Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Other than food from safe and sanitary producers, that is?
I'll wait.
You supported the over reaching of the feds to regulate the food supply.
What you're missing is that the large scale manufacturing model of food production/processing/distribution is the source of the food-borne contaminants in the food supply today.
Hence, the over regulation now of the small scale producers where the food borne pathogens have never been a source of contamination of the food supply.
You can read some of the responses above where folk are discovering quality food from their local Farmer's Market ... and not getting ill from these products. What you're not hearing is about folk getting ill from these sources, because ... they're not.
But because I'm engaged in commerce ... you're quite satisfied that I should be regulated and comply with expensive food safety measures that are only affordable by the mass producers, who are the source of their own problems. By staying small, I'm not creating the problems which need to be regulated ... but I, and most other small family farms ... are being forced out of business due to the expenses of compliance. As I said, pretty soon at this rate ... your only sources of food will be from the big corporate manufacturers or from foreign sources.
Perhaps you have no appreciation for heritage or heirloom varieties of foods ... which have unique flavor and qualities not found in the typical commercial varieties that are devoid of much of the flavor of the non-commercial types. Nor perhaps, do you have an appreciation for the nutritional content of small scale food production from sustainable growing methods compared to the large scale producers farming practices.
So be it ... it's one thing for you to make that decision for yourself in your personal food choices ... and quite another to support legislation and practices which remove those choices from everybody else.
It's not much different than you advocating laws and regulations that nobody drive over a certain nominal speed, say 30 mph ... or own a car that can go faster than that ... because you may have determined that it's safer for you to not travel any faster than that and you wish to have protection to that extent. Kinda' nonsensical, isn't it? But that's the level of over reaching that you're advocating when it comes to the food supply in the USA and the path to which small producers will be forced out of business due to the economics of their activity.
Okay, keep arguing based on things I never said and don't believe and feel as good as you want about it.
You're in business and you're arguing that the quality and safety of your products shouldn't be subject to any government regulation.
I can't endorse that no matter how much you talk about the mystical values of "heritage or heirloom varieties of foods".
Similarly, you are arguing on the basis of something I never said, either ...
"that the quality and safety of your products shouldn't be subject to ANY (emphasis mine) government regulation"
I've never said that.
What I've repeated and you consistently ignore is that new standards of food safety regulations are now being forced upon the small producers which have an excellent safety record because they don't act as a source of the food borne pathogens which the regulations are trying to address for the BIG manufacturing facilities that do foster the growth of and introduction into the food supply.
A big manufacturer, for example, has equipment and processing machinery that has the potential to put metal particles into the food being processed. Hence, they use foreign matter scanners to be sure that none of those particles get into the food. It's an expensive machine to buy and operate, and a small food producer such as myself cannot afford to buy or use such a piece of equipment ... nor is it justified when all of my food product is harvested and processed by hand.
A big food processor is a potential source of comingled food from many sources, where pathogens are then concentrated. As a result, they are now required to hold back each batch of product for ecoli and other pathogen testing before releasing the product for shipment and sale. Again, this is a very expensive burden upon the food processor and the tests are far in excess of the potential profits of a small producer. But that's what's coming through now ... even my small USDA poultry processor is supposed to hold back each day's production until it's got a clean set of tests. With only 300-500 birds processed each day, and as many as a dozen different producers of the birds ... that's a lot of tests to be performed for a facility that has a perfect record of no food borne contamination.
You don't seem to understand that difference in the size and scope of our operations. The truth is that the prior food safety regulations of decades ago were more than adequate to assure a reasonable standard of food safety from small producers ... even in the era when a greater portion of the population was involved in food production on a local scale and food was not distributed nationally, let alone internationally as it is now.
What you are also missing is that these current regulations are not going to assure any greater food safety to the consumer ... especially if so much more of our domestic food supply comes from foreign sources without our level of food safety regulations.
For example, many pesticides and insecticides that are banned in the USA are used in other countries to enhance their food production. Feed sources that aren't acceptable in the USA are used for factory farming in other countries ... factory fish farms in SE Asia are a prime example. At this point in time, the only large grocery retailer in the USA that still has USDA inspected fish is Albertson's ... and they are scaling back that operation. Every other grocery chain mass merchandiser is self-certifying the safety of their fish and relying upon the representations of their suppliers, some of which are highly variable and suspect at best.
Now as far as "food quality", that's an entirely different issue and not subject to federal regulations. At the point of sale, it's still your responsibility as a consumer to make that judgement call. The feds have guidelines to characterize a fruit or vegetable, but these address size or cosmetic blemishes, but not food safety.
I appreciate that your taste buds must be functioning at a different level than many other folk ... when you decry "mystical values" of heritage or heirloom varieties. There's nothing mystical about it at all: many commercial food varieties were bred and developed to enhance the shipping qualities and shelf life of the food, with many losing their flavor and, in some cases, nutritional value. Many of those commercial varieties have lost their seedstock capabilities; ie, you can't take the seeds out of most commercial tomatoes today and grow a new plant from seed that has all the qualities of the source tomato so you must buy replacement seeds from the patent holder. Many consumers have discovered, for example, that heirloom varieties of tomatoes vine ripened actually have flavor that isn't available in large factory farms where the tomatoes were selected for productivity, shelf life, and shipping qualities. Same thing for a lot of other fruits and vegetables, but apparently you don't have an interest in what it is you are eating beyond the value of it's safety. Interesting to note that a lot of folk have a slightly different approach to their food intake and are willing to pay for the difference ... witness Whole Foods and other grocers specializing in this market segment, as well as the popularity of Farmer's Markets featuring locally grown produce throughout the USA.
That small scale vegetable farming is a valuable source of income to our little farm. My wife's off today to our afternoon Farmer's Market with this week's production ... a whole back end of her Subie wagon filled with our produce and some coolers filled with our USDA free-range organically raised chickens. Those (approx) 5 lb chickens will sell for $12 per each, and she typically sells out everything she brings. Our total output wouldn't be a few seconds worth of processing time in a food manufacturing facility ... but we spend many hours on it to assure a quality product for our clientele. We take a lot of pride in our products and delivering quality and value and flavor to our neighbor's tables as well as our own.
Similarly, you are arguing on the basis of something I never said, either ...
"that the quality and safety of your products shouldn't be subject to ANY (emphasis mine) government regulation"
I've never said that.
What I've repeated and you consistently ignore is that new standards of food safety regulations are now being forced upon the small producers which have an excellent safety record because they don't act as a source of the food borne pathogens which the regulations are trying to address for the BIG manufacturing facilities that do foster the growth of and introduction into the food supply.
A big manufacturer, for example, has equipment and processing machinery that has the potential to put metal particles into the food being processed. Hence, they use foreign matter scanners to be sure that none of those particles get into the food. It's an expensive machine to buy and operate, and a small food producer such as myself cannot afford to buy or use such a piece of equipment ... nor is it justified when all of my food product is harvested and processed by hand.
A big food processor is a potential source of comingled food from many sources, where pathogens are then concentrated. As a result, they are now required to hold back each batch of product for ecoli and other pathogen testing before releasing the product for shipment and sale. Again, this is a very expensive burden upon the food processor and the tests are far in excess of the potential profits of a small producer. But that's what's coming through now ... even my small USDA poultry processor is supposed to hold back each day's production until it's got a clean set of tests. With only 300-500 birds processed each day, and as many as a dozen different producers of the birds ... that's a lot of tests to be performed for a facility that has a perfect record of no food borne contamination.
You don't seem to understand that difference in the size and scope of our operations. The truth is that the prior food safety regulations of decades ago were more than adequate to assure a reasonable standard of food safety from small producers ... even in the era when a greater portion of the population was involved in food production on a local scale and food was not distributed nationally, let alone internationally as it is now.
What you are also missing is that these current regulations are not going to assure any greater food safety to the consumer ... especially if so much more of our domestic food supply comes from foreign sources without our level of food safety regulations.
For example, many pesticides and insecticides that are banned in the USA are used in other countries to enhance their food production. Feed sources that aren't acceptable in the USA are used for factory farming in other countries ... factory fish farms in SE Asia are a prime example. At this point in time, the only large grocery retailer in the USA that still has USDA inspected fish is Albertson's ... and they are scaling back that operation. Every other grocery chain mass merchandiser is self-certifying the safety of their fish and relying upon the representations of their suppliers, some of which are highly variable and suspect at best.
Now as far as "food quality", that's an entirely different issue and not subject to federal regulations. At the point of sale, it's still your responsibility as a consumer to make that judgement call. The feds have guidelines to characterize a fruit or vegetable, but these address size or cosmetic blemishes, but not food safety.
I appreciate that your taste buds must be functioning at a different level than many other folk ... when you decry "mystical values" of heritage or heirloom varieties. There's nothing mystical about it at all: many commercial food varieties were bred and developed to enhance the shipping qualities and shelf life of the food, with many losing their flavor and, in some cases, nutritional value. Many of those commercial varieties have lost their seedstock capabilities; ie, you can't take the seeds out of most commercial tomatoes today and grow a new plant from seed that has all the qualities of the source tomato so you must buy replacement seeds from the patent holder. Many consumers have discovered, for example, that heirloom varieties of tomatoes vine ripened actually have flavor that isn't available in large factory farms where the tomatoes were selected for productivity, shelf life, and shipping qualities. Same thing for a lot of other fruits and vegetables, but apparently you don't have an interest in what it is you are eating beyond the value of it's safety. Interesting to note that a lot of folk have a slightly different approach to their food intake and are willing to pay for the difference ... witness Whole Foods and other grocers specializing in this market segment, as well as the popularity of Farmer's Markets featuring locally grown produce throughout the USA.
That small scale vegetable farming is a valuable source of income to our little farm. My wife's off today to our afternoon Farmer's Market with this week's production ... a whole back end of her Subie wagon filled with our produce and some coolers filled with our USDA free-range organically raised chickens. Those (approx) 5 lb chickens will sell for $12 per each, and she typically sells out everything she brings. Our total output wouldn't be a few seconds worth of processing time in a food manufacturing facility ... but we spend many hours on it to assure a quality product for our clientele. We take a lot of pride in our products and delivering quality and value and flavor to our neighbor's tables as well as our own.
I totally agree with what you are saying: it is up to us, as individuals to decide where we shop and what we buy. A friend asked me if I felt the eggs I am buying were save to eat cause they hadn't been inspected by any government agency and had no stipulations as to their safety? Of course I am not concerned, for those who are, they can continue to buy from the large producers. That is the same with produce. Want to buy from large manufacturers that have met all the requirements the government puts on the food, great. I just don't think it is fair to penalize those who are trying to squeeze out a few bucks by growing and selling nor is it fair to tell me I can't enjoy produce grown by the little guy.
Up here the flap is all about raw milk, primarily goat's milk. I'm not a fan of goat's milk so I'm not involved but what's happening to get around the raw milk issue are people buying "goat shares" or transitional partial ownership in the goat. The goat share is paying for the partial ownership and upkeep of a goat in exchange for a consistent share in the milk produced, without a legal contract of ownership. IOW the farmer or share owner is free to cancel at any time the share period has ended. I can see that being operational with a flock of laying hens, meat animals, orchard or a vegetable patch.
Several towns in Maine and maybe elsewhere have declared local food independence from excessive and unnecessary laws for small local producers under certain mutual conditions. Maybe this has spread but I understand that the state is looking to crush the uprising.
My primary complaint is the limitation of choice for me as a food consumer. Food "safety" apologists and worry warts (who can't be reasoned with, their minds are closed or they have a vested interest/agenda) can boohoo and fret all they want about protecting themselves and the public, but the food recalls, poisoning incidents and pathogen outbreaks have almost wholly involved agribusiness and large producers.
As a consumer, people that want irradiated, pesticide, herbicide and heavy metal laden food washed within an inch of it's life already have that choice, if that type of product can be considered safe. For those of us that don't want these things, that want to know their food's chain of custody and how it's grown, the choices are getting squeezed by mandates that are both unnecessary and unaffordable for the small time local operator, forcing them to either spend inordinate amounts of time and money with compliance operations and paperwork lessening the economic feasibility of the mom and pop operation, or to leave the business entirely.
I have gone to entirely edible landscaping and gardening to augment my trips to the farmer's markets against the day when the moneyed interests and the safety (illusory) at all costs folks win the day and my farmer's markets are closed being no longer economically viable for the small producer or too costly for the consumer.
I was raised growing our own plant food, fruit, chickens for eggs and meat, beef and what we didn't grow we bought from neighbors such as weekly gallon jars of fresh unprocessed milk with cream or primarily bulk fruit from local u-pick operations. We canned (gasp) and froze our surplus food for winter. I never had food borne illness until I moved away to an urban environment, all from restaurants who buy and process foods in quantity.
While the government would have a very hard time regulating home gardens, it can put pressure on sellers of produce and essentially put them out of business. Already there are so many laws and regulations to make each and every one of us a criminal, even the most conscientious of us, (check out the CPSIA laws regarding resale of used children's things) that it's really time to stand up on our hind legs and take our country back from the moneyed business interests and their cohorts in Congress. It grinds my gears and enough so that DH and I are considering a move so that we can produce a much larger share of our own food declaring our own independence from the powers that be.
If folks want "sterilized" food, stick with the supermarket and hope that the system works for you and that the fields in Mexico (and elsewhere) where there are no toilets for workers didn't have human poo located near your tomato or melon and that washing/processing worked as advertised. As for me, I'll take the local untested unmonitored grower that I know and have an established relationship with, that has enduring ties to the community.
As a side note to the concerns about whether or not heirloom varieties of food may be healthier ...
Just in my current issue of Heirloom Gardener is a report that a new Canadian study done by a hospital (CHUS in Quebec), which has been accepted for publication in the journal Reproductive Technology, has found traces of Bt toxin in the blood of maternal and fetal samples in 69% of the women tested. Also, they've now found traces of CrylAb in their bloodstreams; 93% of the women and 80% of the fetuses.
The women had diets that included GM soybeans, corn, and potatoes. As well, they've been eating beef that was fed GMO corn, where the cows tested positive for CrylAb toxin in their gastrointestinal tract. None of the women studied had any other contact with sources for the toxins.
The folk pushing GMO foods have maintained that the toxins would pose no danger to human health because the protein breaks down in the human gut. But finding traces of the toxins in the bloodstream is proof that it doesn't.
Of significance here with this study is that an entire generation of women and children in India are being fed a diet of their cottonseed oil which is pressed from GMO cotton plants. So Bt toxin may be in the entire food chain in India at this time, too. Based upon the Canadian hospital study, there's a movement now to fund similar studies in India's women and fetuses.
This kind of bill has been being pushed and pushed. I do believe it was finally pushed on through. There are reports coming in of FDA coming down on small farms or natural products. Suggest you check it out.
Commodity modernation act opened the door to economic collapse. Food modernation act looks to be opening the door to more govt control.
Haven't found the guide.
(2) SMALL ENTITY COMPLIANCE POLICY GUIDE- Not later than 180 days after the issuance of the regulations promulgated under section 415(b)(5) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (as added by this section), the Secretary shall issue a small entity compliance policy guide setting forth in plain language the requirements of such regulations to assist small entities in complying with registration requirements and other activities required under such section.
Well that is for carbon taxes and cap n trade. Yah Blood and Gore!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
