TPaine, you're reposting your previous links, which we've already had the opportunity to read. Thank you, by the way, for posting them the first time -- it was by following them that I found the text of the actual legislation (linked in my post above).
From your "Link 3":
Peter Van Doren of the Cato Institute reviewed a similar bill passed by the House of Representatives last year, and said he was concerned that the language in the House bill was overly broad. "The question of how much or little is encompassed by this language seems open to differing interpretations and would be the subject of much jockeying when the actual regulations implementing the law were written," he said.
This supports my contention that the bill is poorly written, and has a huge potential to be abused in order to control and eventually eliminate organic farmers, particularly organic farmers who sell to grocery stores and restaurants.
Further, none of your posted links address the issue that this legislation only applies to "real" food: Monsanto's pesticide-potato, pesticide-corn, and pesticide-soy plants are not regulated in any way by this legislation, even though they are just as liable to carry food-borne illnesses like campylobacter, salmonella, and e. coli as any other edible is. These illnesses are not controlled by pesticides, but by good hygiene, which cannot be enforced by the FDA or the newly-formed Food Safety Administration where Monsanto's genetically-modified edible "pesticides" are concerned.
That's why this legislation is being criticized -- not because it "goes too far" to protect the safety of our food, but because by leaving the gaping loophole of failing to regulate genetically-modified foods, it doesn't go far enough. Non of Monsanto's customers will be affected by these regulations -- it is purely "harassment" legislation intended to further increase the paperwork burden on all farmers and food producers who do NOT buy Monsanto's products.
In other words, Monsanto's products could be sold covered with excrement, and this legislation wouldn't give anyone the power to do anything about it.
I'm certainly not trying to defend Monsanto or any other corporation that puts profits above the well-being of people. I also believe that we need more regulation than less in things that can affect our health and well-being.
"The genius of the Constitution rests not in any static meaning it might have had in a world that is dead and gone, but in the adaptability of its great principles to cope with current problems and current needs." -- Justice William Brennan: Speech to the Text and Teaching Symposium at Georgetown University,(October 12, 1985)
TPaine, you're reposting your previous links, which we've already had the opportunity to read. Thank you, by the way, for posting them the first time -- it was by following them that I found the text of the actual legislation (linked in my post above).
From your "Link 3":
Peter Van Doren of the Cato Institute reviewed a similar bill passed by the House of Representatives last year, and said he was concerned that the language in the House bill was overly broad. "The question of how much or little is encompassed by this language seems open to differing interpretations and would be the subject of much jockeying when the actual regulations implementing the law were written," he said.
This supports my contention that the bill is poorly written, and has a huge potential to be abused in order to control and eventually eliminate organic farmers, particularly organic farmers who sell to grocery stores and restaurants.
Further, none of your posted links address the issue that this legislation only applies to "real" food. Monsanto's pesticide-potato, pesticide-corn, and pesticide-soy plants are not regulated in any way by this legislation, even though they are just as liable to carry food-borne illnesses like campylobacter, salmonella, and e. coli as any other edible is. These illnesses are not controlled by pesticides, but by good hygiene, which cannot be enforced by the FDA or the newly-formed Food Safety Administration where Monsanto's genetically-modified edible "pesticides" are concerned.
That's why this legislation is being criticized -- not because it "goes too far" to protect the safety of our food, but because by leaving the gaping loophole of failing to regulate genetically-modified foods, it doesn't go far enough. None of Monsanto's customers will be affected by these regulations -- it is purely "harassment" legislation intended to further increase the paperwork burden on all farmers and food producers who do NOT buy Monsanto's products.
In other words, Monsanto's products could be sold covered with excrement, and this legislation wouldn't give anyone the power to do anything about it.
"The genius of the Constitution rests not in any static meaning it might have had in a world that is dead and gone, but in the adaptability of its great principles to cope with current problems and current needs." -- Justice William Brennan: Speech to the Text and Teaching Symposium at Georgetown University,(October 12, 1985)
if food companies are smaller then the amount of people they harm is also smaller.
I think the point is not about allowing companies to do what they want but more along the lines of regulations being used to defend big business and criple smaller compertician.
FDA conducting secret war against raw dairy farmers:- Follow link
Of course we all know that the Pasteurization process was only done to increase the profit of large dairy companies and worsen the general health. RIGHT
The following link exposes the microbiology of raw milk which is a well known cause of food borne illness including tuberculosis.
Did anybody check to see if the cow that the milk came from was in good health or did it ate any grass or corn that was contaminated by Monsantos pesticides. Abraham Lincoln's mother died of milk sickness. But was it the milk or was it the cow that produce the milk and or was it what the cow ate? White snakeroot isn't good for a cow that produces milk for people.
Actually when pasteurization was developed in the late nineteenth century there was very little way to insure the safety and health of the food supply. Then after better techniques were developed people (large & small outfits) kept trying to cut corners to keep profits up and stay in business.
To keep profits up. If you break even you can stay in business. in other words greed.
Finally it was determined we could not have the food producers policing themselves.
Yes and some in the free market are again fascistically seeking to get rid of all the things that protect people, all regs have been put there for a reason, to counter mal pratice by the business community. and too keep the market free and open and so stop big business monoplies and cartels that prevent compertician and so a free market.
Not all of them but enough would lie, cheat or cut corners to kill people, just like we see today. We do not have too much oversight of food production and handling we have too little.
The fascists in charge seem to think if there is no regualtion, then heaven will dawn- rather people will be dieing left right and center- with no means to prosicute, and fat cats will just get fatter- see what they are really about.
if food companies are smaller then the amount of people they harm is also smaller.
I think the point is not about allowing companies to do what they want but more along the lines of regulations being used to defend big business and criple smaller compertician.
FDA conducting secret war against raw dairy farmers:- Follow link
Of course we all know that the Pasteurization process was only done to increase the profit of large dairy companies and worsen the general health. RIGHT
The following link exposes the microbiology of raw milk which is a well known cause of food borne illness including tuberculosis.
Quote from article "Many bacteria are not killed by pasteurization."
I ponder if Monsantos products for increased milk production have also increase the presence of baterias.
It is possible that some baterias can be present in raw milk, that does not mean they will be. If the bateria is comming from the cows themselves into the milk you need to have better standards for the cows conditions and treatment ect, not simply ban raw milk.
P.S I dis-agree that mondernism has won
Why? Infant mortality, childhood mortality, infectious disease outbreaks, epidemics are all decreased over "pre-modernism?".
Because I do not believe in throwing out the baby with the bath water, traditions are important, as are former means and ways of living. While mondernism has it's benefits, but ideas of continuos progress are not achieveable, sustanable or justifyable, when that progress comes at the expense of all the past has to offer.
Everything has to be new today- even the politcal parties- NEW Labour.
I suppose when everything is new they'll invent a new word for new, Neuvo Labour or New New labour or super new labour.
If you do not learn about the past, you are doomed to forget it. Monderism loaths everything old. and believe it or not our ancestors did get some things right- I mean it is possible correct?
if food companies are smaller then the amount of people they harm is also smaller.
I think the point is not about allowing companies to do what they want but more along the lines of regulations being used to defend big business and criple smaller compertician.
FDA conducting secret war against raw dairy farmers:- Follow link
Of course we all know that the Pasteurization process was only done to increase the profit of large dairy companies and worsen the general health. RIGHT
The following link exposes the microbiology of raw milk which is a well known cause of food borne illness including tuberculosis.
Did anybody check to see if the cow that the milk came from was in good health or did it ate any grass or corn that was contaminated by Monsantos pesticides. Abraham Lincoln's mother died of milk sickness. But was it the milk or was it the cow that produce the milk and or was it what the cow ate? White snakeroot isn't good for a cow that produces milk for people.
I think it's clear the problem is comming from the cow, which is why I think it is more of an issue of isolating cows that are producing milk with "bad" baterias, and stopping it continuing.
However I think the costs of individually watching each cow put off Big business, again why I feel smaller producers is a better way, it not only restricts the spread of any diease out break, it increases employment, and should offer the cows a better life.
You can be certain that the company knows what happens, they are more ahead than the regulators checking it all, needless to say they con the system to their advantage.
If comapnies and others like monsanto seek the ownership of the natural world then they are no doubt encouragiung wild life that supports their products and naturally killling the ones that do not, profit as always.
It is clear if bees are carrying a pestacide, which is a poison designed to kill insects, then it very well could or more probably will, kill them as a result.
If that is happening, and bees are being wiped out then, the role they play in nature of pollination, is going to be seriously hampered, potencially resulting in a loss of many natural flowers.
Thank you for the link, Jolly. I hope you don't mind if I quote it:
The American bee population continues to decline, leaving experts wondering why.
According to U.S. Department of Agriculture statistics, the number of beehives decreased for the third consecutive year in 2009. The beehive numbers fell by 29-percent last year, following declines of 36-percent in 2008 and 32-percent in 2007. Scientists in other countries have noticed similar results and have taken to calling the results "colony collapse disorder."
David Mendes, president of the American Beekeeping Federation, told Jean-Louis Santini of AFP that "preliminary estimates already indicate losses of 30 to 50 percent" in the Winter of 2010, which will further reduce honey production and cause problems for farmers that rely on bees to pollinate their crops. Billions of dollars of crops could be effected.
According to Santini, "Researchers have looked at viruses, parasites, insecticides, malnutrition and other environmental factors but have been unable to pinpoint a specific cause for the population decline."
Jeff Pettis, the lead researcher of the Department of Agriculture’s Beltsville, Maryland Bee Research Laboratory, stated that pesticide use could be a "contributing factor," while adding that the best thing to help the sagging insect population is to "limit habitat destruction."
"The world population growth is in a sense the reason for pollinators’ decline," he told Santini. "Because we need to produce more and more food to feed the world and we grow crops in larger fields. A growing world means growing more food and to do that we need pollinators. And the fact that the world is continuing to grow is the driving force behind the habitat destruction."
... Or maybe they're being poisoned by plants that are pesticides?
So, next question: Does the American bee qualify as an endangered species? Should it be granted status as an endangered species, which would allow us to take regulatory steps to protect it?
Love,
-- Claudia
Generally monsantos plants are dsigned to be resistant to the pestacide "Round up", I'm not sure what happens to insects that eat that, potencially they could also gain resistence, if they eat without the spray being applied, but maybe also they could suffer genetic damage, the biggest problem is there are potencially so many problems with these things.
I think there should be regulatory steps taken to protect most wildlife, if not all, any species loss is unexceptable as far as I am concerned.
if food companies are smaller then the amount of people they harm is also smaller.
I think the point is not about allowing companies to do what they want but more along the lines of regulations being used to defend big business and criple smaller compertician.
FDA conducting secret war against raw dairy farmers:- Follow link
Of course we all know that the Pasteurization process was only done to increase the profit of large dairy companies and worsen the general health. RIGHT
The following link exposes the microbiology of raw milk which is a well known cause of food borne illness including tuberculosis.
Did anybody check to see if the cow that the milk came from was in good health or did it ate any grass or corn that was contaminated by Monsantos pesticides. Abraham Lincoln's mother died of milk sickness. But was it the milk or was it the cow that produce the milk and or was it what the cow ate? White snakeroot isn't good for a cow that produces milk for people.
Actually when pasteurization was developed in the late nineteenth century there was very little way to insure the safety and health of the food supply. Then after better techniques were developed people (large & small outfits) kept trying to cut corners to keep profits up and stay in business. Finally it was determined we could not have the food producers policing themselves. Not all of them but enough would lie, cheat or cut corners to kill people, just like we see today. We do not have too much oversight of food production and handling we have too little.
"Not all who wander are lost" J.R.R.Tolkein You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do. ~Anne Lamott "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain." Friedrich von Schiller
if food companies are smaller then the amount of people they harm is also smaller.
I think the point is not about allowing companies to do what they want but more along the lines of regulations being used to defend big business and criple smaller compertician.
FDA conducting secret war against raw dairy farmers:- Follow link
Of course we all know that the Pasteurization process was only done to increase the profit of large dairy companies and worsen the general health. RIGHT
The following link exposes the microbiology of raw milk which is a well known cause of food borne illness including tuberculosis.
Quote from article "Many bacteria are not killed by pasteurization."
I ponder if Monsantos products for increased milk production have also increase the presence of baterias.
It is possible that some baterias can be present in raw milk, that does not mean they will be. If the bateria is comming from the cows themselves into the milk you need to have better standards for the cows conditions and treatment ect, not simply ban raw milk.
P.S I dis-agree that mondernism has won
Why? Infant mortality, childhood mortality, infectious disease outbreaks, epidemics are all decreased over "pre-modernism?". In fact the lowest rates of all of infant mortality, maternal mortality, infectious disease are associated with "modern" nations. Life expectancy also increases in the "modern"nations versus those pre-modern nations. The article did supply objective verifiable data, how many of your alternative agriculturists or alternative medicine specialists can provide any objective data. I would like to see just one alternative healthcare theory with even one randomized, controlled study. You know why they don't? Because when they do the actual science, they become mainstream science and medicine.
"Not all who wander are lost" J.R.R.Tolkein You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do. ~Anne Lamott "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain." Friedrich von Schiller
