Single-party control of our government has created a situation where the normal restraints of common sense and accountability have been entirely lifted from our legislators and they feel free to engage in the most dangerous and destructive possible legislation in the service of special interests whose goals are inimical to the welfare of most Americans and especially of small businesses and vulnerable groups who dare to challenge the dominance of powerful business or issue-oriented lobbies.
This lack of accountability and invulnerability to effective opposition is what makes it possible for a bill like House Resolution 875 to be introduced and even attract the support of almost 40 sponsors. This deceptively named "Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009" creates a special department within the Department of Health and Human Services called the Food Safety Administration, which is specifically tasked with expanding the regulatory role of that agency into the small organic farms, backyard gardens and kitchens of gardeners and entrepreneurs who sell food products at farmers markets, through local stores or even to their neighbors. This is all in the interest of protecting consumers from health risks, but if you read the history of major food contamination cases over recent decades every major case stems from large-scale industrial agriculture, not from small farms, home-canning or other traditional and entrepreneurial food production.
In truth this bill is nothing but an effort to protect the agricultural and food processing giants who control 90% of the food production in the nation from the competition of tiny cottage industries and income supplementing gardeners who may nibble away at a tiny portion of the sales of food and agriculture megacorporations. It is the trust-busting of Teddy Roosevelt and the progressive era turned on its head. It is government protecting corporate monopolists from even the smallest challenge of free enterprise.
Perhaps worst of all, these proposed new regulations are so pervasive that they might very well prohibit you from producing food to feed your own family and they include draconian enforcement measures designed to discourage any attempts at home or small-scale agriculture. In Section 3 of the bill it specifically defines the jurisdiction of this new agency to include any "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," further defined as "any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility or confined animal feeding operation." That means my hydroponic herb garden, my catfish pond, my little chicken pen, the peach trees in my front yard, etc. What's more, the act specifically exempts from these regulations the large agribusinesses already covered under the authority of the Department of Agriculture or the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act, so it is clearly aimed at small and part-time farmers.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Cannonshop
Okay, Dave, who're the other 37 co-sponsors? These guys need to be run out into the sunlight.
2 - Joanne Huspek
Michigan tried to do something similar last year which would have wiped out the farmers markets, road side stands and pick your own farms, which would have put a lot of people out of business. Geez Louise.
3 - Jordan Richardson
So how small are the farmers they're going to kill? As a vertically-challenged carrot farmer (forget the fact that I'm Canadian and generally don't care for a minute), how worried should I be? Hypothetically, of course...
4 - M (a) ¶/ ® k
* Rep. Rosa DeLauro [D, CT-3]
* and 39 Co-Sponsors
o Rep. Shelley Berkley [D, NV-1]
o Rep. Timothy Bishop [D, NY-1]
o Rep. Sanford Bishop [D, GA-2]
o Rep. André Carson [D, IN-7]
o Rep. Kathy Castor [D, FL-11]
o Rep. Joe Courtney [D, CT-2]
o Rep. Peter DeFazio [D, OR-4]
o Rep. Diana DeGette [D, CO-1]
o Rep. Eliot Engel [D, NY-17]
o Rep. Anna Eshoo [D, CA-14]
o Rep. Sam Farr [D, CA-17]
o Rep. Bob Filner [D, CA-51]
o Rep. Gabrielle Giffords [D, AZ-8]
o Rep. Raul Grijalva [D, AZ-7]
o Rep. John Hall [D, NY-19]
o Rep. Maurice Hinchey [D, NY-22]
o Rep. Mazie Hirono [D, HI-2]
o Rep. Eddie Johnson [D, TX-30]
o Rep. Marcy Kaptur [D, OH-9]
o Rep. Barbara Lee [D, CA-9]
o Rep. Nita Lowey [D, NY-18]
o Rep. Betty McCollum [D, MN-4]
o Rep. James McDermott [D, WA-7]
o Rep. James McGovern [D, MA-3]
o Rep. Gwen Moore [D, WI-4]
o Rep. Christopher Murphy [D, CT-5]
o Rep. Jerrold Nadler [D, NY-8]
o Rep. Eleanor Norton [D, DC-0]
o Rep. Chellie Pingree [D, ME-1]
o Rep. Timothy Ryan [D, OH-17]
o Rep. Linda Sánchez [D, CA-39]
o Rep. Janice Schakowsky [D, IL-9]
o Rep. Mark Schauer [D, MI-7]
o Rep. Louise Slaughter [D, NY-28]
o Rep. Fortney Stark [D, CA-13]
o Rep. Betty Sutton [D, OH-13]
o Rep. John Tierney [D, MA-6]
o Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz [D, FL-20]
o Rep. Robert Wexler [D, FL-19]
5 - Jet
Gee M(a)¶/®k, interesting handle. I can think of just on man that'd think that up. And all those democrats and not one republican!
6 - Cindy
It's okay Jet, it's only Mark.
Mark, if you come across anything resembling evidence that Monsanto, Cargill, Tysons, ADM, or other agribusiness sponsored or were involved...could you let me know. Everywhere I look I find that repeated, but that's all I find and I am hoping I will find more.
7 - M (a)r {....!...} ¶/ ® k
SJ's Stanley Greenburg connection is pretty fucking suspicious.
8 - Dave Nalle
Jordan, you probably don't need to be worried about this specific bill at all, because it likely won't go anywhere. But even as a Canadian you need to worry about the trend towards overegulation which this bill is symptomatic of. The desire of government to protect the people from nonexistent threats and thereby empower themselves and intentionally or inadvertently benefit large businesses is a real and growing threat not just in the US but world wide.
Dave
9 - Cindy
Stanley Greenburg. He doesn't actually work for Monsanto. Well, not exactly. He works on behalf of Monsanto and others.
It is clear in my mind that his wife is introducing bills that benefit his clients. I just like to make sure I am giving out accurate information. It would be good to know where the information about the involved corporations came from or whether it is speculation.
10 - Cindy
...you probably don't need to be worried about this specific bill at all, because it likely won't go anywhere...
Dave,
Why don't you think so? Even with all those co-sponsors? That would be a relief Dave.
11 - Jet
Specifically Dave-what "non-existant" threat? Sounds like the typical right-wing nonspeak which sounds intelligent but isn't.
By the same token, we can say that Bush attacked Iraq because of a "non-existant" threat.
All the useless colored threat levels from Homeland Security (indeed the very existance of the agency itself) is from a "nonexistant" threat.
If you're going to tear down the "Just in case" argument, than it needs to apply uniformly, not just to items you don't agree with my friend.
12 - Dave Nalle
Jet, I wrote this article. What are you talking about?
Cindy, the fact that it's been in committee for almost 2 months is a sign it's not getting a push from the democratic leadership. Also, bills that pass fast have hundreds of co-sponsors, not 39.
Dave
13 - Dave Nalle
Thanks for the list, Mark. The bill seems to have gained two sponsors since yesterday. That list is in the link I posted in the article, btw.
Cindy, if you research the contributors of the sponsors you'll find those companies or groups they lobby through to be represented. I looked up DeLauro's contributions from 2008 and found a couple of agribusiness interest groups on the $10,000 or more list.
Dave
14 - Cindy
...the War on Capitalism begins at the very lowest level where the most vulnerable entrepreneurs and cottage industries lack the resources and political influence to protect themselves from being regulated out of existence at the command of monopolistic corporations and their elected lackeys.
The War on Capitalism Dave? Funny Dave, the way I see it it is the war of capitalists against everyone else.
We discussed this re WalMart coming to town, etc. I said then, something along the lines of what you are saying now--something very similar to the quote of you here.
Let me remind you Dave what you said. You said that Capitalism was working to make things efficient, those small businesses were obviously not the best forms. And you claimed my reference to the mega-corps being monopolies was wrong.
Dave, you know you are saying the same thing now that I said then. I just want to point that out.
15 - Jet
Dave writes:
Single-party control of our government has created a situation where the normal restraints of common sense and accountability have been entirely lifted from our legislators and they feel free to engage in the most dangerous and destructive possible legislation in the service of special interests...
Gee, so it's okay when the Bush Administration and it's GOP rubberstamp congress did it, but not now... simply because you don't agree with its politics? Stem cells, abortion, war crimes (for which his GOP congress snuck him immunity for), warrantless wiretaps... the list goes on and on.
16 - Cindy
...if you research the contributors of the sponsors you'll find those companies or groups they lobby through to be represented...
...and re #12.
Thank you, Dave.
17 - Matthew T. Sussman
What will come of the Obamas' new garden?
18 - M (a)r {....!...} ¶/ ® k
From opensecrets.org list of bills lobbied:
Lobbying reports covering the 1st Quarter of 2009 are due April 20 to the Senate Office of Public Records. OpenSecrets.org will incorporate that data after the deadline.
I've often wondered if there is a source that details lobbyist participation in preparing the language of bills.
19 - Cindy
I forgot about that site Mark. I should have saved it the last time you posted it.
I've often wondered if there is a source that details lobbyist participation in preparing the language of bills.
I wish we could find stuff like this out. Every time I see someone write something like...'Monsanto et al, wrote the bill*'...I wince, as I never can seem to find out where someone got that info.
*which is something I have already read a number of times regarding this bill.
20 - Dave Nalle
The War on Capitalism Dave? Funny Dave, the way I see it it is the war of capitalists against everyone else.
No, Cindy. You persistently fail to understand the distinction between state corporatism and capitalism. Capitalism is a broad economic category. Capitalism works best when trade is free. When monopolistic businesses and the state ally together you no longer have free trade, you have state corporatism, which is inimical to the practice of free trade and free capitalism.
We discussed this re WalMart coming to town, etc. I said then, something along the lines of what you are saying now--something very similar to the quote of you here.
Not really. Plus I pointed out at that time that WalMart does not, in fact, destroy local businesses because WalMart does engage in free trade and for the most part receives very limited special benefits from the government. The exception being those locations where local governments give WalMart tax breaks which they do not offer other businesses in order to get them to move to a specific location. That's the beginnings of state corporatism on a small scale.
Let me remind you Dave what you said. You said that Capitalism was working to make things efficient, those small businesses were obviously not the best forms. And you claimed my reference to the mega-corps being monopolies was wrong.
I said that it was wrong about WalMart. That does not mean that there are not other corporations whose power is enhanced by an alliance with the state.
Dave
21 - Dave Nalle
Gee, so it's okay when the Bush Administration and it's GOP rubberstamp congress did it, but not now...
Jet, when did I say that it was okay when the Bush administration did it? In general this problem originates in Congress, not in the executive branch, and it's not better when one party does it than it is when another does it.
simply because you don't agree with its politics?
I don't agree with any policies which attack free market capitalism, including when it's done on behalf of protecting businesses from the risks of a free market.
Dave
22 - Dan(Miller)
Wait a damn minute. HR 875 has a fine sounding name: "Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009." It even feels warm and fuzzy; we are to be protected, not harmed.
Food is absolutely essential for our very survival. "Safety" -- who in his right mind could possibly be against safety? We all want to be safe, don't we? "Modernization?" That's a great word too. We certainly wouldn't want to oppose modernization, would we? Of course not! Only dastardly Republicans would oppose safety and modernization.
There could be nothing more critical these days, when unknown thousands are dying after eating tomatoes and squash grown in unsupervised and therefore obviously unsanitary small garden plots -- some even in back yards! Brownies prepared in untested and unsupervised kitchens in people's houses are also a gigantic problem. How many have died after eating those unsafe brownies? They are also high in calories and sugar, contributing mightily to the curse of diabetes which plagues the nation. It is high time, I say, for our wise Congress to root out these miscreants and protect We the People! From Ourselves! It's the Democratic way, and we must settle for nothing less.
Dan(Miller)
Runs out of house to escape rampaging pack of rabid brownies, trips over weed whacker discarded because the kid-safety devices prevent it from starting, and sprays everything in vegetable garden with non-organic weed killer.
23 - Cindy
No,
CindyDave. You persistently fail to understandthethat there is no distinction between state corporatism and capitalism...Capitalism works best whentrade isunicorns run free.(now I had better get to work, this site is too easy a distraction)
24 - Roger Nowosielski
He's gonna have to explain this to me. It's a mouthful.
25 - Cindy
When monopolistic businesses and the state ally together you no longer have free trade, you have state corporatism, which is inimical to the practice of free trade and free capitalism.
Dave when did this not happen? What about the railroad industry? What about the robber barons? How, for one single moment Dave, can you believe that corporate interests and government can ever be separated? How????? Why do you think the US has been interfering in countries all over the world? What are you planning to do, kill all the lobbyists? Dissolve all of the huge corporations? You'll have to kill the elite. How do you prevent people having enough money to influence the government?
You know you can't Dave. You have to get rid of the fed to accomplish what you want. So, Dave, I will help you overthrow the federal government, if you will help me overthrow the government of just one single state.
Come on Dave, let's make a deal Anarchists and Libertarians...we could do it!
(now I had really, really better get to work)