So here is the question:

Wouldn’t this entire mess just be cleared up if simple language, you know the Keep It Simple Silly principle, was applied?

How about:

“No foodstuffs produced by American Citizens on their own property for their own consumption, sharing with neighbors or to supplement other hungry individuals during these Economically Challenging times shall be covered by HR 875.”

I mean – we expect results – let us tell the legislators what we want.

Maybe that is too simple – but look at the situation we are in now by writing thousand page Bills.

Even Tom Phillpot gets it wrong in saying,

“the bill seeks to regulate any ‘food production facility’ which it defines as ‘any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined animal-feeding operation.’”.

What Tom refers to is actually part of a list of EXCLUSIONS from the bill’s registration regulation. It’s a bit odd, but the definitions section of the bill defines the facilities to be subject to the regulations as “food establishment”. What the bill then defines as “food production facilities” are the subjects of exclusions. From the exclusions section:

“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 …[not] engaged in processing”

Paragraph 14 defines the list which Tom cites above, namely, “any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined animal-feeding operation”. All these are the EXCLUSIONS, which are not subject to registration under this bill!

Further, I am encouraged by two other sections of the bill. First, comprehensive whistleblower protection for federal employees or their contractors’ employees, which includes the inspecters themselves, employees of any covered “food establishments” and even employees of the excluded facilities.

Second, comprehensive provisions providing for citizen civil actions against both the administrator of the agency created by the bill and any person who violates the regulations.

I’m with you, Sharon–as long as the public sees us as full of paranoid bs (the Y2K comparison is right on the mark), we are not going to be able to promote a better alternative to corporate ag.

It is intimidating, and many farmers will be afraid they will inadvertently violate the letter of “bill”.
(Now the worst, up to 1,000,000. bucks in fines, up to 10 years in jail are mentioned. ).
Is that intimidating or what.

If I grew too much in my garden, and gave some of the edibles away, would I fall in one of the categories of “controlled”, maybe?

There will be a new Government agency the federal Food Safety Administration. Not really sure what will happen to the FDA.
(Here’s what really pisses me off. The wording in the resolution describes the FDA’s proven inability to oversee such a grave danger to our citizens, stating the FDA’s program is 70 years old and ineffective). Nobody said anything about W Bush almost destroying the FDA in the last 8 years.
So justification for a Giant new agency ta da the FSA.

A solution looking for a problem, in spades. (I forgot, an attention getter “Big Brother).

As Agent Molder said, “The Truth is out there Somewhere”‘

There’s a paragraph, one of the sites uwrt “HR 875″.
Here’s It is;
House Resolution HR 875 was introduced by Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn, in February. DeLauro’s husband , Stanley Greenberg, conducted research for
Monsanto-the world’s leading producer of herbicides and genetically seed. (Holy hell, the fox in the hen house again).
I can’t verify this, it was submitted 2 days ago by “metaldogman”, I don’t know him.

(Now Sharon, was that hysterical? I read hr 875, line by line, like you say you did. This is my take, sounds like the Patriot Farmer.
If the paragraphs are vague, I am sure Monsanto, and big agro will have large staffs of Lawyers to explain them to you/us.
No one so far has mentioned the cost of the new agency, so I will. I don’t know but it will be a very big bill.

My problem is that the distorting rhetoric floating around the net has got people in a panic – I have no problem with opposing this, and in fact, encourage that quite explicitly.

Sharon