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.
Sadly, the servant government has forgotten the difference between regulate (as in standardize) and proscribe (forbid).
What regulations should do is help assign blame when an injured party makes a complaint. If the defendant violated the regs, then there is criminal liability. Otherwise, there should be no punishment for breaking rules without an injured party.
This is a level of wisdom that will exceed the capacity of the majority of nanny statists.
The truth is, a victimless crime is not a crime at all .... in the historical context of common law. There must be an injured party ... but of course the government claims to be that injured party the moment the federal docket reads: The United States vs Joe Blow, but they are never forced to prove injury, but only a breaking of some rule that may or may not have statutory authority.
The biggest problem here is the confusion between statutory law and federal regulations (rules), and the vast percentage of actions claiming a violation of "law" taken by such agencies as the USDA, FDA, etc. are in fact misrepresented as breaking laws that really don't exist.
But it's as pointless to attempt to explain this to certain individuals as it would be to teach an English pig how to speak French.
Haven't read this entire thread, but reading the title and OP made me recall reading this outrageous story a while back.
"It is the latest case of extreme government food tyranny, and one that is sure to have you reeling in anger and disgust. Health department officials recently conducted a raid of Quail Hollow Farm, an organic community supported agriculture (CSA) farm in southern Nevada, during its special "farm to fork" picnic dinner put on for guests -- and the agent who arrived on the scene ordered that all the fresh, local produce and pasture-based meat that was intended for the meal be destroyed with bleach."
Though I grow weary of conversing with you, given your rather inane grasp of just about EVERYTHING ... let us not lead you to believe you've stumped anyone here.
I understand that if it isn't reported on the mainstream news by one of the talking heads, you don't consider it true. That explains why you are so woefully uninformed. So pay attention .... listen up .... competing facts contrary to mainstream lies and distortions will never be published by a "source" acceptable to you. This makes your "trusted" sources of information a very short list, which is why you are so short on truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
If you genetically engineered cattle to produce more of the homrones, you'd have a biological means of increasing yield.
If you synthesize the hormone and inject it into the cows, you're chemically altering their yields. There is a difference.
Correction .... you are altering the natural biological function of the cow using a synthetic agent. And it is totally irrelevant whether the chemical used to induce growth was naturally occurring or constructed in a laboratory. The result ... i.e. increased growth or substance production, is biological in nature, induced artificially, but biological nonetheless..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
Speaking of a lack of education...
The growth hormones don't kill you. They've been overwhelming found safe for consumption, and nothing is added or changed to the milk itself. As of yet, it's pretty much been fear-mongering. There are much more ethical issues to consider than health or safety ones with relation to growth-hormones.
No ... dead wrong .... just ask the fired Fox News investigative reporters who uncovered the "covered up" dangers of this growth hormone and it's ill effects on health. I also posted the video of them outlining the entire event ... including the initial cover up, followed by the cover up of the cover up.
But it was never "Published" so to you, it doesn't exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
And, that plant you eat? It filters out ****. Literally. Plants don't soak up feces and then just hold those in their leaves for you to eat. That's asinine.
Asinine? I'll tell you what is asinine .... your claim here is asinine. And I cannot even begin to explain it in a manner that has any chance of enlightening you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
Than outline it. Surely you can make an argument without needing to show me videos.
But movies are so much more fun!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
Aside from the ad-pop argument, you once again don't have any actual research to back it up. The only thing I've seen you post is--unpublished hyperbole. It's just--rambling.
"Add-Pop" argument? Care to explain to me what an "Add-Pop" argument is? This would be useful in order to better respond, because I've never heard that term before. Now, if you meant "Ad Hoc" argument .. that, I understand. But surely you haven't confused the two?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
Like I said, hyperbole. The intelligent point of view is to weigh the evidence and react accordingly. Alex Jones does not by any stretch of the imagination count as evidence supporting your argument. Lose the loons and pony up some actual, documented, reliable, published research that shows Genetically modified foods to be unhealthy, dangerous, or otherwise unconsumable.
You have a serious problem which contributes to your woefully uninformed state. Alex Jones is not the "source" of the information, just a distribution point. The source of the information was Professor Don M. Huber of Purdue University, also a coordinator for the USDA National Plant Disease Recovery System.
Listen up ..... reporters are not researchers ... reporters report ... researchers research, and are often cited as "sources" by reporters.
Try again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
I oppose GM foods on entirely different grounds, but the food itself is perfectly safe unless you can actually show otherwise.
What's the matter ... don't like the taste of GMO? Neither do the bugs ... that's why they won't eat it. A word of advice ... in this case, humans should aspire to the wisdom of the insect. If eating the food kills the bug ... it's probably not good for you either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
I will take scientific research over common sense for a simple reason--common sense is commonly wrong. Things are often counter-intuitive.
Hahaha ..... now we're getting to the real problem, Winston ... up is frequently down, and you'd be amazed at how often left is really right. I got a news flash for you ... the only problem with "common sense" these days is the frightening number of people unfamiliar with it's application.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
This is an argument from emotion, not reason, and is entirely fallacious. Someone's love and passion for raising eggs doesn't in any way mean they know or follow best practices for safety and health. That's why we have regulatory agencies in the first place.
Not emotion ... pure reason and pure common sense that a local farmer would be careful in the product he's producing, since he and his family will be consuming it too, and will likely not want to poison himself. On the other hand, the CEO of Monsanto wouldn't eat an ear of GMO corn on a bet ... because HE KNOWS BETTER.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
It's because you disconnect the FDA and various food producers from reality. They don't eat their products. No, they must photosynthesize their nutrients from the sun.
No .. they just don't eat GMO. They know better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
I'm very much married with reality. Superirority of food products, without any measurable standard, is subjective. But safer? I trust the FDAs regulations with years of research and study than a local farmer who blows them off as "gubmint intrusion."
This is the biggest sign of all pointing to severe cognitive malfunction ... either you are 12 years old, or you've spent the majority of your life living under a rock. The FDA has been caught rigging data and covering up KNOWN food and drug dangers so many times over the past 30+ years ...it's quite possible that they've totally forgotten how to tell the truth ... if they ever knew how to begin with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
What was the argument you used? These people have to eat the same crap they produce. I don't think a megacorporation is all to focused on making 30 million people sick.
Oh contrare .... they've perfected the practice of slow kill quite well. As if Soy wouldn't represent a major achievement ... they had to do one better ... GMO Soy. Gauranteed to make you sick ... while also making it totally transparent to the sheeple consuming it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
It's actually quite irrelevant.
The unethical treatment and in many cases severe and brutal treatment of animals is NEVER irrelevant, unless you are a soulless SOB that deserves to be exercised from civil society. Even for them, mistreated animals produce unhealthy stress hormones that are not optimal for the health of those than end up consuming them. But that's just nature's way of punishing the crime, and illustrates how proper behavior has many unseen rewards, just as poor behavior has unanticipated consequences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
You still require the FDA for food regulations.
No I don't. I think the entire agency ought to be eliminated, yesterday.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
There is nothing necessarily healthier or safer about being a small farmer rather than a large corporation.
False ... large ranching operations have been a constant source of complaints from an environmental standpoint .... with overcrowded conditions for animals leading to greater instances of disease epidemics among them, which is why massive quantities of antibiotics are necessary, just to keep these animals alive. This overuse of antibiotics not only taints the animal from a consumption standpoint, but leads to mutations of antibiotic resistant organisms that pose even more dangers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
You still have to regulate food, but now with a few dozen thousand farms producing, you have a necessary increase in government regulation costs to make sure they're doing their jobs properly.
It's a lose-lose situation. You may not like food corporations or food regulations, but we require at least one of those.
You keep saying "we have to" and "we need to" but it's just not true. It might surprise you to learn that there is far more "unregulated by the FDA" food production than there is regulated. Much of it comes to the US, via import. So, your statements are just false. It is just an opinion, not a fact. And it's a very uninformed opinion given the massive volume of evidence showing that regulatory agencies like the USDA and FDA are as corrupt or more so than the common politician, and their effectiveness as a regulatory body a complete myth.
These "regulations" you seem to love so much, and believe are so necessary are in reality just tools used to protect the larger corporate monopolies from outside competition ONLY. That's all they do. Nothing at all to do with safety.
It's the same sad story with you sycophants .... always believing the BS stories of how much government cares about you. Sorry to break the news so bluntly ... but they don't give a rat's behind about you ... and there is no excuse for a grown adult to believe in such fairytales.
Though I grow weary of conversing with you, given your rather inane grasp of just about EVERYTHING ... let us not lead you to believe you've stumped anyone here.
I understand that if it isn't reported on the mainstream news by one of the talking heads, you don't consider it true. That explains why you are so woefully uninformed. So pay attention .... listen up .... competing facts contrary to mainstream lies and distortions will never be published by a "source" acceptable to you. This makes your "trusted" sources of information a very short list, which is why you are so short on truth.
Ah, so it's a great science conspiracy to prevent anyone from learning "the truth." Creationists tell me the same thing. It isn't that there is no evidence--I'm told there is tons of it, but it's only published in non-reputable journals because of the great conspiracy.
Unpublished research hasn't been peer reviewed and means exactly dick in a discussion regarding matters of science--like perhaps GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS.
Quote:
Correction .... you are altering the natural biological function of the cow using a synthetic agent. And it is totally irrelevant whether the chemical used to induce growth was naturally occurring or constructed in a laboratory. The result ... i.e. increased growth or substance production, is biological in nature, induced artificially, but biological nonetheless..
My definition applies more to disease resistance, fertilization, and pest control. However, if the difference between higher yields is either genetically modified or via chemical means, the obvious choice is genetic means.
I honestly cannot comprehend how you can be against genetic foods. We've been doing it for thousands of years haphazardly--now we've got proverbial smart-bombs to target problems with our food supply instead of just breeding survivors.
Quote:
No ... dead wrong .... just ask the fired Fox News investigative reporters who uncovered the "covered up" dangers of this growth hormone and it's ill effects on health. I also posted the video of them outlining the entire event ... including the initial cover up, followed by the cover up of the cover up.
But it was never "Published" so to you, it doesn't exist.
Well, when you find published, peer-reviewed research on the health hazards of genetically modified foods, let me know. This is a discussion which requires science. You just refuse to use it.
Quote:
Asinine? I'll tell you what is asinine .... your claim here is asinine. And I cannot even begin to explain it in a manner that has any chance of enlightening you.
Probably because you can't. Plants are fertilized with manure. That manure is devoured by, among other things, microorganisms, which break it down into nutrients for the plants. There aren't big bunches of **** inside plant leaves. Why would you think there would be such inside anything else?
Quote:
"Add-Pop" argument? Care to explain to me what an "Add-Pop"
Ad-pop. Ad-populum argument, "argument from the people." Anytime you say "a bunch of people say\believe\think\accept\etc. X, it must be true." It's an informal logical fallacy.
Quote:
argument is? This would be useful in order to better respond, because I've never heard that term before. Now, if you meant "Ad Hoc" argument .. that, I understand. But surely you haven't confused the two?
No.
Quote:
You have a serious problem which contributes to your woefully uninformed state. Alex Jones is not the "source" of the information, just a distribution point. The source of the information was Professor Don M. Huber of Purdue University, also a coordinator for the USDA National Plant Disease Recovery System.
Listen up ..... reporters are not researchers ... reporters report ... researchers research, and are often cited as "sources" by reporters.
Try again.
His information was unpublished, and when it concerns matters of science, that's huge. If you don't give others the ability to critique your work and replicate your results, it isn't science.
And we're dealing with foodstuffs that have been specifically modified genetically. That's definitely heavy science.
Quote:
What's the matter ... don't like the taste of GMO? Neither do the bugs ... that's why they won't eat it. A word of advice ... in this case, humans should aspire to the wisdom of the insect. If eating the food kills the bug ... it's probably not good for you either.
I strongly detest the patenting of our food-supply. I think Genetically modified foods are great--I deplore their associated IP laws. Convincing a corporation they aren't allowed to protect their "invention" is a much more difficult task than showing people the benefits of GM foods.
Quote:
Hahaha ..... now we're getting to the real problem, Winston ... up is frequently down, and you'd be amazed at how often left is really right. I got a news flash for you ... the only problem with "common sense" these days is the frightening number of people unfamiliar with it's application.
I would have to agree with you, except you'd be wrong. Common-sense, the human intuition, fails us frequently. The Flat Earth is common sense. Humans do not innately know the laws of physics or the properties of elements. Why would you expect common sense to trump dedicated objective research?
Quote:
Not emotion ... pure reason and pure common sense that a local farmer would be careful in the product he's producing, since he and his family will be consuming it too, and will likely not want to poison himself. On the other hand, the CEO of Monsanto wouldn't eat an ear of GMO corn on a bet ... because HE KNOWS BETTER.
Calling GM foods "Frankenfoods" is a deliberate ploy to strike fear into your audience. That's purely emotion in argument. I've repeatedly requested evidence showing GM foods to be harmful for consumption. The USDA banned the growing of Roundup-Ready Alfalfa for something like five years because of complaints. 2300 pages later, and they found no impact. That's incredible.
The best you've been able to produce is a scientist's unpublished writings and some conspiracy videos.
Quote:
No .. they just don't eat GMO. They know better.
Conspiracy.
Quote:
This is the biggest sign of all pointing to severe cognitive malfunction ... either you are 12 years old, or you've spent the majority of your life living under a rock. The FDA has been caught rigging data and covering up KNOWN food and drug dangers so many times over the past 30+ years ...it's quite possible that they've totally forgotten how to tell the truth ... if they ever knew how to begin with.
Are you trying to claim that the FDA's regulations aren't effective or that they're intentionally malicious? I think you'd have to really provide evidence for that aside from--ramblings.
Quote:
Oh contrare .... they've perfected the practice of slow kill quite well. As if Soy wouldn't represent a major achievement ... they had to do one better ... GMO Soy. Gauranteed to make you sick ... while also making it totally transparent to the sheeple consuming it.
Do you believe in homepathic medicine?
Quote:
The unethical treatment and in many cases severe and brutal treatment of animals is NEVER irrelevant, unless you are a soulless SOB that deserves to be exercised from civil society.
You mean excised, and hardly. I'm acutely aware that we produce in mass quantities a number of animals for the express purpose of consumption. It's not heartless, it's reality. We eat those things. They don't need to be cared for if there isn't any particular benefit to doing so. Once we've perfected lab-grown meat, it won't be a discussion anyway. We both win.
Quote:
Even for them, mistreated animals produce unhealthy stress hormones that are not optimal for the health of those than end up consuming them.
And what hormones would those be?
Quote:
But that's just nature's way of punishing the crime, and illustrates how proper behavior has many unseen rewards, just as poor behavior has unanticipated consequences.
Karma? Really?
Quote:
No I don't. I think the entire agency ought to be eliminated, yesterday.
Glad few people agree with you. I prefer my food safe.
Quote:
False ... large ranching operations have been a constant source of complaints from an environmental standpoint .... with overcrowded conditions for animals leading to greater instances of disease epidemics among them, which is why massive quantities of antibiotics are necessary, just to keep these animals alive. This overuse of antibiotics not only taints the animal from a consumption standpoint, but leads to mutations of antibiotic resistant organisms that pose even more dangers.
And we can genetically modify animals (although non are on the market yet) to be disease resistant--another case of biology vs. chemistry.
Quote:
You keep saying "we have to" and "we need to" but it's just not true. It might surprise you to learn that there is far more "unregulated by the FDA" food production than there is regulated. Much of it comes to the US, via import. So, your statements are just false. It is just an opinion, not a fact. And it's a very uninformed opinion given the massive volume of evidence showing that regulatory agencies like the USDA and FDA are as corrupt or more so than the common politician, and their effectiveness as a regulatory body a complete myth.
Again, massive amounts of evidence without actually providing any. I'm still shocked you keep throwing that around. Imported foods are also inspected, considering they are entering our nation.
Quote:
These "regulations" you seem to love so much, and believe are so necessary are in reality just tools used to protect the larger corporate monopolies from outside competition ONLY. That's all they do. Nothing at all to do with safety.
Of course not, that's why they regulate that all corporations must only hire illegal immigrants, pay them the lowest possible wages, and not report any injuries in meat packing plants. That way, corporations can make as much money as possible while the FDA gets its jollies off setting regulations.
Have you lost your mind?
Quote:
It's the same sad story with you sycophants .... always believing the BS stories of how much government cares about you. Sorry to break the news so bluntly ... but they don't give a rat's behind about you ... and there is no excuse for a grown adult to believe in such fairytales.
I thought you said I was 12 years old. As I stated before, I'm solidly in love with reality. We keep each other warm at night. I'm also well aware that some guy 1000 miles away doesn't have the slightest idea who I am. But it's a bit disingenuous to claim people you've never met don't give a rats ass about their job, or what that job means. I'm not relying on a faceless government to "care about me," but the thousands of people whose job it is to find problems with our food supply, and regulate and deregulate as necessary. If raw milk makes people sick at an inordinate rate, and Pasteurization significantly reduces that, than that's a great regulation. I've successfully kept this thread on track so you can ramble on some more.
Basically they broke the laws.They tried to get around FDA regualtion of the food supply.If allowed that would mean anyone invested in refineries should be allowed to be paid tax free gas as payment for be part owners.. The list goes on from there.
from the jist of the article, it looks like the farmer is not doing interstate commerce, and therefore is not subject to federal regulations per the commerce clause.
Location: Democratic Peoples Republic of Redneckistan
11,078 posts, read 15,114,548 times
Reputation: 3937
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
Yep, you read it right. Small farmer had a private buying club for fresh milk and vegetables. FDA says he's operating a "retail operation".
FYI..private buying clubs: people actually invest in the animal and soil, not the products of them. You actually get to own 1/2 of the cow and therefore the milk from that cow is your milk. You just let the farmer take care of that cow for you.
The FDA is spending a boatload of money doing these undercover sting operations.
Now I could understand if the number of deaths from fresh milk spiked but how many people have died from milk NOT obtained from BigAg
companies ?
By the time this is all said and done, Monsanto, Cargill, Tyson (who HAVE records of mass tainted food recalls) will be the only guys left in town.
Farmer Faces Possible 3-year Prison Term for Feeding Community | Farm Wars
DATCP has charged Hershberger with, among other things, operating a retail food establishment without a license. Hershberger repeatedly denies this, citing that he provides foods only to paid members in a private buying club and is not subject to state food regulations. “There is more at stake here than just a farmer and his few customers,” says Hershberger, “this is about the fundamental right of farmers and consumers to engage in peaceful, private, mutually consenting agreements for food, without additional oversight.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Their intention is to kill us. Food is an effective weapon for that purpose. Destroy all small producers, and what's left is the corporate machine producing Monsanto Frankenstein poison.
This is the singularly greatest issue facing mankind today ... forget the banker created financial crisis ... forget terrorism and security .... the food chain is under attack by these psychopathic monsters and their GMO weapons of mass destruction.
I have preached this for YEARS...to the point of obsession nearly and I finally just shut up because nobody cares...they would rather watch Dancing With the Stars or listen to something that talking cow Oprah has to say.
There is NO way around this now and I don't care WHAT the talking heads and asswipes who make a killing "teaching" and selling "organic" raised veggies and meat say....unless you go back to heirloom seeds that almost have a "chain of custody" along with them,you are getting tainted seed and the same goes for cattle..YOU may feed them without steroids,growth hormones,antibiotics etc...but what about their bloodline?what about the feed?The corn is tainted,soybeans same thing.
We ran a 300 head cattle operation back in the 80's when this stuff was REALLY being lied about and pushed...my FIL grew his own feed,we hauled to the mill and had OUR feed made etc etc....if a cow went down,you shot him up with antibiotics...just THAT cow.
I was pretty proud of that until I realized WHO we bought that seed corn and beans from
And you can see the proof all around you every day....I'm 6'3 and back in the day if I walked into a beer joint I was usually the biggest cat in the house...NOW I'm a little dude compared to the majority of these 21 yo guys around here...the dudes are GIANT..same bloodline,same family background etc etc if that doesn't tell you what's going on then you are way to dumb to get it and just call me and tell me what Oprah said today
Yep, you read it right. Small farmer had a private buying club for fresh milk and vegetables. FDA says he's operating a "retail operation".
FYI..private buying clubs: people actually invest in the animal and soil, not the products of them. You actually get to own 1/2 of the cow and therefore the milk from that cow is your milk. You just let the farmer take care of that cow for you.
The FDA is spending a boatload of money doing these undercover sting operations.
Now I could understand if the number of deaths from fresh milk spiked but how many people have died from milk NOT obtained from BigAg
companies ?
By the time this is all said and done, Monsanto, Cargill, Tyson (who HAVE records of mass tainted food recalls) will be the only guys left in town.
Farmer Faces Possible 3-year Prison Term for Feeding Community | Farm Wars
DATCP has charged Hershberger with, among other things, operating a retail food establishment without a license. Hershberger repeatedly denies this, citing that he provides foods only to paid members in a private buying club and is not subject to state food regulations. “There is more at stake here than just a farmer and his few customers,” says Hershberger, “this is about the fundamental right of farmers and consumers to engage in peaceful, private, mutually consenting agreements for food, without additional oversight.”
I'm in two minds about this. On the one hand, I do want the government involved in some way to ensure the safety and sanitation of food. On the other hand, I would prefer to see a return to smaller scale farming, with produce being locally grown and an end to subsidies to farmers to grow massive amounts of corn to be turned into corn syrup, which guess what...is bad for your health anyway, more so than drinking unpasteurised milk, which humans had been drinkimg for thousands of years.
I'm not up on the law, but I would say that if he is only selling to individuals and who are well aware of what they are buying, I don't see the problem.
I'm in two minds about this. On the one hand, I do want the government involved in some way to ensure the safety and sanitation of food. On the other hand, I would prefer to see a return to smaller scale farming, with produce being locally grown and an end to subsidies to farmers to grow massive amounts of corn to be turned into corn syrup, which guess what...is bad for your health anyway, more so than drinking unpasteurised milk, which humans had been drinkimg for thousands of years.
I'm not up on the law, but I would say that if he is only selling to individuals and who are well aware of what they are buying, I don't see the problem.
Therein lies the problem. How many people are up on their agriculture and food safety knowledge to make an informed decision? Darn few, that's how many. You can look back through this thread and see the misconceptions people have. I've said several times I'm for smaller farmers, but I am strongly for food safety. "Organic" doesn't mean you shouldn't refrigerate, etc.
Therein lies the problem. How many people are up on their agriculture and food safety knowledge to make an informed decision? Darn few, that's how many. You can look back through this thread and see the misconceptions people have. I've said several times I'm for smaller farmers, but I am strongly for food safety. "Organic" doesn't mean you shouldn't refrigerate, etc.
I'm all for food safety too, but many of the foods and additives that are deemed as "safe" by the FDA are anything but.
I am in two minds though for the reasons you stated above. I just wish that we'd go back to small scale farming and perhaps revert to being able to buy fruit & vegetables at outdoor markets.
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.
