Pt 2 of d's reply...If......Re: S. 510 bill

[Guest guest]

If you are correct, Dee...then why would Vermont have such a response? ( see the

following)

(NaturalNews)

In response to the recent passage of " food safety " bills S. 510 and

corresponding H.R. 2751, the Vermont Coalition for Food Sovereignty

has drafted its own resolution called " The Vermont Resolution for Food

Sovereignty. " Crafted to declare and protect the food and health freedom

rights of all Vermont citizens, the resolution is essentially a warning

to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that it does not have

jurisdiction over the food choices of the People of Vermont.

The resolution declares that food freedom is

a " fundamental prerequisite to life, " and that individuals have every

right to save seeds, grow what they wish, and buy and sell the fruits of

their labor without interference from an over-zealous, tyrannical

government. And if any federal official tries to infringe on these

rights, the People " shall resist any and all " of them.

Additionally, the resolution declares that, on the basis of the 10th Amendment

to the U.S. Constitution, the People of Vermont completely

reject any and all " Federal decrees, statutes, regulations or corporate

practices that threaten our basic human right to save seed, grow,

process, consume and exchange food and farm products within the State of

Vermont. "

The recently-passed " Food Safety Modernization Act " essentially hands over

control of the nation's food supply to the FDA.

The legislation gives the agency free reign to mandate food recalls at

will and require even small producers to jump through burdensome

regulatory hoops in order to buy and sell their goods. The entire scheme

has nothing to do with food safety and everything to do with giving the

FDA more control over the food supply.

The Vermont

Coalition for Food Sovereignty is encouraging concerned citizens to

review the resolution and encourage their local and state politicians to

co-sponsor it, both in Vermont and in other states.

Learn

more: http://www.naturalnews.com/030827_food_sovereignty_Vermont.html#ixzz193DZ\

0WTx

From: Dolores <dgk@...>

Subject: Re: S. 510 bill (should not be OFF TOPIC for

any)

Coconut Oil

Date: Monday, January 3, 2011, 3:59 PM

 

Since it was introduced by Murray, then replied to by Laszlo

Horvath, J Trettel, Don , thebrookela, algaelady, myself, Don again,

Jan Rugg, J Trettel again, myself again, and now you niceperson. Had enough?

Then complain to the person who started it. If this list was properly moderated

it would have been stopped as soon as it began. This is not the first time that

Doug has introduced this issue and since I feel it is, for the most part, an

urban legend I felt it needed to be challenged or it will just continue to grow.

These things seem to take on a life of their own, becoming impervious to the

truth.

Dee

>

> SINCE WHEN HAVE COCONUT OIL TURN INTO A POLITICAL DISCUSSION

> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

>

> -----Original Message-----

>

[Guest guest]

Vermont's license plate reads, " Live free or die " . ....very independent.

It is a strong farming state with a high percentage of organic farms which are

a strong part of the states economy. Farming folks are strong, independent,

hard working and resentful of and resistant to control imposed upon them from

outside entities.

To understand the Vermont Coalition for Food Sovereignty better, read their

Facebook pages.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Vermont-Coalition-for-Food-Sovereignty/13434088662\

6459?v=info

Joan

If you are correct, Dee...then why would Vermont have such a response? (

see the following)

(NaturalNews)

In response to the recent passage of " food safety " bills S. 510 and

corresponding H.R. 2751, the Vermont Coalition for Food Sovereignty

has drafted its own resolution called " The Vermont Resolution for Food

Sovereignty. " Crafted to declare and protect the food and health freedom

rights of all Vermont citizens, the resolution is essentially a warning

to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that it does not have

jurisdiction over the food choices of the People of Vermont.

The resolution declares that food freedom is

a " fundamental prerequisite to life, " and that individuals have every

right to save seeds, grow what they wish, and buy and sell the fruits of

their labor without interference from an over-zealous, tyrannical

government. And if any federal official tries to infringe on these

rights, the People " shall resist any and all " of them.

Additionally, the resolution declares that, on the basis of the 10th Amendment

to the U.S. Constitution, the People of Vermont completely

reject any and all " Federal decrees, statutes, regulations or corporate

practices that threaten our basic human right to save seed, grow,

process, consume and exchange food and farm products within the State of

Vermont. "

The recently-passed " Food Safety Modernization Act " essentially hands over

control of the nation's food supply to the FDA.

The legislation gives the agency free reign to mandate food recalls at

will and require even small producers to jump through burdensome

regulatory hoops in order to buy and sell their goods. The entire scheme

has nothing to do with food safety and everything to do with giving the FDA

more control over the food supply.

The Vermont

Coalition for Food Sovereignty is encouraging concerned citizens to

review the resolution and encourage their local and state politicians to

co-sponsor it, both in Vermont and in other states.

Learn more:

http://www.naturalnews.com/030827_food_sovereignty_Vermont.html#ixzz193DZ0WTx

-

[Guest guest]

Well, I suspect that the good people of Vermont haven't read the bill either but

are responding - like everyone else - to the second hand hysteria. I just

finished reading the actual bill (which is long) and was able to find some

quotes to set your minds at ease:

`(f) Exemption for Direct Farm Marketing-

`(1) IN GENERAL- A farm shall be exempt from the requirements under this section

in a calendar year if--

`(A) during the previous 3-year period, the average annual monetary value of the

food sold by such farm directly to qualified end-users during such period

exceeded the average annual monetary value of the food sold by such farm to all

other buyers during such period; and

`( the average annual monetary value of all food sold during such period was

less than $500,000, adjusted for inflation.

`(2) PUBLIC INPUT- During the comment period on the notice of proposed

rulemaking under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall conduct not less than 3

public meetings in diverse geographical areas of the United States to provide

persons in different regions an opportunity to comment.

(H) FARM SALES TO CONSUMERS- The Secretary shall not require a farm to maintain

any distribution records under this subsection with respect to a sale of a food

described in subparagraph (I) (including a sale of a food that is produced and

packaged on such farm), if such sale is made by the farm directly to a consumer.

(g) Dietary Supplements- Nothing in the amendments made by this section shall

apply to any facility with regard to the manufacturing, processing, packing, or

holding of a dietary supplement that is in compliance with the requirements of

sections 402(g)(2) and 761 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21

U.S.C. 342(g)(2), 379aa-1).

`SEC. 419. STANDARDS FOR PRODUCE SAFETY.

`(a) Proposed Rulemaking-

`(1) IN GENERAL-

`(A) RULEMAKING- Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the FDA

Food Safety Modernization Act, the Secretary, in coordination with the Secretary

of Agriculture and representatives of State departments of agriculture

(including with regard to the national organic program established under the

Organic Foods Production Act of 1990), and in consultation with the Secretary of

Homeland Security, shall publish a notice of proposed rulemaking to establish

science-based minimum standards for the safe production and harvesting of those

types of fruits and vegetables, including specific mixes or categories of fruits

and vegetables, that are raw agricultural commodities for which the Secretary

has determined that such standards minimize the risk of serious adverse health

consequences or death.

`( DETERMINATION BY SECRETARY- With respect to small businesses and very small

businesses (as such terms are defined in the regulation promulgated under

subparagraph (A)) that produce and harvest those types of fruits and vegetables

that are raw agricultural commodities that the Secretary has determined are low

risk and do not present a risk of serious adverse health consequences or death,

the Secretary may determine not to include production and harvesting of such

fruits and vegetables in such rulemaking, or may modify the applicable

requirements of regulations promulgated pursuant to this section.

`(E) in the case of production that is certified organic, not include any

requirements that conflict with or duplicate the requirements of the national

organic program established under the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990,

while providing the same level of public health protection as the requirements

under guidance documents, including guidance documents regarding action levels,

and regulations under the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act; (end quotes)

Because of the rash of food borne illnesses we've been subjected to lately I

think that something this was sorely needed - and as far as I could tell there

is nothing in there that would advantage Monsanto (thank god).

Best,

Dee

>

> If you are correct, Dee...then why would Vermont have such a response? ( see

the following)

> snip>