Aug 24, 2011 -- 9:35PM, MysticWanderer wrote:

Aug 24, 2011 -- 6:55PM, Eliascomes wrote:

Aug 24, 2011 -- 2:23PM, MysticWanderer wrote:

Aug 24, 2011 -- 12:56PM, JoliverJOLLY wrote:

 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

www.youtube.com/watch?v=sygg5zxssP0

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.

www.notmilk.com/forum/463.html

Luddites Go Home

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.

Aug 24, 2011 -- 9:35PM, MysticWanderer wrote:

  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.

Aug 24, 2011 -- 9:35PM, MysticWanderer wrote:

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.

Aug 25, 2011 -- 1:57PM, Tpaine wrote:

Here are links that fact check criticism of HR 2751 (The Food Safety Modernization Act)

Link 1 Link 2 Link 3

Hi, All!

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.

Get it?

Love,

-- Claudia