A1: No. In fact it specifically addresses the issue.

[Answer submitted on Feb 27, 2009 3:29 PM]

A2: No it will not. As it currently reads, it will tax small farmers with fees, penalties and registration processes that in turn benefits Big-Ag companies like Monsanto, Cargill, Tysons, ADM, etc. There will be only more restrictions and penalties for farmers practicing farmer to comsumer sales. [Answer submitted on Mar 8, 2009 5:33 PM]

A3: I agree with both statements so far. I am a small farmer and the wording in this bill would put me out of business. [Answer submitted on Mar 9, 2009 9:06 PM]

A4: Who "Approves" these answers? [From the moderator: The guy who runs this website.] [Answer submitted on Mar 12, 2009 3:59 PM]

A5: I did not see any exemptions in my brief reading of this. The only possible exemption might be for intrastate sales of food products. I must say I have not studied it though. [Answer submitted on Mar 12, 2009 8:24 PM]

A6: For reference, Section 206 is the part of this bill that applies to a "food procution facility", including any "farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined animal-feeding operation", as excluded (Section 3) "from the definition of food establishment", the term used for producers to which the bill largely appears to apply. [Answer submitted on Mar 16, 2009 6:00 AM]

A7: In reference to A4's question, let me rephrase it: Who censors what is seen on this page? At first glance, this seems like a repository for anonymous propaganda. [From the moderator: I can't control who submits answers nor do I know what is and isn't true. I filter out as much junk as I can readily spot, but I can't great good answers if no one is submitting them.] [Answer submitted on Mar 17, 2009 3:27 PM]

A8: It appears to me that this bill is a continuation of the efforts started with the NAIS, now focused on requiring ALL farmers and farms to be nationally registered. This will place all farms under federal control. At present, there is no size of operation exemption for small farms or local producers.

It is interesting to note that the alleged cause or need for this legislation originates with the failures of global trade in agricultural products and in the poor handling record of industrial agriculture in the US, yet the provisions of this bill will fall most heavily on the small producers. This is an unfair and miss-placed burden on those who naturally comply with food safety concerns because they have a face-to-face relationship with consumers. [Answer submitted on Mar 17, 2009 4:56 PM]

A9: Look carefully at the text:

(13) FOOD ESTABLISHMENT-

(A) IN GENERAL- The term "food establishment" means a slaughterhouse (except those regulated under the Federal Meat Inspection Act or the Poultry Products Inspection Act), factory, warehouse, or facility owned or operated by a person located in any State that processes food or a facility that holds, stores, or transports food or food ingredients.

(B) EXCLUSIONS- For the purposes of registration, the term "food establishment" does not include a food production facility as defined in paragraph (14), restaurant, other retail food establishment, nonprofit food establishment in which food is prepared for or served directly to the consumer, or fishing vessel (other than a fishing vessel engaged in processing, as that term is defined in section 123.3 of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations).

(14) FOOD PRODUCTION FACILITY- The term ?food production facility? means any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined animal-feeding operation.

That means to me that "Food production facilities" are exempt. So A6 i right. There could definitely be a problem for retail sales of raw produce - that appears to be a "food Establishment" [Answer submitted on Mar 18, 2009 11:13 AM]

A10: @A9 but it says "nonprofit food establishment in which food is prepared for or served directly to the consumer", it seems to want to preempt small direct-to-consumer businesses from being able to do business without going through a legal morass. [Answer submitted on Apr 3, 2009 12:50 AM]

A11: A10 - the small direct-to-consumer businesses is not a "nonprofit food establishment in which food is prepared for or served directly to the consumer". The small farmer is doing it in some cases to make a lining [Answer submitted on Apr 4, 2009 7:53 AM]

A12: JMHO, but to me, this means when things start falling apart. An they declare Marshal Law. Besides arresting you an taking you away for having firearms, an standing up for your 2nd Admendment Rights. They can do the same if you have a non-registered pea-patch garden. Which seems to me to be a FOOD PRODUCTION FACILITY, under the broad terms that now exist. As would be a chickencoop with a half dozen hens and a rooster, to provide your own family eggs. etc. Isn't that how it reads? Or am I totally off in left field? [Answer submitted on Apr 10, 2009 7:17 AM]

A13: Folks, please go read your Constitution, which is your contract with one another. No where does the Constitution provide the power to Congress to regulate a transaction inside of a State that does not cross state lines. Congress has the power to regulate articles in Interstate Commerce Only. [Answer submitted on Aug 1, 2009 9:22 PM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: because they are the recipients of interstate shipping and not small local farmers selling direct. therefore they want to protect their food supply without consideration for the small farm [Answer submitted on Mar 4, 2009 5:28 PM]

A2: and which states are you calling the non-farming states? most states consider farming to be extremely important. [Answer submitted on Mar 4, 2009 5:34 PM]

A3: I cannot answer this question directly but I am not sure what you mean by "non-farming" states. Almost all states have farms of some sort, albeit small ones, which is EXACTLY why we should all be considered about this. I live in NJ, which many people may consider "non-farming" but has a very active agricultural and horticultural industry (from roadside stands to corporate farms) [Answer submitted on Mar 8, 2009 10:58 PM]

A4: A4: Rosa DeLauro's husband works for Monsanto. [Answer submitted on Mar 11, 2009 5:00 PM]

A5: Just to give a proper cite to the fact that Delauro's husband "works for" Monsanto. Monsanto is a client of his political research firm - as are all of those on the firm's client page:

http://www.greenbergresearch.com/index.php?ID=109 [Answer submitted on Mar 18, 2009 8:00 AM]

A6: California is one of the nation's largest agri-biz states, and it seems to me that agri-biz is the key word here. The goal of making the food safer is a noble one, but this legislation is poorly written and does not have the health concerns of all in mind. I'm surprised that so many California representatives are sponsoring, however many of them are from urban, non-farming areas where health concerns are high. [Answer submitted on Mar 27, 2009 11:39 AM]

A7: This is NOT a health issue...despite the title. This is a big business, big petro-chemical, big pharmaceutical issue. [Answer submitted on Apr 2, 2009 1:39 PM]

A8: It is my opinion that all farming that any regulation on produces of food that is not dairy and not meat is generally meant to support big agro by increasing the costs to small companies, and not really addressing any issues. Health problems with the non-dairy non-meat food sectors are caused by 1)bad food being sold under a different name (not for consumption corn for example) and 2)problems of too much processing and mixing of too much different goods into the same end product (like what happens with ground beef where 1000 different cows are in every burger)

There is a presumption that these issues don't exist and that everything can be fixed by adding more steps, more loops where big agro can put in shoddy product, and more combining of foods so one small hazard is then dished out to 5000 or more different consumers.

"non-farm" states are supporting this because they are less likely to get resistance, as their constituents are less in tune. They will of course use the spin to say there are doing something good while at the same filling their reelection coffers from big-agro funds. [Answer submitted on Apr 3, 2009 1:02 AM]

A9: Re: A9--Not exactly true that non-meat/non-dairy products are all safe: Don't forget the e. coli- and salmonella-contaminated spinach outbreaks.

That said, your point that these are symptoms of large-scale industrial farming is spot-on. [Answer submitted on Jun 24, 2009 2:52 PM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: It will impose greater taxes, registration fees and pennalties upon local small farmers. Fines can be up to 1,000,000 a day for each day not in compliance with whatever the Food Safety Administration deems as law.

The bills reads,

"Program Elements- In carrying out the program, the Administrator shall--

(1) adopt and implement a national system for the registration of food establishments and foreign food establishments, as provided in section 202 of this Act;

(2) adopt and implement a national system for regular unannounced inspection of food establishments.

(3) require and enforce the adoption of preventive process controls in food establishments, based on the best available scientific and public health considerations and best available technologies."

So say bye bye to the local small farmer if this passes, because it is already illegal to sell ANY food to your neighbor that you grow without jumping through a million hoops of paperwork and fees, these bills will just make it harder on saml farmers and easier on Big-Ag to monopolize the food industry. [Answer submitted on Mar 8, 2009 5:43 PM]

A2: On the other hand, this seems to be a nationalization of state food safety regulations, which would add another layer, but there does seem to be plenty of time to offer input to amend the bill to allow small growers to continue [Answer submitted on Mar 10, 2009 6:45 PM]

A3: This bill will make it almost impossible to find organic foods to serve to children who are neurologically sensitive to pesticides and other toxins that are found in non organically grown produce. So expect more autism and diabetes in children due to neuro/endocrine sensitive populations being exposed to dangerous chemicals. I believe this bill was probably lobbied by pesticide companies and big agro. [Answer submitted on Mar 20, 2009 2:14 PM]

A4: As I read it, farms are exempt, as they are not "food establishments"... the are in the category of "food production" which is excluded from the bill [Answer submitted on Mar 20, 2009 4:46 PM]

A5: This from Organic Consumers Organization

Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009

HR 875, the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009, is a limited-vision attempt by moderate Democrats and Republicans to craft food safety legislation to address the out-of-control filth and contamination that are inherent in our industrialized, now globalized, "profit-at-any-cost" food system. This being said, OCA does not support HR 875 in its present form, given the fact that, if the bill's regulations were applied in a one-size-fits-all manner to certified organic and farm-to-consumer operations, it could have a devastating impact on small farmers, especially raw milk producers who are already unfairly targeted by state food-safety regulators. Although the OCA deems this bill somewhat well-intentioned, we are calling on Congress to focus its attention on the real threats to food safety: globalized food sourcing from nations such as China where food safety is a travesty and domestic industrial-scale and factory farms whose collateral damage includes pesticide and antibiotic-tainted food, mad cow disease, E.coli contamination and salmonella poisoning. And, of course, Congress and the Obama Administration need to support a massive transition to organic farming practices. Tell Congress to Improve Food Safety by Stopping Factory Farming. Read more about HR 875 at organicconsumers.org [Answer submitted on Mar 21, 2009 2:02 AM]

A6: We get most of our contamination of food from unsafe processing or using unsafe chemicals and fertilizers, animal and human. Let's get the government out of the small man's life so we can live with out a billion dollar investment. This bill is to help Mansanto. They are trying to finish off the rest of us like they did India farmers.Our inherited seeds do not cause harm, their man made chemical inhanced seeds do. [Answer submitted on Mar 22, 2009 2:11 PM]

A7: Farms are defined as "Food Production Facilities", not as "Food Establishments". So the section of the bill reproduced in A1 does not apply to farms.

As far as I can tell, the stipulations for Small farms (Food Production Facilities) are located in Sec. 206. I won't copy and paste all of it here because it's too long. [Answer submitted on Mar 27, 2009 7:08 AM]

A8: Hey Folks, once again Read the COnstitution. Congress does not nor has not been delegated the authority to control or regulate commerce in side of a state on an article that does not cross state lines. Congress has via the commerce clause the authority to regulate articles in Interstate commerce only. [Answer submitted on Aug 1, 2009 9:25 PM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: No. It's intended for business that intends to sell food for human and animal consumption. This bill will not require you to register with the new federal agency for food safty under the Dept. of Health and Human services. [Answer submitted on Mar 8, 2009 9:27 PM]

A2: As the word "Farm" and "Food producing facility" are used, I see no way private gardens, farms or ranches are exempt. It may appear to be "Intended" for business operations but it does not say that. [Answer submitted on Mar 9, 2009 3:19 PM]

A3: The big agricultural giants who pay a lot of our representative's campaign bills do not want you to be able to grow your own food, or eat anything that is organically grown. The fact that people are still buying organic when it is more expensive has them shaking in their boots, since they can use their mechanized chemical methods to always make their product the cheapest. The next method of eliminating competition is to make healthy food illegal. [Answer submitted on Mar 10, 2009 5:33 PM]

A4: Our lawmakers need to specify an exemption for a "family garden" or products "not intended for sale on the retail market". Until they specify an exemption, family gardens risk becoming illegal under this bill. [Answer submitted on Mar 11, 2009 4:29 PM]

A5: Not explicitly but review Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), of a United States Supreme Court decision interpreting the Commerce Clause. Under this decision a farmer growing wheat for himself with no intention to sell it at market was deemed in violation under this interpretation.

wiki - "Farmer Roscoe Filburn argued that since the excess wheat he produced was intended solely for home consumption it could not be regulated through the interstate Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, reasoning that if Filburn had not used home-grown wheat he would have had to buy wheat on the open market. This effect on interstate commerce, the Court reasoned, may not be substantial from the actions of Filburn alone but through the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers just like Filburn its effect would certainly become substantial. Therefore Congress could regulate wholly intrastate, non-commercial activity if such activity, viewed in the aggregate, would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, even if the individual effects are trivial."

Therefore, according to SCOTUS, Roscoe Filburn was not at liberty to provide for himself but had to go to the 'open market' and purchase what he was entirely capable of growing for himself more cheaply.

This is how private gardens can get roped into being subject under FSA purview. By the above interpretation, since you're growing more of your own food in a garden for yourself, you're affecting 'interstate commerce' by not buying as much food from your 'interstate' supplied grocer, lowering demand and thereby depressing 'interstate' prices. You risk being at fault for having overtly done nothing but try to feed yourself by growing your own food!

[Answer submitted on Mar 15, 2009 8:57 PM]

A6: There's no provision exempting private gardens or subsistence farms. There is a provision that demands:

"a comparison of the safety of commercial processing with the health hazards associated with food that is harvested for recreational or subsistence purposes and prepared noncommercially..."

This was the only provision that mentions private food production at all. Considering the regulations and oversight contained in the bill, and the massive power that would be given to the FSA if it's enacted, (coupled with the fact the the person who drafted the bill is married to a Monsanto employee,) at some point in the near future, if you grow your own food, you may be required by law to spray it with round-up.

[Answer submitted on Mar 16, 2009 1:05 PM]

A7: This is an exact quote from the bill:

(B) EXCLUSIONS- For the purposes of registration, the term "food establishment" does not include a food production facility as defined in paragraph (14), restaurant, other retail food establishment, nonprofit food establishment in which food is prepared for or served directly to the consumer, or fishing vessel (other than a fishing vessel engaged in processing, as that term is defined in section 123.3 of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations)

Since only "food establishments" that are required to register are subject to any regulations, I think we can safely say that private gardens are NOT affected by this bill. [Answer submitted on Mar 19, 2009 4:23 AM]

A8: In the definitions section the term "Food Production Facility" refers to ANY farm, ranch etc ,etc... I have to wonder if they consider a private half acre veggie garden a farm? [Answer submitted on Mar 19, 2009 1:07 PM]

A9: I didn't make myself clear in my quote of the exclusions I'll highlight only the important part:

"EXCLUSIONS- nonprofit food establishment in which food is prepared for or served directly to the consumer."

Again this means that home farms and gardens where products are not SOLD, are NOT regulated by this bill. [Answer submitted on Mar 20, 2009 4:52 PM]

A10: I read it as A7 does... and will insert to make it read more plainly (if that's possible).

(13) FOOD ESTABLISHMENT-

(A) IN GENERAL- The term "food establishment" means a slaughterhouse (except those regulated by FMIA or PPIA), factory, warehouse, or facility owned or operated by a person located in any State that processes food or a facility that holds, stores, or transports food or food ingredients.

(B) EXCLUSIONS- For the purposes of registration, the term ?food establishment? DOES NOT INCLUDE "(14)any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined animal-feeding operation" [and does not include] restaurant, other retail food establishment, nonprofit food establishment in which food is prepared for or served directly to the consumer, or fishing vessel (blah-blah-blah-qualifier)."

(For actually wording, see A7's quote.)

The catch may loop into the section below, by the use of the words 'all other,' as well as the verbiage used in C.(actually 7.):

"(8) CATEGORY 4 FOOD ESTABLISHMENT... means a food establishment that processes 'all other' categories of food products" besides these establishments:

A. #(5)ones that slaughter & process animals for food, and aren't subject to Fed Meat or Poulty inspections

B. #(6)ones that process fish and other raw animal foods (does that include, "we the people?") not subject to Fed Meat, Poultry, or Egg inspections

C. #(7)ones that process cooked, pasteurized, or otherwise ready-to-eat seafood or other animal products, fresh produce in ready-to-eat raw form, or other products that pose a risk - precisely: 'fresh produce in ready-to-eat raw form, or other products' that might prove hazardous

AND AS A8 (prior poster) referred to:

D. #(8) all other - the word 'processes' is used, not 'grows,' which possibly creates an exclusiveness for gardeners/small private farmers [Answer submitted on Mar 20, 2009 7:46 PM]

A11: A lot of what is being said about the bill is misleading.

Here are a few things that H.R. 875 DOES do:

-It addresses the most critical flaw in the structure of FDA by splitting it into 2 new agencies -one devoted to food safety and the other devoted to drugs and medical devices.

-It increases inspection of food processing plants, basing the frequency of inspection on the risk of the product being produced - but it does NOT make plants pay any registration fees or user fees.

-It does extend food safety agency authority to food production on farms, requiring farms to write a food safety plan and consider the critical points on that farm where food safety problems are likely to occur.

-It requires imported food to meet the same standards as food produced in the U.S.

And just as importantly, here are a few things that H.R. 875 does NOT do:

-It does not cover foods regulated by the USDA (beef, pork, poultry, lamb, catfish.)

-It does not establish a mandatory animal identification system.

-It does not regulate backyard gardens.

-It does not regulate seed.

-It does not call for new regulations for farmers markets or direct marketing arrangements.

-It does not apply to food that does not enter interstate commerce (food that is sold across state lines).

-It does not mandate any specific type of traceability for FDA-regulated foods (the bill does instruct a new food safety agency to improve traceability of foods, but specifically says that recordkeeping can be done electronically or on paper.)

Several of the things not found in the DeLauro can be found in other bills - like H.R. 814, the Tracing and Recalling Agricultural Contamination Everywhere Act, which calls for a mandatory animal identification system, or H.R. 759, the Food And Drug Administration Globalization Act, which overhauls the entire structure of FDA. H.R. 759 is more likely to move through Congress than H.R. 875. And H.R. 759 contains several provisions that could cause problems for small farms and food processors:

-It extends traceability recordkeeping requirements that currently apply only to food processors to farms and restaurants - and requires that recordkeeping be done electronically.

-It calls for standard lot numbers to be used in food production.

-It requires food processing plants to pay a registration fee to FDA to fund the agency's inspection efforts.

-It instructs FDA to establish production standards for fruits and vegetables and to establish Good Agricultural Practices for produce.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_17256.cfm [Answer submitted on Mar 21, 2009 2:30 AM]

A12: A8, that would not be exempt. [Answer submitted on Mar 21, 2009 3:22 PM]

A13: When I read about the White House garden yesterday I did not know about this bill. Why would private organic gardens be affected by this bill at the same time that the White House itself begins an 1100 sq ft organic garden to supply the chefs? I think people are being paranoid. [Answer submitted on Mar 22, 2009 10:54 AM]

A14: Private Gardens ARE affected by this bill because there will be no more sales of Organic Seeds.

The real tragedy of this bill is the ban of Organic farming, you would now have to get all seeds from Monsanto et al. [Answer submitted on Mar 22, 2009 9:11 PM]

A15: To A7/A9: Please read your quote again, where it says, "...nonprofit food establishment in which food is prepared for or served directly to the consumer..." Notice that it says PREPARED, but this doesn not mention GROWN. So, I read it to mean that they may prepare food without testing/inspection, but it does not say that they may grow their own food to be prepared without following this act. Am I misunderstanding that? [Answer submitted on Mar 23, 2009 6:53 PM]

A16: I'm sorry but I don't know of any FARMER that only grows for himself. A number of families in my are grow as co-op's and yes this will affect them. [Answer submitted on Mar 24, 2009 1:22 PM]

A17: No, this bill does not prevent you growing your own food. This bill states that its for commerical growers, not food for private consumption. It is putting inplace protection for you, from someone elses negligence. Dont believe the hype and propogandic rhetoric provided by people who oppose this bill because most havent even read it [Answer submitted on Mar 24, 2009 5:30 PM]

A18: Re A9, the "Food Establishment" clause only supplies to areas which process the food. Gardens, in all technically, fall under the definition of "Food Production Facility" (Sec 3[14]) , which are subject to the restrictions of Sec 206. According to Sec 3[15][B] anything that can be defined as a "Food Production Facility" cannot also be defined as a "Food Establishment".

Currently, I don't believe a private garden meets the definition of a farm. I have read that the definition of a farm is any agricultural area that produces (or what have produced) $1,000 in agro products during that year (haven't looked it up in the actual law code, so I could be wrong here). It's important to note, however, that no restrictions are placed within the bill. It would be a simple action a little way down the line to simply redefine a "farm" to be any land that produces food products. [Answer submitted on Mar 24, 2009 5:56 PM]

A19: In Response to A7:

"Nonprofit food establishments" are not private gardens. They are nonprofit corporations established to provide food (for eg. the homeless). [Answer submitted on Mar 24, 2009 7:49 PM]

A20: I interpret it a bit differently than A9 - to me, a non-profit food establishment that serves food directly to the consumer sounds like a soup kitchen or similar facility for the indigent, whereas a home garden, as suggested in A5, could be construed as being grown "for profit" even if the grower does not intend to sell his produce. [Answer submitted on Mar 25, 2009 6:13 PM]

A21: @A9:"promulgate regulations to establish science-based minimum standards for the safe production of food by food production facilities." The exclusions you keep quoting are only from a set of regulations. The FSA will still have authority to regulate what are classified as production facilities. That being the case, the fact that there doesn't seem to be any distinction among different scales of production facilities becomes a big issue. [Answer submitted on Mar 25, 2009 7:25 PM]

A22: I see a couple problems in A11 and A17 that I would like to see addressed:

A17 states that the bill applies only to commercial growers, but I could not locate that distinction in the language of the bill. Citation, please?

A11 states that the bill applies only to interstate commerce, but in Sec. 406, the bill gives itself the power of presumption of interstate commerce. Wickard v. Filburn, as cited in A5, would be consistent with that interpretation. Is there language elsewhere in the bill that limits that presumption? I did not locate it.

A11 also points out a number of specific things that the bill does not do, without acknowledging that the Administrator would in fact have the authority to establish and enforce those very regulations. If they are not prohibited in the language of the bill, the opportunity for abuse of power gives validity to the concerns of others. Again, if the bill includes language that specifically protects against those regulations of concern, please provide citations. [Answer submitted on Mar 29, 2009 1:45 PM]

A23: The "Food Establishment" is defined as anywhere food is stored, processed, etc. I don't know about everyone else, but I store food in my pantry, and under the wording of this law, my pantry, as a food storage facility, would be subject to these rules. Therefore, any goods grown from my garden, and stored in my pantry, would be contraband goods. Read it as a shady lawyer would read it, after all, weren't most of our politicians shady lawyers at one time? [Answer submitted on Mar 30, 2009 7:03 AM]

A24: The problem is, more precisely, that this Bill is not expicit in its statement and we have to INTERPRET it. A legal document should not have to be interpreted. It is a legal document with special language so that everybody can agree on the content.

Since we do not seem to agree on what this bill is saying, then it needs to be fixed to be more precise or discarded altogether.

That is the fundamental problem with this bill. [Answer submitted on Apr 1, 2009 10:05 PM]

A25: Be REAL folks this PURPOSE of the bill and the agency is to ensure PUBLIC health. They are NOT going to tell you CANT grow your own vegetables. They are trying to protect the public by monitoring DISTRIBUTION of food.And after all the contaminated food thats been recalled in the last several years I WANT them to. [Answer submitted on Apr 1, 2009 11:59 PM]

A26: I agree with A23. As I read the text as written my kitchen and garden both are used to prepare and grow foods as stated in this bill. While it doesn't make any sense for P.B.O and F.L.M.O. to be growing a White House garden when this bill is on the floor -- it is nonetheless... [Answer submitted on Apr 2, 2009 7:38 PM]

A27: A25. We are being real here. The STATED purpose of the bill is obvious. The problem is finding the difference between the stated intent and the actual intent.

From USlegal.com:

What is a farm?

Any land used to produce crops, livestock, specialty livestock, or grazing and includes woodland and wasteland not under cultivation or used for pasture or grazing. According to the US Government, a farm is any place from which $1,000 or more of agricultural products were produced and sold, or normally would have been sold during the census year.

Also:Saffron whole, 1 oz $170.00 - AmericanSpice.com

So if the inspector decides that your yard normally would have produced 6 ounces of saffron, you're covered. Where're your records, sir? Don't have them? well, in that case, from Section 405 of the bill:

(A) IN GENERAL- Any person that commits an act that violates the food safety law (including a regulation promulgated or order issued under the food safety law) may be assessed a civil penalty by the Administrator of not more than $1,000,000 for each such act.

Won't let him on to the property? $1 million. Won't let him see your records? $2 million! One for not having them, one for not showing them. Won't let him confiscate the organic food you're actually growing? That's another million. Per plant maybe.

But you're not selling this out of state? Not selling at all? No problem, says the administrator:

SEC. 406. PRESUMPTION.

In any action to enforce the requirements of the food safety law, the connection with interstate commerce required for jurisdiction shall be presumed to exist.

So he's got the full authority of the federal government behind him to completely destroy your life.

Even if he's only pissed that you have a bumper sticker for the "wrong" candidate on your truck. [Answer submitted on Apr 3, 2009 6:56 PM]

A28: My question is, I do store and process my food through canning, butchering and storing my own food. As A15 said the "served directly" is the part I would violate because I can my green beans and eat them weeks later. Is this right? [Answer submitted on Jun 20, 2009 5:17 PM]

A29: To A28, no you wouldn't, because you are serving them DIRECTLY to the consumer. You are the consumer and producer in this situation, and you are serving it directly to yourself.You aren't transferring ownership to a wholesaler or another retail company, so the food is not changing hands. Canning it makes no difference. [Answer submitted on Jun 27, 2009 12:04 AM]

A30: Once again, as in previous questions, the real issue is how does Congress get the power or where did Congress get the authority to regulate my garden. Congress only has the power which the States have surrendered and the States only have the power that the People have surrendered to them. The constitution provides no language for any such regulation of my garden by Congress. [Answer submitted on Aug 1, 2009 9:29 PM]

A31: To A14. There is nothing in this bill about seeds. [Answer submitted on Aug 20, 2009 2:59 PM]

A32: The bill defines "food production facilities" as, "...any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined animal-feeding operation." This seems to be a very broad definition that could encompass private gardens. These food production facilities would be subject to Section 206, ie., inspections, record keeping, and science based regulations. "Government science" causes me concern. The bill must, in my opinion, specifically exempt private gardens and animal husbandry. This current bill does not. [Answer submitted on Sep 6, 2009 2:51 AM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: This bill will have terrible affects on Organic Farmers. Requiring chemical sterilization of produce. [Answer submitted on Mar 8, 2009 9:35 AM]

A2: They will be taxed, charged fees and penalties (up to a 1,000,000 dollars a day for non-compliance) and basically driven out of business so that Big-Ag companies like Monsanto, Cargill, Tysons, ADM, etc., will have a monopoly on the food industry. [Answer submitted on Mar 8, 2009 5:45 PM]

A3: I read the bill. I didn't find anything that refered to organic farms. However, the defintions of hazards are not stipulated. They are not identfied, but they are left to the agencys descression after the law is in effect. So, it could happen that they mandate organic farmers to cease action under a 1,000,000 penalty. [Answer submitted on Mar 8, 2009 9:37 PM]

A4: Anyone that knows about other things Monsanto (and other big ag corporations) have done in the past, knows this is just another way to try to control the food and ag market. It is a very scary step on the road to corporate control of our entire food supply. [Answer submitted on Mar 14, 2009 8:20 PM]

A5: The bill does not use the word "organic" at all. The hazards and contaminants to be defined by reference to existing laws, scientific evidence and "relevant organizations". So it's important to be sure that the organic viewpoint is well represented, and that consumers be given the right to know about many possible risks, including antibiotics in feed, irradiation and pesticides as well as e coli. [Answer submitted on Mar 15, 2009 2:54 PM]

A6: I Agree with A4 - "organic" specifically does not need to be stated, instead "producing food for sale" will be the only definition needed and organic or not, USDA will require you to use pesticides and specific foods, antibiotics, etc - to "ensure" the foods "safety" Definitely say goodbye to organic, small farms, community/urban farms AND community gardens. Don't forget it's prohibited to introduce anything NOT defined as safe into the food supply - so, those heirloom tomatoes from your -great-grandmother are now illegal. [Answer submitted on Mar 15, 2009 10:52 PM]

A7: It seems to me this bill is aiming at more reporting and transparency from the farms. As important as organic food is, there is enough interest in it that I don't believe this will be an end to that. This is a comsumer driven world and since the organic food is on the rise, I can't imagine it being removed from the food supply. It appears to me that the small mom and pop operations have little to report on since their operations are "in our backyard" so to speak. IT's those large corporations that seem to have a lot of work ahead of them. BUt common, your Grandmothers heirloom tomatoes won't be illegal. This bill is quite vague for a reason... [Answer submitted on Apr 1, 2009 3:01 PM]

A8: The Federal enabling legislation for NOP (National Organic Program) is in place, has been defended vigorously, especially by the Organic Consumer's Association http://www.ota.com/index.html. ( The Organic Trade Association, on the other hand compromises unshamefully for its corporate organic membership to water down organic standards and is not to be trusted.)

Actually, In my opinion, Organic food system is not in danger but in a position to be held up as the standard by wich all food should be regulated for safety. After all, organic certification s the ny thrid party system formonitoring food its entire production cycle from quality f seed to fianl sale to consumers. Chemical contamination is its specialty and rightfully so.

In addition, the initiative of this legislation probably comes from the cover ups associated with Salmonella contamination in peanuts. This legislation probably offers much more opportunity for organic food industry than threats if we all support efforts that can be led by OCA and other non-manufacturer, pro-organic non-profits. [Answer submitted on Apr 2, 2009 12:01 AM]

A9: I have read this bill and can not find any reference to the demise of organic farming or using heirloom seeds. Organic food can still be contaminated by e coli and salmonella etc and it seems that this bill is only to protect the foodsource organic or otherwise. Keep growing organics - it's the only way, but it still has to be 'clean'. [Answer submitted on Apr 7, 2009 7:55 PM]

A10: I really can't figure out how this bill would single out organic production as claimed by several answers in this and other threads, nor how Monsanto would benefit one way or the other. Monsanto is not selling to organic producers now and even if they did, it would only be a blip on their radar. Most of these answerers don't have an understanding food production. Antibiotics are used in animal feed not for health safety reasons but for feed conversion (lbs feed into lbs meat). Organic farmers use pesticides, too, only they use different ones. Visit OMRI's website for a list.

There is no process that can sterilize food, conventional or otherwise. You can sanitize it, but never sterilize. The best way to keep food safe--organic or conventionally--is to keep pathogens out of the field and processing facilities.

I can see having a debate on the merits of tracing food and registration and the amount of enforcement needed, but I really can't see how Organic comes to play here. (And esp. in the Senate version.) Seems like paranoia.

Organic production is regulated (and still would be) by the NOP. [Answer submitted on Apr 9, 2009 11:21 AM]

A11: At www.opednews.com read "A solemn walk through HR 875." It goes through the 117 page legislation and explains how it will harm organic farms and gardeners. [Answer submitted on Apr 23, 2009 4:13 PM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: Yes, it gives corporations like Monsanto a monopoly on the food industry by making it extremely expensive for small farmers to afford to grow organic. The bill also states as it's purpose "promulgate regulations to establish science-based minimum standards for the safe production of food by food production facilities." so basically if it is declared that GMO foods are scientifically "safer" than organic, then it will be illegal to grow non-GMO seeds and sell them to the public. These "food safety" bills in Congress were written by Monsanto, Cargill, Tysons, ADM, etc., companies that practice and promote the opposite of food safety. [Answer submitted on Mar 8, 2009 5:26 PM]

A2: The bill sponsor, Rosa Delauro (D-CT) is married to Stanley Greenberg. One of his corporate clients is Monsanto. Draw your own conclusions.

http://www.greenbergresearch.com/index.php?ID=403

Big farm industries will be better equipped to deal with the bureaucratic requirements and penalties (in the Bills current form); potentially squeezing out smaller operations.

[Answer submitted on Mar 12, 2009 2:39 AM]

A3: MONSANTO will greatly benefit from this bill. THis global multi-national corporation has sued hundreds of small farmers throughout the US and has caused the suicides and ruin of small farmers in India etc. Monsanto is looking forward to destroying all and any cottage industries. Coming soon to a farm, CSA or co-op near you! [Answer submitted on Mar 21, 2009 9:08 PM]

A4: It is interesting this question was asked, as it specifically was asked for someone to make a point. However, the point is incorrect. This bill does not give monsanto a monopoly. For that to happen, this bill would have to state that monsanto is the only producer permitted to provide food for the entire nation [Answer submitted on Mar 24, 2009 5:32 PM]

A5: it gives them a monopoly by default, by making it too expensive for someone without their capital to meet the minimum standards. [Answer submitted on Mar 26, 2009 8:32 PM]

A6: A5 is right here. I live in IL Farming is the way of life. Small Farms are everywhere you look. None of them have the capital to meet these standards. Not to mention that most of them would not poison there food in the way that the Gov wants them too. This is not about safety, it is about who will control our food supply. It all comes down to the American people giving up their freedom for a false sense of safety. They have left this so broad that when it is passed and sadly it will, that they will have free range to do as they please. [Answer submitted on Mar 27, 2009 10:37 AM]

A7: In order for there not to be a monopoly, there would have to be competition with Monsanto. Since they are the global leader in genetically modified grains and foods, competition is severely limited. This would aslo severely limit competition between farmers. Where there is no competition, there is no capitalism, and where there is no capitalism, there is no United States of America as we know it. This is merely another step in the giant pyramid scheme known as the New World Order. [Answer submitted on Mar 27, 2009 10:38 AM]

A8: It seems to me after a lot of reading, that if existing laws had been enforced, debacles like the peanut butter crisis would not have happened. We don't need more laws, we need enforcement of what it already there. Companies like Monsanto are using our fear of unsafe food to get a bunch of stuff passed that is bad for us and good for them. [Answer submitted on Apr 1, 2009 9:59 PM]

A9: Would someone please point out where the language is that would increase costs for the small farmer?

It seems that most people are concerned about the ways in which the language of the bill might be interpreted when it "minimum standards" concerning fertilizer and the "scientific" definition of safe food. There is an assumption running through many comments that the existence of standards is an automatic win for corporations, presumably because their lobbyists will be able to define the standards to suit their products. Is that assumption well founded?

My question is, as A8 has asked, whether a "Food Safety Act" is in fact necessary, or whether existing laws and standards need to be examined and re-enforced? There is no doubt that the status quo already gives big advantages to huge agricultural corporations (Big Ag), or they wouldn't exist. Would this legislation tip the scales further or would it introduce some regulatory pressure on Big Ag that might make eliminate stuff like this http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12840743/porks_dirty_secret_the_nations_top_hog_producer_is_also_one_of_americas_worst_polluters/print ? [Answer submitted on Apr 4, 2009 2:06 PM]

A10: No, the bill does not help Monsanto or other corporations. Stanley Greenberg worked at a company where he was a pollster and Monsanto was a client 10 years ago.

There is a Snopes about it, http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/organic.asp and factcheck.org gives accurate information as well: http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/would_a_new_bill_in_congress_make.html [Answer submitted on Apr 8, 2009 10:10 AM]

A11: It absolutely give Monsanto the monopoly they have been obtaining for years...they already control approx 90% of the seed market. See the documentary film "Food, Inc" where it interviews small town farmers that have been sued by Montanto for cleaning and reusing their own seeds every year instead of purchasing the genetically modified seeds from Monsanto. Monsanto ties these farmers up in court for so long that the farmers finally settle out of court because they can no longer afford the legal fees. Then Monsanto "black lists" these farmers from being able to purchase seeds from Monsanto essentially putting the farmer out of business for good...One of these farmers only owned 3 acres of land...tell me that is such a threat...

[From the moderator: Food, Inc. (2008) - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1286537/ ] [Answer submitted on Aug 17, 2009 12:31 PM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: This bill does not refer to a size of a business. It only refers to sale of food for human and animal consumption, storage and slaughter. In the US and international. [Answer submitted on Mar 8, 2009 9:34 PM]

A2: International is a misnomer. It says "foreign" entity. A foreign entity is an business not located on a federal reserve. [Answer submitted on Mar 10, 2009 2:30 PM]

A3: The fact it does not refer to the size of a business, makes this bill have the ability to zero in on an individual making preserves at home to sell at a farmer's market. [Answer submitted on Mar 11, 2009 2:02 PM]

A4: This would effectively eliminate 4H animal projects, which are traditionally sold at auction as part of the county or state fair at which they compete. [Answer submitted on Mar 12, 2009 8:50 AM]

A5: As a farmer, my guess is that the definition of a "farm" is not based so much on size as whether or not you sell your produce. Although I'm sure there are plenty of people who will tell you that the writers of this bill have deliberately left that open for interpretation... and, incidentally, at our local farmer's markets (here in California) all prepared foods, such as preserves, must be made in an inspected commercial kitchen ? no way could you get away with making them at home in your kitchen. The food-safety regulations currently in place are already pretty extreme, at least around here, but farmers are a tenacious lot and we're pretty good at jumping through hoops to do what we love... so I wouldn't kiss the organic farm goodbye just yet. [Answer submitted on Mar 23, 2009 1:40 PM]

A6: Does this mean that we could not have a single milk cow or goat and sell the baby calf to the neighbor or on craigs list for someone personal use? Does this bill effectively stop any sell of anything no matter how small? [Answer submitted on Mar 23, 2009 6:15 PM]

A7: This is all about perspective...while it may become illegal to sell organic produce, you can still barter. [Answer submitted on Mar 24, 2009 1:30 PM]

A8: From uslegal.com:

What is a farm?

Any land used to produce crops, livestock, specialty livestock, or grazing and includes woodland and wasteland not under cultivation or used for pasture or grazing. According to the US Government, a farm is any place from which $1,000 or more of agricultural products were produced and sold, or normally would have been sold during the census year.

Please note "includes woodland and wasteland not under cultivation"

You needn't actually be doing any farming to be defined as a farm.

A7, please note: from the bill:

SEC. 406. PRESUMPTION.

In any action to enforce the requirements of the food safety law, the connection with interstate commerce required for jurisdiction shall be presumed to exist.

If the nice inspector wants to see your land, he can. It is presumed that you operate in interstate commerce for the enforcement of this bill. Also, according to section 405.a.1.A, :(A) IN GENERAL- Any person that commits an act that violates the food safety law (including a regulation promulgated or order issued under the food safety law) may be assessed a civil penalty by the Administrator of not more than $1,000,000 for each such act.

So there's a one million dollar fine attached to refusing to allow him to inspect your land. [Answer submitted on Apr 3, 2009 7:04 PM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: The guidelines for contamination has not been identified. It will have a review process, but I doubt that being lactose intollerant is the concern of this bill.

(10) CONTAMINANT- The term "contaminant" includes a bacterium, chemical, natural toxin or manufactured toxicant, virus, parasite, prion, physical hazard, or other human pathogen that when found on or in food can cause human illness, injury, or death [Answer submitted on Mar 8, 2009 9:32 PM]

A2: This question would also apply to gluten, soy, dairy, and other foods that are produced that cause allergic reactions. [Answer submitted on Mar 24, 2009 1:07 PM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: It does not have the power, but using the commerce clause of the rights for congress they could defend their legislation. The bill is intended for food shipped internation and within the US. However, the Commerce clause does not give this new agency the right to regulate intrastate commerce and mandate states to comply. [Answer submitted on Mar 8, 2009 9:23 PM]

A2: Section 406 of this bill titled "Presumption" states that all agriculture is destined for interstate commerce. This presumption is far reaching and attempts to circumvent the Constitutional limitation of Congressional authority and individual State's soverenty in that it ignores nationally (USDA) recognized programs such as Community Supported Agiculture and local Farmers Markets/ Green Markets which are strictly intrastate transactions and cause an un-necessary burden on the small producers who do not desire nor intend to become involved interstate commerce. [Answer submitted on Mar 17, 2009 12:37 AM]

A3: "Presumption" is a very dangerous precedent to set in our legal system. Burden of proof is supposed to rest with the accuser. This section alone marks this as a dangerous piece of legislation. [Answer submitted on Mar 25, 2009 7:30 PM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: This bill does not pertain to resturants. Processing and storage.

(13) FOOD ESTABLISHMENT-

(A) IN GENERAL- The term ?food establishment? means a slaughterhouse (except those regulated under the Federal Meat Inspection Act or the Poultry Products Inspection Act), factory, warehouse, or facility owned or operated by a person located in any State that processes food or a facility that holds, stores, or transports food or food ingredients.

(B) EXCLUSIONS- For the purposes of registration, the term ?food establishment? does not include a food production facility as defined in paragraph (14), restaurant, other retail food establishment, nonprofit food establishment in which food is prepared for or served directly to the consumer, or fishing vessel (other than a fishing vessel engaged in processing, as that term is defined in section 123.3 of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations).

[Answer submitted on Mar 8, 2009 9:19 PM]

A2: All franchises will have increased costs as a result of the paperwork burden on the supply chain. How much is hard to say, but considering all the multipliers, it could be substantial.

Franchises who use depot production, warehouses, and transport will be subject to this bill, being the food is not prepared for or served directly to the customer. Ie, a scratch bakery would be exempt, a depot bakery would not. [Answer submitted on Mar 13, 2009 4:28 AM]

A3: This bill won't affect fast-food restaurants. [Answer submitted on Mar 14, 2009 12:05 PM]

A4: It may not affect the restaurants but their processing facilities would be affected. In other words, many fast foods are pre-processed - these processing facilities will be affected. [Answer submitted on Mar 18, 2009 8:17 AM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: My understanding is that there are now responsibilities that lie outside of the FDA's domain (under, say, the Dept. of Agriculture instead of HHS where FDA is), and value would be gained by centralizing. That doesn't mean that the FDA couldn't be where the centralizing happens, though. [Answer submitted on Mar 9, 2009 9:18 AM]

A2: There are currently 15 agencies that license and administer food companies and those 15 agencies do not currently share information. [Answer submitted on Mar 14, 2009 6:43 PM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: Where is the ban on organic farms? [Answer submitted on Mar 10, 2009 8:06 AM]

A2: It's called a "soft kill" technique. Add in vaccines and we're toast. [Answer submitted on Mar 10, 2009 12:07 PM]

A3: I read the bill. I do not see anything that requires shutting down organic agriculture, closing all farmers' markets, banning backyard gardens or saving non-GMO seeds, all things I've seen claimed about this bill.

If this bill can prevent one American child from being sickened or killed by a tainted product intentionally or accidentally sent into the food stream, then this bill is anecessary. [Answer submitted on Mar 10, 2009 4:51 PM]

A4: Having skimmed the bill, I don't see where it shuts down Organics. It references minimum food safety standards and minimum quality controls on additives, etc. but does not seem to set the standards. So Organic farmers could still provide input to keep a separate standard for organics and for "conventional" food production. [Answer submitted on Mar 10, 2009 6:43 PM]

A5: after skimming the bill, there is nothing that directly addresses concerns about small farms, farmer's markets or organic farming. That is the problem. The fear is that the new regulations would put all of these people out of business because they do not specifically address these concerns and make them exempt from the regulations and fees. [Answer submitted on Mar 11, 2009 6:43 PM]

A6: I've read most of this bill and the language is very vague regarding what constitutes a farm, orchid, etc. So this new department and the laws could be used against anyone. [Answer submitted on Mar 11, 2009 7:43 PM]

A7: The definitions of food production are worded very broadly such that they could be construed to include small farms and hence organics by extension, since these are grown mostly on smaller farms. And to address the second question, it can be argued that the commerce clause of the Constitution covers the state's rights issue you mentioned, however that doesn't mean that the states will be compelled to follow the new law. This of course will lead to the Fed imposing their will upon the states like they always do by threatening to withhold funds, or by imposing some sort of draconian regulations on food exports from the state(s) in question. This bill is unnecessary. We have an agency in charge of taking care of food safety now. How is adding yet another agency going to solve the problem of food quality? The simple answer is...it won't. [Answer submitted on Mar 12, 2009 8:10 AM]

A8: When a business is washing 1/2 of the countries spinach in 1 sink right next to a feedlot cattle operation (remember the spinach scare from last year), there is a much higher risk than if somebody is washing 20 pounds of spinach on a small farm surrounded by trees, and a totally different testing regim is required. In the first case, daily water tests are appropriate, but in the latter, annual or semi-annual tests should be fine. This bill seems to me to be imposing a 'one size fit's all' approach, and this will hurt small local (not so much organic) producers.

Furthermore, if the 'scientists' appointed (like the scientists at the USDA that told folks to spray their counter-tops with DDT to control roaches in the 50's) decide that poisoning food such that no bacteria can live on it is the safest way to handle it, they will have the power to mandate that. [Answer submitted on Mar 12, 2009 12:29 PM]

A9: To A3: "If this bill can prevent one American child from being sickened or killed by a tainted product..." This is propaganda typical of Monsanto. Do you know that it is very rare to be sickened by organic or local farmers' produce and products? I have been sickened by prepackaged frozen foods, never by food from my local farmers market. No - it is always some greedy mega farm that passes contaminated food to the markets. The gigantic agri-farms hire the cheapest labor, give them no bathrooms so they urinate and defecate in the fields. Then they contract the food production/facilities out to the cheapest bidder who again hire the cheapest labor, and look the other way on cleanliness and contaminants. Just look at the peanut butter debacle. You must be a Monsanto (or similar) corporate plant. [Answer submitted on Mar 15, 2009 5:41 PM]

A10: Section 203 includes wording that could effectively shut down organic production: (c) SPECIFIC HAZARD CONTROLS."The Administrator may require any person with responsibility for or control over food or food ingredients to adopt specific hazard controls, if such controls are needed to ensure the protection of the public health.

Those 'controls' could include the use of some pesticide, fungicide, etc. which would not meet organic standards. [Answer submitted on Mar 15, 2009 5:51 PM]

A11: Texas has a very similar bill restricting milk before it now. Small producers are forbidden to use the word "Organic" even now; we can only say "home grown" because "organic" has been redefined to meet strange rules promulgated to help agribusiness. [Answer submitted on Mar 17, 2009 6:45 PM]

A12: To A3... an unfortunate outcome is not an excuse for a BAD law. This is life and it is hard ...anyone who tells you otherwise is selling you something. There is such a thing as personal responsability and integrity and this you can't legislate. Buy local and you will be assured of quality. generaly neighbors don't screw neighbors or thier business will vanish. this bill has Monsanto kickbacks written all over it. [Answer submitted on Mar 17, 2009 10:07 PM]

A13: There are long standing scientific studies that indicate repeated low level exposure to some biological contaminants and parasites are beneficial, mandatory even, for developing a robust immune response. One could argue that sterilizing everything we eat all the time leads to more severe outbreaks when the inevitable contamination occurs. Go eat some dirt!! [Answer submitted on Mar 19, 2009 1:20 PM]

A14: Dirt contains many homeostatic soil organisms that are extremely beneficial to the human body. Eating fresh veggies and strawberries straight from the garden unwashed used to be a common way of obtaining these beneficial beasties. My mother grew up on a small farm during the depression and commented that while milking the cow, if a flake of manure fell off the udder and into the milk, they would pick it out of the foam. They would later filter the milk and drink it without pasteurizing it; they never got sick from doing so. The human body is designed to thrive in the presence of bacteria when adequately nourished. Food recalls necessitated by bacterial contamination were not known when I was a child in the fifties; our modern commercial food supply has already suffered major declines in nutrient levels due to USDA recommended farming practices, and even today's organic produce is less nutritious than most commercial produce was in the forties and fifties. Additionally, we are now being fluoridated by many means and yet government research into the human toxicity of fluoride commissioned by Dr.Charles Hodges under the Manhattan Project is, to my knowledge, still classified. See Christopher Bryson's book "The Fluoride Deception" for more details. Fluoride, the primary and active component of Fluothane and Halothane gas anesthesia still used today, aggressively displaces iodine from the body promoting hypothyroidism, autoimmune disease and other immune disorders, arthritis, osteoporosis, heart disease, type II diabetes,and cancer. Fluoride is present in the propellant used in the albuterol inhalers given to asthmatics to relieve their asthma in spite of the fact that it actually causes and aggravates asthmatic attacks. (Sorry, I got carried away.) [Answer submitted on Mar 25, 2009 6:58 PM]

A15: Imported food labeled USDA Organic is *always* sprayed with toxic methyl bromide - a potent pesticide that even EPA has tried to restrict.

USDA calls these "phytosanitary" measures, from the Greek for plant (phyto-), i.e. to make the plants clean (sanitary) and thereby prevent importing exotic pests BUT I call this the fed putting poison-on-your-food and laughing-in-your-face whilst laughing all the way to the bank with YOUR Money.

Our taxes pay for USDA, FDA and EPA, and would pay for this FSA monster too: Why aren't all 15 agencies that regulate food doing their job?

This is an unnecessary and frighteningly vague and over broad sweeping power granted to corporate-led interests in the false name of security. It must be stopped.

[Answer submitted on Mar 25, 2009 7:35 PM]

A16: I've read the bill twice now, and find nothing that affects seed saving, organics, or local sales at farmers markets. Seeds were designated 'food' for the purpose of tax-free food stamp sales, at the time the food stamp program was initiated. Federal law can only be applied to interstate commerce, so small growers would usually not be affected. And since organic standards are more rigorous by far than commercial ones, organic growers, no matter how big, would be in position to sail through inspections by overworked officials with far worse problems.

These comforting thoughts aside, this is a stupid idea that does nothing to help farmers or consumers, and would, if enacted, lead to massive shipping holdups, truckloads of spoiled food, and guaranteed headaches for all farmers.

Maybe it could be alied only to producers with business over i million $ a year? [Answer submitted on Mar 27, 2009 9:51 AM]

A17: A15 is off the wall. I have imported many containers of organically certified herbs into the US with never a problem of 'required' fumigation. Methyl bromide is no longer used for any fumigation of food and only allowed use is sol fumigation pre-plant.

[Answer submitted on Apr 2, 2009 12:10 AM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: This bill appears to be a response to a) concerns about the vulnerability of the U.S. centralized food system to malicious (i.e. terrorist) attacks, and b) the recent spate of food contamination scandals, such as the salmonella-tainted tomatoes from two years ago or the peanut butter from a Tennessee processing plant this year. [Answer submitted on Mar 10, 2009 5:31 PM]

A2: The bill would be devastating to the small farm-to-market operation, CSA etc. To my knowledge, NONE of the food contamination incidents have stemmed from food grown by the small farm-to-market operations - the salmonella outbreaks have been traced to large factory-style corporate farms and large food processors, i.e. the peanut butter from TN processing plant and the spinach from the CA factory farm. [Answer submitted on Mar 11, 2009 11:41 AM]

A3: 10th amendment? Hello?!?! [Answer submitted on Mar 11, 2009 11:49 PM]

A4: A3 answerer, could you please expound? while you may know full well what you mean, your answer is entirely useless in the context of this discussion. Many of us who would very much like to understand the issues raised by this bill may not know what you are talking about. (call us philistines if you like, but please explain) Thank you. [Answer submitted on Mar 16, 2009 3:08 PM]

A5:

TENTH AMENDMENT - The Tenth Amendment provides that " The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. " U.S. Const. amend. X. As a textual matter, therefore, the Tenth Amendment "states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered." United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941). By its terms, the Amendment does not purport to limit the commerce power or any other enumerated power of Congress.

In recent years, however, the Tenth Amendment has been interpreted "to encompass any implied constitutional limitation on Congress' authority to regulate state activities, whether grounded in the Tenth Amendment itself or in principles of federalism derived generally from the Constitution." South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505, 511 n.5 (1988). Thus, "the Tenth Amendment confirms that the power of the Federal Government is subject to limits that may, in a given instance, reserve power to the States." New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 157 (1992).

[Answer submitted on Mar 17, 2009 12:18 PM]

A6: re: A3 see Mar 8 2009 A2 . . . powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. [Answer submitted on Mar 17, 2009 1:26 PM]

A7: To elaborate on the answer from A3- please note that

according to In United States v. Sprague (1931) the Supreme Court noted that the amendment "added nothing to the [Constitution] as originally ratified." So we can not attribute more to the 10th than the highest court allows. (allowed rarely) That said, we can move on to the "Commerce Clause" Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 in the constitution. It states that- Congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the states, and with the Indian tribes.

realize that, that clause is used in this Bill. And please note the power of this clause,

The case hinged on whether the feds have the right to literally invade the backyards of two California women and arrest them for using homegrown marijuana even though their actions are legal in California. The Bush Administration argued that it does, because the Commerce Clause of the Constitution gives Congress the right to regulate "Commerce...among the several States." source- http://www.alternet.org/story/22221/

Mary

[Answer submitted on Mar 17, 2009 8:45 PM]

A8: The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791. The Tenth Amendment restates the Constitution's principle of Federalism by providing that powers not granted to the National government nor prohibited to the states are reserved to the states and to the people. [Answer submitted on Mar 18, 2009 10:39 AM]

A9: Regarding salmonella, e.coli, terrorism etc. This bill really does not make any sense when you compare the numbers of Americans that die or develop other symptoms due to medications that are so quickly supported by the U.S. The numbers don't even compare - so why is the government jeapordizing our health by creating a generation of mal-nourished individuals? We have to realize that not everyone is EDUCATED (regardless of their degree) on integrative nutrition and how this effects everyone. [Answer submitted on Mar 22, 2009 6:57 AM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: Since "raw" dairy is not considered "sanitary" by the uninformed, the FSA can place bans on "raw" dairy to "save" the public from possible contaminates in the name of public health. We cannot be trusted to make our own choices, so the government must do it for us. It has nothing to do with lobbyists or big dairy companies. [Answer submitted on Mar 11, 2009 1:45 PM]

A2: Pasteurization of "raw" dairy products has already been forced! This bill will make it easier for the government to find and shut down any dairy farms selling raw milk. [Answer submitted on Mar 11, 2009 3:23 PM]

A3: Sale of raw milk has been so far regulated on a state by state basis and generally is more heavily regulated due to the potential risks associated. The effect of the bill may be to force more federal regulation of the matter, though in many places (CA for example), the relatively strict state legislation already in place might deem that no further enforcement is necessary. This bill is tricky though, it could really lead to disaster for small farms if allowed to get out of hand. Watch it closely and be sure to keep your congressman on speed dial. http://www.realmilk.com/happening.html [Answer submitted on Mar 17, 2009 12:58 PM]

A4: "raw" milk is milk that still contains the natural enzemes that are needed to digest the milk. If the "raw" milk is handled quickly, cleanly, and consumed within days it is still a healthy product. Processed milk is so far removed from "mother's milk (be it any creature) those of us who do drink it raw are taking RESPONSIABILITY for our own health [Answer submitted on Mar 27, 2009 9:21 PM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: http://www.naturalnews.com/025824.html

[Answer submitted on Mar 14, 2009 11:27 AM]

A2: That website is not reliable, that is just more propaganda. [Answer submitted on Mar 30, 2009 4:14 PM]

A3: In my research, the slowfoodblog and foodandwaterwatch.org had good information including information on associated bills regarding the reorganization of the FDA in response to food safety issues. [Answer submitted on Apr 2, 2009 7:52 PM]

A4: To A2: Just how is www.naturalnews.com 'propoganda' and 'unreliable'? Proof please. Some very good information can be found there. But if you are not passionate about health, personal freedom, and pure wholesome food, then I can see how you might think Adams is too 'radical'. This bill 'seems' to be about protecting the public health, but unfortunately it opens a back door to more onnerous restrictions on those who grow food just as it has always been grown for thousands of years. [Answer submitted on Jun 9, 2009 12:43 PM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: I believe this bill would make everyone criminals if they planted flowers or trees in their backyard. [Answer submitted on Mar 14, 2009 11:55 AM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: If a producer makes someone sick, there are existing product liability laws that are already in effect. They would have more to worry about from that side than the effect of this bill. This bill aims to stop this even from happening through education of the producer [Answer submitted on Mar 17, 2009 4:48 PM]

A2: @A1 what type of education do you think will happen? and what exactly will it solve? why should the FDA have a blanket provision on regulating anything at all that has to do with food, even if it takes place entirely within one state? [Answer submitted on Apr 3, 2009 1:43 AM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: This bill doesn't apply to any food that is not sold or offered for sale. Food donated to charities will still be covered by the Samaritan Food Act of 1996. http://www.licares.org/General_Information/Good_Samaritan_Act.htm [Answer submitted on Mar 14, 2009 6:48 PM]

A2: So local farmers could potential side step the whole invasive process by bartering instead of selling outright? I'd gladly go to work on a local farm to earn my food to weaken the impact of such a terrible bill. [Answer submitted on Mar 18, 2009 9:10 AM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: It carefully avoids listing genetic modification as a contaminant, despite evidence to the contrary. [Answer submitted on Mar 15, 2009 9:52 AM]

A2: Section 303(a)(11)leaves room for investigation of antibiiotic resistance. This could actually be good for organic farmers, as they do not use antibiotics, and are required to remove animals from the herd or flock if sick and in need of medication. [Answer submitted on Mar 26, 2009 4:52 PM]

A3: This bill is positive for several reasons. First, it is revamping the FDA in its inspections and regulations, thus hopefully preventing outbreaks of food born illness created by poor processing practices that lead to the contamination of our foods, such as mad cow disease, as the bill directly targets slaughterhouses and poultry farms, etc. Second, the bill is trying to regulate the "safety" of processed foods, drugs, and imports. The FDA is running off of practices that are as old as 70 years and needs to be reformed. As a big supporter of the slow food movement, I have been waiting for such a reform to take place. In reaction to the speculation of the downfall of the american organic farmer, I think people need to actually read this bill before they speak. This bill addresses mass produced foods and drugs for public consumption, in no way does it imply banning backyard gardens. On the other hand, i do agree that that the bill is very vague in the context of seed sells and local or sustainable farming, I think they need to specify more so on that front, but the overall focus is on mass produced goods, not local or organic. I would be rather livid if the vagueness of this bill will be used against local farmers and organic produce, but as I said, I don't believe that that is the intention of this bill. [Answer submitted on Apr 2, 2009 9:52 PM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: In the definition of production facilities I believe it specified 'closed feeding operations' in regard to meat production, so game is probably not affected. [Answer submitted on Mar 25, 2009 7:50 PM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: Refer to this site it should explain everything.

http://www.americanpolicy.org/sledgehammer/civil-liberties.htm [Answer submitted on Mar 16, 2009 7:56 PM]

A2: Yes! The person selling it must be registered under this program. If the small farmer sells it, be prepared to pay more due to his added cost of this regulation. [Answer submitted on Mar 17, 2009 7:40 AM]

A3: Not necessarily, but the way the bill is worded so vaguely and leaving so much up to the discretion of the Administrator makes this a distinct possibility. [Answer submitted on Mar 19, 2009 11:45 AM]

A4: The fact that farmer's markets are still in business at all is remarkable enough In order to sell produce at my local market here in California, my farm has to be inspected annually; I have to display a "producer certificate" stating that I do indeed grow everything I am selling; I must have a certified scale (very expensive!) that has to be tested each year; samples of produce must be prepared and dispensed according to preposterously complex and nearly-impossible to follow rules... and being certified "organic" involves even more inspection, not to mention substantial fees. My point is, I don't think that another set of regulations will push farmer's markets and small farming out of business because we are already dealing with so much of this stuff already. I certainly don't support this legislation, but I do think that the threat is being a bit exaggerated. [Answer submitted on Mar 23, 2009 1:56 PM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: No to the foie gras (in Chicago, lol), but yes in places that haven't already outlawed these dishes. Steak tartar will also be available, lol -

BUT - are you willing to order these things from corporate farm sources?? [Answer submitted on May 29, 2009 11:35 PM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: No it does not!!! [Answer submitted on Mar 16, 2009 1:37 PM]

A2: It should be pointed out that an unidentifed visitor giving an unsubstantiated answer does not constitute an authoritative answer in my book. [Answer submitted on Mar 17, 2009 3:18 PM]

A3: Actually, I have read that the bill will outlaw all heirloom clean seeds, only allowing genetically altered seeds like provided by Monsanto, a key financial contributor to pass the bill. [Answer submitted on Mar 17, 2009 11:03 PM]

A4: True. It does not. What it does do however is allow a future gov. entity to control another aspect of daily life [Answer submitted on Mar 18, 2009 12:04 PM]

A5: yes it does !! vegatable seeds are considered 'food' by our government. The saving/storing/banking of seeds is 'processing' which will fall under the perview of the new laws. [Answer submitted on Mar 18, 2009 10:19 PM]

A6: Under this bill, seeds have been reclassified as "food", in order to insure they then fall under the regulations enacted in the bill.

This WILL put most organic oriented seed cleaners out of business. [Answer submitted on Mar 21, 2009 12:04 PM]

A7: I have read the bill. It says nothing about seeds. NOTHING! Unless you can show me something somewhere else that affects garden seed production, I will have to say that your hysteria is showing. [Answer submitted on Mar 27, 2009 9:56 AM]

A8: A7: It does not regulate seed, you are correct. At least it does not do so directly. We all know the FDA is broken, and it is broken for lack of funding, for backing a lame ideology like "self policing", graft, and for generally having no teeth or the will to use them if they could. On so many levels! It is not that these pieces of pending legislation are hideous at first look, and they certainly don't stop you or myself form growing things in our gardens. But what does this (and other food related "safety" bills see: S.425 and H.R. 814) have for independent farmers and producers? And in what context do you look at these? Is it through the lens of good intentions trying to help people, or is it with a critical eye on how reality plays out in a very unbalanced system where corporate money trumps 9x out of 10? Have a look here:

section 206(3) include, with respect to growing, harvesting, sorting, and storage operations, minimum standards related to fertilizer use, nutrients, hygiene, packaging, temperature controls, animal encroachment, and water;

Don't sound bad do it? Well, sorting and storage are a big deal to a small farmer who sort and stores seed. So while SEEDS are not listed and not searchable on the text, anyone aware of how integral sorting and processing and storage of SEEDS is to smaller farmers will understand that this broad brush CAN apply to SEEDS as well as produce and product.

This is the problem. Legislation that is broad enough to seem harmless...which is then followed by a bastion of not so harmless activities. Not so harmless when you are the one having to pay out of pocket for new storage, new sorting, new permits, new inspections. Also not harmless when coupled with pending state legislation (as in my state of Washington) where vague wording establishes the means for inspectors and lawyers et al to come on to your land and make you prove that you are not growing their product. (Though it sounds like fiction, but it is already happening around the world).

So, legislation is not in a vacuum. Federal and state intersect. Just as you don't see SEED in the text, you probably don't see this as yet another nail in the coffin of independent producers. It is not an attack gardeners, it isn't an attack on farmer's markets. In fact, it is not an attack at all. It is open ending wording that is open to influence and interpretation in a system that really only follows the money.

And, the last time I checked, most independent farmers did not have any time or money to spare to repeatedly run off to their state capitol to defend their use of sorting and storage methods that they have been using "forever" without harm. Many likely have no way of altering or complying with new rules and regulations surrounding that innocuous section 206 (3). And so they fold. Just a few more here and there, and a few more there and here. Seemingly no-one's loss until it's your turn.

I believe that hysteria was in order some time ago, even before Syngenta et al started to do human trials with their products with no accountability to any institutional review board (thanks Tufts!) But - the hysteria needs to be about the truth, and not about nothing.

I am no fan of industrial agriculture, but they are influence and money peddlers with lots of lawyers and not direct crafters of legislation. Couple their influence with vague legislation that mandates onerous record keeping and ineffectual inspecting and enforcing and you get what we already have. We don't need more of it. [Answer submitted on Mar 27, 2009 5:52 PM]

A9: A8: Very much appreciate your clarity. Can you suggest web sites that are informative without propaganda or agenda regarding organic farming issues? I'm currently in Calif. but relocating to Alaska. [Answer submitted on Apr 4, 2009 1:42 PM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: Under SEC. 3. "DEFINITIONS" of FOOD ESTABLISHMENT specify five seperate categories that cover all areas of food production including processed foods, food storage and transportation facilities therreby effecting the entire food industry.

This includes the back yard garden since Section 406 of this bill titled "Presumption" states that all agriculture is destined for interstate commerce, See answer 2 of Mar 8 2009 Constitutional authority question. [Answer submitted on Mar 17, 2009 12:58 PM]

A2: Locally made Breads, Jams, Pies - are produced foods, and would come under regulation by the Fed. It's unclear how costly or time consuming the regulatory hurdles would be. [Answer submitted on Mar 17, 2009 1:03 PM]

A3: The way I read it, they would become category 4 food establishment, thus required to register, pay a fee, maintain piles of paperwork and submit to inspections and inquiries at any time. [Answer submitted on Mar 18, 2009 8:33 PM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: Now I'm no fan of this bill, and I doubt it makes food any safer. But say it did...surely that would warrant a price increase? [Answer submitted on Mar 30, 2009 6:11 AM]

A2: If you can afford the food sure its a good thing. However not everyone is doing well and we have no idea what the future may bring. [Answer submitted on Mar 31, 2009 10:25 AM]

A3: That is not the coming problem in USA. Google how many countries are abandoning the USD as their reserve or "rainy day" currency. Google how many oil producing countries will no longer accept USD for the goods. Google how the Federal Reserve is for the first time in history buying Tresury notes - cause noone else wants them. Total collapse of the US currency is coming. Soon $1000 won't buy a loaf of bread... [Answer submitted on Apr 30, 2009 2:26 AM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: Not technically, though there is some speculation on this. In individual states, such as Illinois, seed cleaners are having a rough time due to legislation which requires separate equipment for each "type" or species of seed cleaned.

Also, it could be construed that saving/cleaning of seed will become a part of this bill through direct amendment. It is one of the few areas of the bill where there is nothing directly for or against the practice, but other sections leave this open for future regulation. [Answer submitted on May 29, 2009 11:37 PM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: Many people with food allergies are also allergic to pesticides and chemicals used now in industry. They cannot eat food that is treated with chemicals without becoming quite ill. [Answer submitted on Mar 22, 2009 10:41 AM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: YES. All of these provisions are currently being worked in across Europe and on other continents.

For a while, the US held the chair (not sure if we do currently) of the CODEX commission. You can check the FDA site and search CODEX for the latest. Also, if you do a search on YouTube, you will find a video by Rima Laibow of the Natural Solutions Foundation that will raise the hair on the back of your neck for sure.

The United States has already committed in many ways to following all CODEX requirements, though Congress has had a few issues. They have not, however, decided to legislate a biting law against harm to the US or its laws... What they have is a resolution to that effect, which carries no weight. [Answer submitted on May 29, 2009 11:41 PM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: Probably. The bill states that the "administrator" is to set MINIMUM STANDARDS for the use of pesticides, chemicals, and also for "environment,""animal encroachment" and such things as sunshine and water.

Since it does not state that it will set maximum levels, it can be assumed that the "administrator" will be issuing directives as to what chemicals and such must be used.

Semantics is everything!! [Answer submitted on May 29, 2009 11:43 PM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: seeds have nothing to do with bacteria.. its the soil, rain, fertizers and wild bird droppings. I have bought organic veg and fruit for many years that my family have not hit by e colic or salmonella because we don't include animal product fertizers. I hope that I help you to understand more about food safety which I support organic farms very strongly. Many farm helpers get sick and babies get deformed/dead from chemicals when they and babies's mothers pick the nonorganic food products. Please research for the true facts if you truly care for us the people in the world. God bless humane people [Answer submitted on Mar 19, 2009 12:58 PM]

A2: This is designed to put the Non-hybrid seeds out of business. The Monsanto proprietary weed killers & insecticides kill anything not genetically modified to be resistant to them. That's why Monsanto is pushing this legislation. They want everyone to have to buy their chemicals and their genetically modified seeds. In India their takeover of the seed and chemical fertilizer industry has caused mass crop failures and has led to thousands of Indian farmers committing suicide. Not to mention all the harm to livestock that have eaten the GMO feed. Research Jeffrey Smith and his work on GMO products. [Answer submitted on Mar 19, 2009 8:16 PM]

A3: I wouldn't be surprised if seeds had a lot to do with. By placing restriction on people who farm their own crops organically we are being bamboozled. This is big corporation and people with money taking over one step at a time to force GMO down our throat and to squash out clean, safe food all for a BUCK. Anyone remember the Denka Showa Disaster? [Answer submitted on Mar 19, 2009 11:02 PM]

A4: What section of the bill addresses non-hybrid seeds? [Answer submitted on Mar 21, 2009 2:03 AM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: Yes, this is exactly their reason for being. The FDA and USDA have been steered toward benefiting business rather than people for the last 8 years. The current administration will bring this and other agencies back into form without the need to create new agencies backed by by old administration dogma and old administration tactics and paid for by old administration allies. [Answer submitted on Mar 19, 2009 2:19 PM]

A2: I have an old book writeen by the founder of Consumers Union in 1923 complaining about this very thing with the FDA only looking out for industry to the detriment of the public. The last 8 years? that is a lame guess, try since 1903. [Answer submitted on Mar 19, 2009 9:52 PM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: H.R. 875 was introduced by Democrat Rosa DeLauro in February. Her introduction of this bill represents a stunning conflict of interest, because her husband, Stanley Greenburg, works for Monsanto. Monsanto is the world's biggest producer of herbicides and genetically engineered seeds, and they would GREATLY benefit if thousands of small organic farmers were put out of business, because organic farmers don't use Monsanto products. [Answer submitted on Mar 26, 2009 9:23 AM]

A2: The representative's husband did some contract work for Monsanto more than a decade ago. The Las Vegas Review-Journal says: "Both DeLauro's office and a spokesman for Greenberg's firm said Thursday that Monsanto has not been a client of Greenberg's for more than 10 years." [Answer submitted on Apr 6, 2009 1:46 PM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: Well, that depends. You may actually be asking the question of the wrong bill.

Try looking at HR759 instead, where farmers will be required to register as a food supplier. This bill has nothing to do with your question [Answer submitted on Mar 24, 2009 5:34 PM]

A2: Home Gardens should not have to pay any fine for selling fruits and vegetables as long as the state cleanliness guidelines are met. Those guidelines have already been established, and retired people or people trying to supplement a meager income should not be penalized for one of our constitutional rights, "The guaranteed right to pursuit of happiness". The problems with purity are not with family farms, they are from foreign good which are brought in at lower prices to guarantee the middle man a higher profit margin. Regulate the foreign goods, we already have state regulations to control local goods and markets. [Answer submitted on Mar 24, 2009 8:41 PM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: Those products exist and people buy them because they want to. The OTHER people are buying these all natural, organic, unprocessed foods by choice. If you take that away, what choice is left. Even if you take away all the processed foods, your only choice will be "real" food covered in pesticides. How is that an improvement? [Answer submitted on Mar 23, 2009 3:15 PM]

A2: have chemical allergies that have been controlled by not using processed food that is contaminated by un-natural additives, sugar and processed wheat flour. To think that we might loose control of the chose to eat food and suppliments in there natual state...without chemical padding is scarry. [Answer submitted on Mar 27, 2009 9:27 PM]

A3: Yes this bill is completely terrifying & unnecessary - I don't know where to begin... it gives me the creeps big time. There are no guarantees in life, people!!!!!!!!! No 100% guarantee of safety ever, even or especially when large corporations are involved. The question-poser is correct - overly processed foods, pesticides & chemical additives are a FAR greater threat to human health than small local organic farms. Ask the Russians where a huge portion of the nations produce is grown in 'dachas' or family plots. This is literally how the russian population survived their own societal collapse. (read some dimitri orlov) And as we face a vast crisis of our own, it seems our country may be poised to go from bad shape to worse! [Answer submitted on Mar 30, 2009 3:47 PM]

A4: The government has to stop this madness! We have to stop altering the natural life processes and cycles with chemicals and pesticides. They are not ever safe to put into our bodies. It's unnatural and our bodies can't handle it. What do you think causes all these cancers, heart disease and strange diseases people are getting. I know many people who have treated cancer by eliminating all the junk foods and going completely 100% natural and have been cured. Please don't do this to our food! [Answer submitted on Apr 30, 2009 9:28 AM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: You will be required to register, but then you already are - search the FDA site for "Direct Farm Business" [Answer submitted on May 29, 2009 11:44 PM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

Answer This Question!

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: It doesn't. In order to protect any segment of the food chain from this bill, it must be explicity included in the bill in writing.

NOTHING IS EXCLUDED. And - just for grins - foreign entities may apply for a waiver of sorts. [Answer submitted on May 29, 2009 11:46 PM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: Just visited Delauro's site. Follow the link and read: http://delauro.house.gov/files/HR875_Myths_Facts1.pdf

Not withstanding the answers she gives, seems like another large layer of regulation and enforcement that we can't afford, and that will end up not doing what it was intended to do. How about getting the agencies that already are supposed to be enforcing food safety laws to do their jobs a little better? Maybe we should have an "internal affairs dept." to keep an eye on the "inspectors". [Answer submitted on Mar 29, 2009 8:13 PM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: Well what's the definition of contamination. I don't mind the occasional worm in my apple. That proves it was grown without pesticides, the way I want it. People like me should still be free to buy organic produce, so harmless insects, organic-fertilizer residues, and the like shouldn't be considered contamination. [Answer submitted on Apr 3, 2009 1:20 PM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

Answer This Question!

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: Yes, it will. They can argue that the seeds that you save are avenues for passing on a virus or a bad trait that they picked up through cross pollination, or that the GMO seed is just safer or makes more food, and that the four major seed producers(i.e. Monsanto,Cargill) make superior and safer seed than yours. Therefore, you cannot use your seeds. You must buy theirs. But yes, it will effect you. Because the seed that you grow your stuff from, will have to be "approved safe" too. [Answer submitted on Jun 19, 2009 3:44 PM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: YES. The NAIS program is listed under the section on "Existing Laws." Its justification is the AHPA, which technically does not work, but if the bill is signed into law, it makes NAIS law by default.

The USDA has already stated that the costs and burdens of this program will be borne by the states and producers. [Answer submitted on May 29, 2009 11:30 PM]

A2: Re A1's response. The USDA handles animal transportation, processing, etc. This bill has nothing to do with animal products unless they are processed. [Answer submitted on Aug 20, 2009 3:24 PM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: Nothing.

Testimony entered during the debates on the Bio-Terrorism Act of 2002 left the door open for future regulation right down to home gardens. There are NO exemptions specifically listed in HR 875.

The exemptions on registration at the beginning of the bill are contradicted by the reporting requirements later on. [Answer submitted on May 29, 2009 11:32 PM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: The first amendment kinda makes it impossible to keep Americans from voicing their opinions, even when/where they're not supposed to, not wanted, or not appreciated. People who don't want random public opinions should try to avoid visiting U.S. Govt sites, or sites dealing with U.S. Govt issues. :) [Answer submitted on Mar 27, 2009 11:12 AM]

A2: Thanks to the moderator for setting this forum up. Even if it is anonymous, the opinions are interesting and useful and I feel I have a better understanding of some of the issues after reading them. [From the moderator: Aw, thanks!] [Answer submitted on Mar 29, 2009 11:27 AM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: " This act does not affect fresh produce, meat, poultry, honey, or other food items grown on small acreages (>640 acres) by certified organic, provisional organic, biodynamic, or other chemical-free methods, for private use, community supported agricultural consumer groups, or for sale at farmer's markets. Only products produced by conventional means, or for wholesale marketing will be covered by this act."

Actually, only food grown for interstate commerce is covered anyway. While organic growers in the Northeast may ship across state lines, most small growers also sell locally. [Answer submitted on Mar 27, 2009 9:14 AM]

A2: Add a povision that this bill will only apply to non-organic farming! [Answer submitted on Mar 27, 2009 9:46 AM]

A3: add wording that absolutely protects small family farms producing milk, eggs, meat, vegetables and fruit that market locally and at farmers markets [Answer submitted on Mar 28, 2009 7:47 AM]

A4: You do realize that "non-organic" farming would be like, growing sand or some other non-carbon based product, as the word "organic" simply means carbon based. All farming is organic as they are farming carbon based organisms. What you mean is natural farming, ie. without chemicals, etc. [Answer submitted on Mar 28, 2009 9:41 PM]

A5: Can the person who answered at 9:14am on 3/27/09 provide a citation or reference to the quotation in his response? I did not note a limitation on famr size in this bill, such as the one described in his response. Thanks. [Answer submitted on Mar 28, 2009 9:50 PM]

A6: I was not the author of A1, but my understanding is that the quotation is the author's suggested text that, if inserted into the bill, would provide the necessary protection referred to in the question. [Answer submitted on Mar 29, 2009 1:53 PM]

A7: Defining what is safe and what is not safe farming practices should be define as to what it may mean. For example, organic fertilizer I distribute contain beneficial bacteria that promotes healthy growth with out problematic symptoms that may develop among growers that don't practice proper farming methods. Zero chemical farming is possible, providing the right ingredients are used. We have done it and will continue to do so for years to come. I will contact my Congressperson in my state to ask to speak in front of the United States Congress about H.R. 875. Should this bill pass, it will destroy our good work and those of whom are benefiting i.e. The Farmer and their customers [Answer submitted on Mar 30, 2009 1:26 AM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: I can't see how it does. Roundup is not used for food safety reasons. Monsanto produces GMO seed, but I can't see how this bill would favor them over non-GMO. If anything, the onus is on GMO crops to demonstrate safety as compared to non. [Answer submitted on Apr 9, 2009 11:23 AM]

A2: Genetically modified seeds and crops are conditioned to resist things like RUONDUP being sprayed all over the field. ALL DIES - the "crops" grow... it becomes illegal to grow you own food - because you are "contaminating" the seeds if not GM... totally whacked... imho. [Answer submitted on Apr 30, 2009 2:18 AM]

A3: It doesn't. But don't tell the astroturfers that.

This bill is being astroturfed by libertarian groups, who don't want this to pass because it puts restrictions on big agribusiness corporations.....under the guise of "supporting monsanto".

Don't buy into it. [Answer submitted on May 1, 2009 6:33 PM]

A4: Under the part: Title 2 Section 201 (C)(3) require and enforce the adoption of preventive process controls in food establishments, based on the best available scientific and public health considerations and best available technologies it will give GMO seeds an edge over organic methods because plants can be modified to resist pests & disease, enhance tolerance of herbicides, cold, drought & saline, and also provide additional nutrients to the crops. Depending on the position of the Administrator on genetic modification, they could decide that GMO seeds fit the bill of, "the best available scientific and public health considerations and best available technologies". [Answer submitted on May 26, 2009 10:43 AM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: READ the entire text of the bill. None of this stuff is in there!!!! [Answer submitted on Mar 31, 2009 10:37 PM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: Unfortunately, I think they are using Europe as a model for this. [Answer submitted on Mar 31, 2009 8:00 AM]

A2: This is DIRECTLY tied to CODEX - and it is in place in several countries through the WTO. IF the United States allows this bill to become law, there will be few if any other countries that do not have to "follow the program" -

This is a "harmonization" of WTO rules, and the animal health portion is directly attributable to the OIE's veterinarian Dr. Vallat, who wants every animal on the planet tagged and tracked. [Answer submitted on May 29, 2009 11:23 PM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: The word "Organic" doesn't appear in the bill. - The problem is that the bill creates a new Federal bureaucracy with the power to regulate food production and distribution - Under the terms of the bill, "Food Establishments" which include food packers, slaughter houses, people who pack ready to eat raw vegetables and other vague categories are required to register and there are all kinds of enforcement powers, designed to protect the public from ingesting contaminated, spoiled, and otherwise unsafe food. Both "Food Establishments" and "Food Production Facilities," the definitions of which are contained in Section 3 are to be regulated. Food Establishments must be registered. (Section 402). It it easy to imagine some of the things that could be required, not all of which are bad, such as pasteurization of milk. But the question is how far should this regulation be allowed to go?- Should the government be permitted to require that foods that are particularly susceptible to contamination, be sterilized in some way? This bill is vague as to the kinds of things we can expect to happen if it is passed, but once you create a new bureaucracy, the bureaucrats will find something to do. [Answer submitted on Apr 1, 2009 1:02 AM]

A2: 203 - pushes typical farming standards on all growers [Answer submitted on Apr 1, 2009 1:07 AM]

A3: It's not that it threatens organic farming EXACTLY, but that the wording is so vague that it can be interpreted to ban organic farming, which (considering the fact that monsanto and other agribusiness are behind it...) is frighteningly possible. [Answer submitted on Apr 1, 2009 1:57 AM]

A4: Check this out... establishes minimum standards related to fertilizer use, etc. (at the end of the quoted section) What would the minimum standards be?

SEC. 206. FOOD PRODUCTION FACILITIES.

(a) Authorities- In carrying out the duties of the Administrator and the purposes of this Act, the Administrator shall have the authority, with respect to food production facilities, to--

(1) visit and inspect food production facilities in the United States and in foreign countries to determine if they are operating in compliance with the requirements of the food safety law;

(2) review food safety records as required to be kept by the Administrator under section 210 and for other food safety purposes;

(3) set good practice standards to protect the public and animal health and promote food safety;

(4) conduct monitoring and surveillance of animals, plants, products, or the environment, as appropriate; and

(5) collect and maintain information relevant to public health and farm practices.

(b) Inspection of Records- A food production facility shall permit the Administrator upon presentation of appropriate credentials and at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner, to have access to and ability to copy all records maintained by or on behalf of such food production establishment in any format (including paper or electronic) and at any location, that are necessary to assist the Administrator--

(1) to determine whether the food is contaminated, adulterated, or otherwise not in compliance with the food safety law; or

(2) to track the food in commerce.

(c) Regulations- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture and representatives of State departments of agriculture, shall promulgate regulations to establish science-based minimum standards for the safe production of food by food production facilities. Such regulations shall--

(1) consider all relevant hazards, including those occurring naturally, and those that may be unintentionally or intentionally introduced;

(2) require each food production facility to have a written food safety plan that describes the likely hazards and preventive controls implemented to address those hazards;

(3) include, with respect to growing, harvesting, sorting, and storage operations, minimum standards related to fertilizer use, nutrients, hygiene, packaging, temperature controls, animal encroachment, and water;

[Answer submitted on Apr 1, 2009 5:44 AM]

A5: There is obfuscating language in this bill designed to confuse and redirect your attention to thinking by implication rather than specification. This is cleverly illustrated using the words "include(s)", "exclude(s)" and custom definitions. So let's take a look at an example.

(a) In General- Any food establishment or foreign food establishment engaged in manufacturing, processing, packing, or holding food for consumption in the

United States shall register annually with the Administrator.

Notice that annual registration is limited to a Food Establishment or foreign food establishment. One cannot imply that this extends beyond these two

entities as defined in the definitions section and only those that engage in manufacturing, processing, packing or holding food for consumption.

Before I get to what is a Food Establishment or foreign food establishment, let me give you an example of the use of include and typical efforts employed to muddy the waters.

To start with we must recognize that if a word is meant to be understood as having its common meaning, there is no need to define it at all. It is axiomatic that if a word is explicitly defined, it has a restricted meaning. If language such as the term "Fruit" is used and defined as "includes, apples, oranges, and pears", it can only be understood as restricting the definition to those things listed, or no definition would be required; the word "fruit" would be understood to include apples, oranges and pears, as well as all other fruits. If the word "common" is left out of the definition, then the things used in the definition are what establish the class to which belong, and as the word is being deliberately defined, the common meaning of the word must be excluded. Under the definitions section:

(13) FOOD ESTABLISHMENT-

(A) IN GENERAL- The term "food establishment" means a slaughterhouse (except those regulated under the Federal Meat Inspection Act or the Poultry Products Inspection Act), factory, warehouse, or facility owned or operated by a person located in any State that processes food or a facility that holds, stores, or transports food or food ingredients.

(B) EXCLUSIONS- For the purposes of registration, the term "food establishment" does not include a food production facility as defined in paragraph (14), restaurant, other retail food establishment, nonprofit food establishment in which food is prepared for or served directly to the consumer, or fishing vessel (other than a fishing vessel engaged in processing, as that term is defined in section 123.3 of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations).

(14) FOOD PRODUCTION FACILITY- The term "food production facility" means any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined animal-feeding operation.

So a Food Establishment is not a farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, confined animal-feeding operation. This is a custom definition, is specific and no other implications can be drawn as meaning something else. Note that farm, ranch .... since not custom defined, have a common definition without exclusion or inclusion. I do not have cites to their common definition.

In addition to the above, a Food Establishment is not a restaurant, retail food establishment, nonprofit food establishment or fishing vessel (as limited in definition to section 123.3 of title 21 of CFR). Again, restaurant, retail food establishment .... have a common definition without exclusion or inclusion.

There is a specific class of actions as custom defined by 'Process', all of them being Commercial.

(19) PROCESS- The term "process" or "processing" means the commercial slaughter, packing, preparation, or manufacture of food.

Note this means Commercial slaughter, commercial packing, commercial preparation, commercial manufacture of food.

There is another specific class of actions not defined but listed as holds, stores, or transports. Common definitions apply here.

Also, there is a geographical constraint that limits this to any State. What is a State?

(20) STATE- The term "State" means--

(A) a State;

(B) the District of Columbia;

(C) the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; and

(D) any other territory or possession of the United States.

This is important since we move to the only other entity required to register annually, a foreign food establishment.

(16) FOREIGN FOOD ESTABLISHMENT- The term "foreign food establishment" means any category 1 through 5 food establishment or food production facility located outside the United States that processes or produces food or food ingredients for consumption in the United States.

Look at what has happened here. The Food Establishment custom definition does not apply since the location is specific and "located outside the United States" and does not fall within the confines of a 'State'. Therefore the exclusions of "(14) Food Production Facility" do not apply.

This makes this particular entity far more reaching than the restrictive entity of a "Food Establishment" located in a 'State'.

What does all this mean?

If you do not fall under the custom definition of a "Food Establishment" you are not required to register. If you are not required to register then there is no categorization of you as a Category 1 thru 5, you can't be assigned a registration number, there is no inspection, monitoring, or reporting requirements. This is however not a statement that you are not obligated to practice good health standards. [Answer submitted on Apr 2, 2009 11:03 AM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: By requiring you to use chemicals they in effect outlay you to not use chemicals, hence the outlawing of organics.

[Answer submitted on Apr 2, 2009 10:48 AM]

A2: I don't understand your comment...not using chemicals is organic..yes? [Answer submitted on Apr 4, 2009 11:52 PM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: Codex - for now - has been staved off until at least next year. That can always change. Rima Laibow is really on top of this stuff 24/7. You should join her email list. Visit http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?page_id=2300 [Answer submitted on Apr 9, 2009 10:52 PM]

A2: Actually, CODEX ALEMENTARIUS goes into effect December 31, 2009. Monsanto is getting ready to take over organic farming. [Answer submitted on Apr 19, 2009 2:38 PM]

A3: The latest rash of food Bills S425, S510, HR 814, HR 759, and HR 875 are written with CODEX in mind.

Codex Alimentarius) is being implemented through global trade agreements and it is important to understand how Codex Alimentarius is being implemented using Napoleonic Law, which is where unless a product or method is specifically mentioned, it is banned.

What the pharmaceutical companies and the food companies are trying to do with the Codex Committee is to make the testing process so outrageously expensive that the only people who can get things on the approved list are the Monsantos and the Pharmaceutical companies. Nobody else will be able to afford to go through the rigorous tests that you have to go through to get a product unto the approved list. And of course, the pesticides and pharmaceuticals are already on the approved list.

Close study of the latest round of food bills show they have a strong resemblance to this same principle and it falls in line with the current push for further globalization and "harmonization" of laws. Paul Turner [Answer submitted on Apr 21, 2009 5:13 PM]

A4: The food safety bill is a con to outlaw organic farming and install gmo foods. Germany just banned these same seeds and foods. Codex is slated to go into affect by December 2009 - it has not been put off. It needs all good people's attention now to stop this atrocity of a bill. [Answer submitted on Apr 25, 2009 1:07 AM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: It will clarify the spelling of the word "dispensaries", I believe. [Answer submitted on May 27, 2009 3:14 PM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

Answer This Question!

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

Answer This Question!

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: No the seeds would be available. It has the ability on page 12 paragraph 14 to require a registration to grow food (if to sell it). If your just growing a garden you wont be effected by this. [Answer submitted on Jul 3, 2009 6:52 AM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: They are attempting to do this with HR 2749, which has passed committee and is on the way to the floor for vote--beware! [Answer submitted on Jul 20, 2009 12:13 AM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

Answer This Question!

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

Answer This Question!

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

Answer This Question!

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

Answer This Question!

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: According to the current wording of the bill, restaurants are not food establishments. However, while this hypothetical restaurant might not be limited by the proposed legislation, I would recommend against eating somewhere where fresh produce and meats are stored for months. [Answer submitted on Oct 5, 2009 1:29 PM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

Answer This Question!

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!