HR 875

[GungHoJoe]

Has anybody heard about HR 875. Do you know about this bill?
I've been searching around on it for the past half hour.
Sounds unbelievably evil and I don't know what to think.

Large corporations who've been known for getting legislation pushed thru the system quickly and discreetly would like to see to it that all food sources are regulated by the government, (issue often referred to as GM for Genitally Modified) These companies have extraordinary leverage on our legal system. HR 875 would go as far as to make organic food sources basically illegal. Farmers would have to use government mandated seeds, chemicals, and drugs for livestock. All livestock would be monitored by GPS. This bill is supported by corporations like Monsato, Tyson, and I would imagine a drug company or two.

That stuff scares me. I really hate to be a downer, but people should know.
If this bill gets by like I think it will someday, ie: aspartame, you can forget about being self-reliant, or free.

[ghmerrill]

in my opinion, we stopped living in a free country once Politics became a career path......

[foxd]

Before we get too worked up here is a link to information on the actual bill:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:H.R.875:

Considering some of the things that have happened over the past few years I can see why this bill was introduced.

We lost one cat and almost lost another due to melamine in the cat food.

A friend got extremely ill due to eating a package of peanut butter and crackers.

I don't think big business will be infavor of this bill.

[GungHoJoe]

I hope you are right about big business not being in favor, ....but then Monsanto and Tyson IS big business, and they already have a history of questionable motives and intentions. If this does come to pass I hope they do a better job than they have recently, referring to the FDA and the occasions you just mentioned. I think local farmers would be better stewards of our food and farmland than the govt or corporate giants ever could be.

Before we get too worked up here is a link to information on the actual bill:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:H.R.875:

Considering some of the things that have happened over the past few years I can see why this bill was introduced.

We lost one cat and almost lost another due to melamine in the cat food.

A friend got extremely ill due to eating a package of peanut butter and crackers.

I don't think big business will be infavor of this bill.

[foxd]

I hope you are right about big business not being in favor, ....but then Monsanto and Tyson IS big business, and they already have a history of questionable motives and intentions. If this does come to pass I hope they do a better job than they have recently, referring to the FDA and the occasions you just mentioned. I think local farmers would be better stewards of our food and farmland than the govt or corporate giants ever could be.

Before we get too worked up here is a link to information on the actual bill:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:H.R.875:

Considering some of the things that have happened over the past few years I can see why this bill was introduced.

We lost one cat and almost lost another due to melamine in the cat food.

A friend got extremely ill due to eating a package of peanut butter and crackers.

I don't think big business will be in favor of this bill.

I did a bit more digging on this and turned up this fact sheet from the Pennsylvania Association for Sustainable Agriculture (PASA):

Myths and Facts: HR 875 - The Food Safety Modernization Act



MYTH: H.R. 875 “makes it illegal to grow your own garden” and would result in the “criminalization of the backyard gardner.”
FACT: There is no language in the bill that would regulate, penalize, or shut down backyard gardens. This bill is focused on ensuring the safety of foods sold in supermarkets.


MYTH: H.R. 875 would mean a “goodbye to farmers markets” because the bill would “require such a burdensome complexity of rules, inspections, licensing, fees, and penalties for each farmer who wishes to sell locally - a fruit stand, at a farmers market.”
FACT: There is no language in the bill that would result in farmers markets being regulated, penalized any fines, or shut down. Farmers markets would be able to continue to flourish under the bill. In fact, the bill would insist that imported foods meet strict safety standards to ensure that unsafe imported foods are not competing with locally-grown foods.


MYTH: H.R. 875 would result in the “death of organic farming.”
FACT: There is no language in the bill that would stop organic farming. The National Organic Program (NOP) is under the jurisdiction of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The Food Safety Modernization Act only addresses food safety issues under the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).


MYTH: The bill would implement a national animal ID system.
FACT: There is no language in the bill that would implement a national animal ID system. Animal identification issues are under the jurisdiction of the USDA. The Food Safety Modernization Act addresses issues under the jurisdiction of the FDA.


MYTH: The bill is supported by the large agribusiness industry.
FACT: No large agribusiness companies have expressed support for this bill. This bill is being supported by several Members of Congress who have strong progressive records on issues involving farmers markets, organic farming, and locally-grown foods. Also, H.R. 875 is the only food safety legislation that has been supported by all the major consumer and food safety groups, including:
Center for Foodborne Illness Research & Prevention
Center for Science in the Public Interest
Consumer Federation of America
Consumers Union
Food & Water Watch
The Pew Charitable Trusts
Safe Tables Our Priority
Trust for America’s Health

MYTH: The bill will pass the Congress next week without amendments or debate.
FACT: Food safety legislation has yet to be considered by any Congressional committee.

I don't think Monsanto and Tyson have anything to do with this bill being introduced. There is the assertion on the web that they are behind it, but there doesn't appear to be anything behind the assertion. No facts for it, just rumors. Odd.

[GrowingHabit]

Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., is the sponsor of HR 875, the “Food Safety Modernization Act.” Her husband works for Monsanto. No conflict of interest there?

[GrowingHabit]

The entire bill is here:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtex ... l=h111-875

Doesn't appear they've left anyone out, that's for sure:

(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.

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;

(4) include, with respect to animals raised for food, minimum standards related to the animal’s health, feed, and environment which bear on the safety of food for human consumption;

(5) provide a reasonable period of time for compliance, taking into account the needs of small businesses for additional time to comply;

(6) provide for coordination of education and enforcement activities by State and local officials, as designated by the Governors of the respective States; and

(7) include a description of the variance process under subsection (d) and the types of permissible variances which the Administrator may grant under such process.

(d) Variances- States and foreign countries that export produce intended for consumption in the United States may request from the Administrator variances from the requirements of the regulations under subsection (c). A request shall--

(1) be in writing;

(2) describe the reasons the variance is necessary;

(3) describe the procedures, processes, and practices that will be followed under the variance to ensure produce is not adulterated; and

(4) contain any other information required by the Administrator.

[foxd]

Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., is the sponsor of HR 875, the “Food Safety Modernization Act.” Her husband works for Monsanto. No conflict of interest there?

Her husband did contract work for them over ten years ago and has not had them as a client since.

Monsanto is not taking a position on the bill.

[GungHoJoe]

Her husband did contract work for them over ten years ago and has not had them as a client since.

Monsanto is not taking a position on the bill.

From wiki...

Stanley Bernard Greenberg (born May 10, 1945) is a leading Democratic pollster and political strategist who has advised the campaigns of the Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry, as well as hundreds of other candidates and organizations in the United States and around the world, including former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

He is the founder and CEO of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, a polling and consulting firm, and co-founder, with James Carville and Bob Shrum, of Democracy Corps, a non-profit organization which produces left-leaning political strategy. He is married to current Rep. Rosa DeLauro, representative from the Third District from Connecticut.

Greenberg's corporate clients include British Petroleum, British Airways, Monsanto and General Motors.

Hmm, maybe the wiki page is more than ten years old or otherwise incorrect,

....regardless of that...

Call me paranoid, I just don't trust these "bedfellows" to do the right thing when I consider how many large corporations and/or politicians have put greed before their customers or constituents well-being in the past five or ten years.

Thanks though for putting an optimistic perspective on it. Just knowing that someone considers this as not being completely nefarious restores a (tiny) bit of faith in the system for me.

[GrowingHabit]

As to her husband's level of entanglement in Monsanto, there are as many articles to say he is, as say he isn't. That I only post as something to be questioned.

As to the other link- there is nothing I'll ever except directly from Monsanto as truth.

Edit to add- yes, I am letting my personal opinion of Monsanto show- but that doesn't obfuscate the clear reasoning that vetting someone or some entity shouldn't be done directly from their own mouth.

[GungHoJoe]

As to her husband's level of entanglement in Monsanto, there are as many articles to say he is, as say he isn't. That I only post as something to be questioned.

As to the other link- there is nothing I'll ever except directly from Monsanto as truth.

Edit to add- yes, I am letting my personal opinion of Monsanto show- but that doesn't obfuscate the clear reasoning that vetting someone or some entity shouldn't be done directly from their own mouth.

I feel the same way GrowingHabit.

[foxd]

While I am no fan of Monsanto, or big business in general, I just don't see any reason to think that Monsanto even cares about this bill.

What I did find interesting was how the objections to the bill spread. Someone doesn't want the bill to pass for some reason and is spreading falsehoods about it.

[rickw]

One step closer to Big Brother. I'd feel a little better if the bill was sponsored by a representative from a state that actually grew something. I don't remember Conn. being a big agricultue producer.

Unfortunately, more regulation usually equals higher prices and the small grower would have a more difficult time meeting the added regulations.

[GrowingHabit]

You're probably right on all counts- but I can't quite dismiss all the rumors as outright intentional falsehoods, either. Unfortunately, its all too easy to imagine where this bill could lead, and the fact that government doesn't retreat, but only advances... well, if you build it, they'll expand to fill it. If I can imagine that, so can the big business, with an eye to their own self interest. If they're not guilty of overt involvement, its still probable they're silently assessing how to exploit it later. The little guy doesn't stand to truly benefit, ever.

Ah me, such cynicism in one so middling-young!

[dudley]

the answer is smaller local farms not big corporations.
that way any toxins or bacteria or whatever can be traced quickly back to its source.
monsanto may not openly support the bill but i believe behind the scenes they will support any bill damaging to small farmers.
when pollen from their genetically modified crops pollinate the neighbors field
their seed for next year is ruined. many farmers have had their crops tilled under because they now contain monsantos patented genetic modification.