling them their partner had confessed to smuggling hash. The couple eventually was cleared of all drug charges from the August incident after confirmation lab tests show there were no drugs. But they were re-arrested in September while again trying to cross the US border for a US natural products trade show, despite high level communication and permission between their Canadian attorney and US Customs officials. Mr. Obadia now faces charges of exporting a controlled substance, where the only evidence is an NIK (Armor Holdings brand) field test for marijuana that was administered by Customs officials that falsely indicated that their raw organic chocolate in their hand luggage was hash. Mr. Obadia's attorney Mark Mahoney intends to subpoena Armor Holdings for all internal records and documents regarding false-positives, and a complete account of the incidents is on their website http://livinglibati ons.com/media- information . Similar false positives have resulted in arrests over other natural products. In 2007, a false-positive for the date rape drug GHB occurred when Newport Beach (CA) police tested Dr. Bronner's peppermint soap. Based on the faulty field test, well-known musician Don Bolles was jailed for three and half days over Easter weekend. After the Bronner family helped post bail and hired an attorney, the charges were dropped when more accurate crime lab tests showed there was no GHB in their soap. Further investigation by Dr. Bronner's found that any natural soap, including brands such as Tom's of Maine and Neutrogena, will falsely test-positive for GHB using the field drug test. Read about the incident at http://www.drbronne r.com/punk_ rock_soap_ opera.html. Dr. Bronner's is also covering Mr. Obadia and Ms. Artemis's attorney costs going forward. "We are alarmed by the growing number of people who have been taken to jail for simply possessing organic products," says Ronnie Cummins, Executive Director of the Organic Consumers Association (OCA). "This is an attack on people who have adopted an organic natural lifestyle, whether it's the food they eat, the soap they clean with or the perfumes they use. What kind of world do we live in where nursing mothers' have their babies taken from them and are subjected to coercive interrogations to generate false confessions, over healthy organic foods like raw chocolate," says Cummins who co-founded the 800,000 supporter strong OCA. The American Civil Liberties Union's (ACLU's) Drug War Project is also contemplating a class action challenge to the drug war testing industry.

Posted 03/14/09 1:38 PM Kimberlee Huntington Beach, CA

Lydia, Know that you have made a difference and keep on plowing. This is an article I read in a yahoo group I belong to who are doing what we can to stop the chemtrails. US Gov't Follows Stalin's Example-Seizes Nation's Food Supply By J.Cook It's not as if they didn't see it coming; they did. In fact, published reports suggest that as early as 1929, Russia's rural population had begun to stockpile food, fuel and other provisions to the extent that most of them had at least a 60-day supply of essentials, including firearms and ammunition. They knew. So did Stalin. His minions came in the dark of night, seizing farms and whole villages, demanding that the rural residents surrender their provisions or die. And so it begins again. This time, it's not Stalinist Russia, but the good old United States of America, and the Government is becoming increasingly worried about the rural population. History is repeating itself: Go here to see video of interview with Stowers whom had their entire food supply seized by the U.S. government - http://rfdamerica. com/?p=627 Think what happened to the Stowers is just a fluke, a miscommunication? Think again. There's a new bill working its way through Congress-The Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009.Read it closely. What happened to the Stowers is only the beginning. The Obama Administration is coming for rural America. Strategic Ambiguity-The Secret Weapon Strategic Ambiguity is a communication technique used to assert control over a large group of people without specifying exactly what the parameters of behavior and expectations are,e.g. "Change We Can Believe In." Remember it? Change is something different to everyone, making it perfectly ambiguous. The Obama Administration is once again raising this coldhearted control technique to new levels. The Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009 is purposely vague, leaving it opened to interpretation by the Government's newest agency-The Food Safety Administration. The new agency has broad powers, powers that would allow them to order raids like the one on the Stowers against all small-scale family farmers and rural communities. Stalin would be impressed. The new agency is charged with "protecting" the Nation's food supply, because, as readily admitted in the bill, the USDA and FDA have completely failed when it comes to ensuring the integrity of the food supply: 1 SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSES. -Congress finds that- recent ongoing events demonstrate that the food safety program at the Food and Drug Adminis tration is not effective in controlling hazards in food coming from farms and factories in the United States and food and food ingredients coming from foreign countries, and these events have adversely affected consumer confidence; So, the Government, up until this point, has failed miserably, and these geniuses think we need yet another government agency? It would be laughable, if it weren't for the power it gives the Government to seize control of individual stocks of food, homemade food, homegrown food, and any other food "processed" anywhere in America. You see, this bill is so ambiguous, the term "processor" could literally mean a kitchen with a pressure canner or dehydrator in it. In fact, "processor" could even mean a hunter cleaning a kill. This is how power is seized from the people and handed over to Government. The law is ambiguous enough to allow tyranny in the name of safety-"We're from the Government; We're here to help." Don't bet on it. The rural population in twentieth century Russia knew better. Who could be against protecting the food supply? The problem is that's the reasoning Stalin used to declare war on Russia's landowners. They were labeled as hoarders and ordered to turn over their food supplies to the Government to feed the hungry masses. Why were the masses starving? Because of Stalin's nationalization of the banks and then the farms. Do you see similarities here, rural America? Lydia Scott over at The Campaign for Liberty did a magnificent job of breaking down this proposed law that would ostensibly protect the Nation's food supply. It's time to pay attention.

Posted 03/15/09 12:22 PM xyzzy Washington, DC

This post has stirred up quite a storm on the internet. But when asked what the issue is, you pointed to the vague definition of 'food production facility,' it would seem because it fails to exclude non-commercial or grassroots commercial food production. This is a serious issue, but easily fixed, and it doesn't seem to warrant the outcry this bill has caused. I hate Monsanto and I hate huge agribusiness, with their hands in the pockets of congresspeople, but I don't see how the creation of the FSA helps them out any (particularly if we just add a clause about 'resale' to the definition of 'food production facility'). I also can't see how this impacts organic farming, as much as Monsanto would like to do so, apart from the standard issues that small businesses face with regulation (this is, in fact, addressed in the bill). Granted we already have USDA and FDA to do some inspections, so perhaps this new agency is not necessary (not that I've heard any arguments along those lines) but by the same token, if this agency can do the bidding of agribusiness, so can the existing agencies. There is no specific regulatory content in the bill so far as I can see that would impact organic farmers etc. Only the creation of a new agency with broad powers. Scary for some I suppose, but I'd like to see the specifics.

Posted 03/19/09 12:31 AM GryphonsClaw Philomath, OR

I have added this cause to facebook apps at: http://apps.facebook.com/causes/251107/54571295?m=53dc0360

Posted 03/19/09 11:34 AM amkaplan Vashon, WA

If you would inject as much zeal into your writing skills as you have into your call to arms, it would make your writing bearable to read. It would behoove you to take a spelling and grammar review class; your article is riddled with spelling and grammar errors. Spelling and grammar checkers are there for many reasons, the biggest of which is to prevent oneself from looking like an illiterate fool; you have obviously not used yours. Please pay attention to the differences between affect/effect, its/it’s, and the proper spellings of “soley” and “sieze,” for starters. Then you can work on comma usage, and the skill of posting web links that actually work. Good luck.

Posted 03/26/09 09:52 AM dslyoga Boston, MA

@amkaplan -- A more helpful, useful and responsible post would have been to offer to HELP edit Lydia's future posts, should she deem necessary. (I personally had NO problem reading her writing, and did not even notice any errors. I focused on the essential meanings, not the superficial stuff you find more interesting.) The offer to HELP would have had at least SOME value to it (IF she were intending it for a mass audience, for example), whereas given where she HAS posted it -- this special interest forum, and with time urgency, like NOW -- I have no idea why you even bothered to make such a comment. It makes you look EXACTLY like the unnecessary and ridiculous insults you made about Lydia. You might be very literate in a certain limited way, but ... your negative comment without positive contribution (NO, the suggestion to take a course does not merit consideration) does not make you look very good. If you have spent much time writing and researching articles, you personally know how difficult and time consuming it can be -- for some people -- to polish the product. And if you have ever read early drafts of SOME very successful writers, you must know that even their work can look terrible -- IF you were to focus only on the superficial elements. ON THE OTHER HAND, I would much rather Lydia get the writings out ASAP and not be concerned about the superficial and unimportant details, which, as I said, I did not even notice until you mentioned them, because a this level, the errors are irrelevant to the quality and importance of Lydia's message. -- Unless you have nothing better to do. It's like many of THE most successful marketers today say: If you worry much about what your 4th grade English teacher told you, you'll never get out the door with your writing. ... And if you have much experience, you know there are a LOT of things that can get past spell catchers. ... So, ask Lydia when, and if, she is going to publish her stuff in a wider venue with people whom are less committed to the essential message, and offer to HELP with the editing. SHE has more important things to do.

Posted 03/26/09 3:53 PM farmblogger Denver, CO

Here is an online petition you can sign to Help Stop HR 875: http://www.leavemyfoodalone.org/ Spread the word!

Posted 03/26/09 4:08 PM farmblogger Denver, CO

Here is an online petition you can sign to help stop HR 875: http://www.leavemyfoodalone.org Spread the word!

Posted 03/27/09 12:26 PM davidsmag salem, CT

http://www.ota.com/news/breaking/foodsafety.html

Posted 03/27/09 2:24 PM stevojeano222 Troy, NY

Saw this linked from Western Rifle Shooters. Thanks for publicizing this rotten attempt at another power grab which will further limit our freedoms. Grammar nitpick: "Effects anyone growing food..." should be: "Affects anyone growing food...."

Posted 03/28/09 06:09 AM davidsmag salem, CT

Come on people. Are we really that desparate to worry about our rights? Read The OTA's response below to HR 875. Not bloggers interprtation of gloom & doom. http://www.ota.com/news/breaking/foodsafety.html

Posted 03/29/09 06:31 AM LydiaScott South Bend, IN

Yes, we ought to be worried about our rights. History has shown time and time again that vague and broad worded legislation will be used every single time. About 5 corporation own all of the food companies, I have no doubt that they want every single person as a customer and will do whatever it takes to make it so. Monsanto, ADM and Sodexo have been very brutal in the ways they have achieved their goals so far, I doubt they will suddenly turn over a new leaf. As for elected officials, they continue to allow lobbyists to write legislation of these bills and then look the other way as they pass them. They give some kind of excuse knowing we will give them a break. We have to stop giving them a break, they are taking advantage of us. This is supposed to be a people's government yet I couldn't tell by what is happening at the capitol. The Patriot act was passed without any oversight and no one ever thought they would use it to monitor regular Americans yet they do so. I think we ought to continue to question the status quo and look at proposed legislation from every perspective. Once made into law it is difficult to overturn. When has that ever happened? Not at all that I know of.

Posted 03/31/09 10:40 PM c0mp0sT3r Coos Bay, OR

They'll stop me from gardening when they pry the shovel from my cold dead fingers. I guess we can all wave goodbye to the Saturday farmer's market and virtually every other cottage industry connected with food. Hello conglomeratization of food. Odd thing is it's a really stupid law, in that it will protect none of the consumers. It will be virtually impossible to enforce on the local level, and it won't stop anyone from getting ecoli in their factory farmed tomatoes, or salmonella in their peanut butter.

Posted 04/06/09 08:24 AM Sharon Prairie Du Rocher, IL

When one writes a bill with such sweeping language that does not specifically exclude small farmers, roadside veggies stands, and home gardens it causes confusion and apprehension. So here is the question: Wouldn't this entire mess just be cleared up if simple language, you know the Keep It Simple Silly principle, was applied? How about: "No foodstuffs produced by American Citizens on their own property for their own consumption, sharing with neighbors or to supplement other hungry individuals during these Economically Challenging times shall be covered by HR 875." I mean - we expect results - let us tell the legislators what we want. Maybe that is too simple - but look at the situation we are in now by writing thousand page Bills.

Posted 04/06/09 11:00 PM pittypat12345 Raleigh, NC

Have written my local Congress Rep. Brad Miller (D, NC-13) concerning this issue. He never votes the way I want though. I can't wait to get someone else elected in his place next election go-around.

Posted 04/10/09 2:57 PM marywasadj seattle, WA

Just so you know, this would *not* effect a backyard or small-scale farmer in Washington state. To be granted a nursery/ farm license, you must sell at least $100 worth of product. If you never sell it (or sell less than $100), you are not responsible for following their guidelines, which if you know anything about GMOs and modern chemical farming, you will agree are a huge step in the right direction. I'm wholly saddened that someone who feels *so* concerned with the welfare of small-scale farm operations would have such a close-minded critique of this legislation.

Posted 04/12/09 11:47 AM c0mp0sT3r Coos Bay, OR

marywasadj "Just so you know, this would *not* effect a backyard or small-scale farmer in Washington state." The law as written does not say this, it appoints an administrator to oversee and regulate all food production facilities, the definitions of a food production facility pretty much cover everything. "To be granted a nursery/ farm license, you must sell at least $100 worth of product. If you never sell it (or sell less than $100), you are not responsible for following their guidelines" This law does not say that either. "if you know anything about GMOs and modern chemical farming, you will agree (these guidelines) are a huge step in the right direction" Guess which "industry expert" will be your new food safety administrator? Hint: Sounds like Monsanto.

Posted 04/19/09 11:17 PM Smokescreen Knoxville, TN

Why would anyone want the government to dictate how their garden grows is beyond me. Once again the lobbyist writes the bills and the house and congress (without reading them) passes them into law. We keep getting closer and closer to adopting the codex.

Posted 06/30/09 11:08 AM RalphFucetolaJD Newton, NJ

Thanks for bringing this issue to Campaign for Liberty. There's more information on Natural Solutions Foundation's http://www.healthfreedomusa.org web site. We've posted some important language about the various (sic) "Food Safety" bills that would force family farms and ranches, home, nonprofit, natural and organic producers into a govt overseen industrial agribiz model. More info: http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?p=2287 And: http://www.FoodFreedomeJournal.org Ralph Fucetola JD NSF Trustee PS - Your Right to Self-Shield in the Event of a Pandemic http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?p=2752

Posted 09/03/09 12:14 AM Redgyl Great Lakes, IL

To me, this bill is yet another government intrusion on the market. Whether it affects organic growers or small-time farmers or home gardeners or not, it's still another attempt for the government to extend its power into areas where it doesn't belong. What if, by some miracle, small businesses are excluded? Does that mean that one small business that's becoming sucessful enough to become big suddenly has to be under the government's thumb more so than before? This bill would need to be opposed just on principle. Bad businesses fail if the market is left alone. Bad businesses fail because of unsatisfactory products, unless the governent helps them out. Just on that, this bill needs to be demolished.

Posted 11/02/09 5:32 PM cdrates Brookline, MA

wow, I can't believe this bill is for real. Who comes up with this stuff?