Posted on 02/23/2014 10:55:18 AM PST by matt04
im Crawford was rushing to load crates of freshly picked organic tomatoes onto trucks heading for an urban farmers market when he noticed the federal agent.
A tense conversation followed as the visitor to his farm — an inspector from the Food and Drug Administration — warned him that some organic-growing techniques he had honed over four decades could soon be outlawed.
"This is my badge. These are the fines. This is what is hanging over your head, and we want you to know that," Crawford says the official told him.
Crawford's popular farm may seem a curious place for the FDA to move ahead with a long-planned federal assault on deadly food poisoning. To Crawford's knowledge, none of the kohlrabi, fennel, sugar snap peas or other crops from his New Morning Farm have ever sickened anyone. But he is not the only organic grower to suddenly discover federal inspectors on his land.
In 2010, after a years-long campaign, food-safety activists persuaded Congress to give the FDA authority to regulate farm practices. The next year, an outbreak of food poisoning that killed 33 people who ate tainted cantaloupes put pressure on the FDA to be aggressive.
Now, farmers are discovering that the FDA's proposed rules would curtail many techniques that are common among organic growers, including spreading house-made fertilizers, tilling cropland with grazing animals, and irrigating from open creeks.
...
Food safety advocates have urged regulators to hang tough. "We don't believe large facilities are the only place where outbreaks are happening," said Caroline Smith DeWaal, food safety director at the Center for Science in the Public Interest in Washington.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Exactly what "Cloward- Piven" is designed to do ..
Create (Agenda 21 ) "Sustainability" by eliminating the number of people ,
For success stories : see North Korea, China 'one child policy'
See post # 21
I wonder if the farmer wearing a gun on his hip would interfere with farming. Maybe it’d be worth it, just for the reminder to revenuers that he’s a free citizen.
What we're not going to hear from constitutionally clueless Mr. Halper of the LA Times concerning this story is the following. Although constitutionally clueless Mr. Crawford was undoubtedly properly diplomatic when he was confronted by the likewise constitutionally clueless FDA inspector, please take note. As a consequence of Mr. Halper's parents, the parents of Mr. Crawford, and the parents of the FDA inspector, not making sure that their sons and daughters were taught about the federal government's constitutionally limited powers, neither the LA times or Mr. Crawford was able to point out the following major constitutional problem with the FDA's proposed rules concerning organic farming methods.
Simply put, Mr. Crawford wasn't prepared to point out to the FDA inspector that the states have never delegated to Congress, via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate intrastate agricultural production. But since constitutionally clueless federal government bureaucrats are likely not going to understand the significance that the word “agriculture” is not used in the Constitution, it is good that the Supreme Court has officially clarified this agricultural limit on federal government powers, in terms of the 10th Amendment nonetheless, as the following excerpt from a case opinion clearly shows.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited. None to regulate agricultural production is given, and therefore legislation by Congress for that purpose is forbidden (emphasis added).” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Note that although Mr. Crawford's agricultural production is constitutionally protected from any federal interference whatsoever as long as he doesn't take it out of the state to sell it, in which case the feds can properly regulate his produce under the Commerce Clause imo, the state that Mr. Crawford is farming in is free to regulate his produce, ultimately in accordance with what the produce quality that voters in his state want.
Also consider that there are undoubtedly federal bureaucrats and lawmakers who will argue, contrary to the idea of the main reason why the Founding States decided to constitutionally enumerate the federal government's limited powers, that since the Constitution doesn't say that they can't do something, like establishing a constitutionally indefensible federal spending programs like Obamacare Democratcare, then they can do it.
However ...
Note that the excerpt above from United States v. Butler contains the following wording.
“To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited.”
So the Constitution's silence on issues like agriculture, public healthcare and immigration as a few examples, are properly interpreted to mean that Congress doesn't have the power to regulate intrastate agricultural produce and other applicable issues any more than it can make laws to regulate our 1st Amendment-protected rights!
Next, note that one of the reasons that parents are not making sure that their children are taught how to argue the federal government's constitutionally limited powers is the following imo. After Butler was decided, FDR's activist majority justices seized the opportunity provided by another agriculture-related case, Wickard v. Filburn, to unconstitutionally expand Congress's Commerce Clause powers. In fact, not only does the Wickard v. Filburn opinion not refer to the 10th Amendment-related agricultural precedent in the prevoius United States v. Butler case (corrections welcome), but using terms like "some concept" and "implicit," here is what was left of the 10th Amendment in the Wickard opinion after FDR's activist justices got finished with it.
“In discussion and decision, the point of reference, instead of being what was “necessary and proper” to the exercise by Congress of its granted power, was often some concept of sovereignty thought to be implicit (emphases added) in the status of statehood. Certain activities such as “production,” “manufacturing,” and “mining” were occasionally said to be within the province of state governments and beyond the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause.”—Wickard v. Filburn, 1942.
FDR's corrupt justices essentially watered down 10th Amendment-protected state sovereignty to a wives' tale.
Again, the country is reaping the consequences of parents not making sure that their children are being taught the federal government's constitutionally limited powers. And Judge Andrew Napolitano will take about three minutes of your time to read those powers to you.
Judge Napolitano & the Constitution
Shoot, shovel, shut up.
Instead of exemption, how bout we just eliminate the rules at the federal level.
They can't have the right to infringe upon your ability to grow and consume a plant on your property
Oh YES they do, it's from a disastrous commerce clause ruling from the new deal era... Wickard V. Filburn Read it and watch your blood pressure rise...
There's nothing wrong with sane rules to keep our food supply safe and fresh. The rules should be at a minimum.
The rules we have are insane. They thwart the production of locally grown foods and allow all kinds of poisons to be used as fillers. Local farmers have sometimes impossible restrictions while crap is imported from China and other third world cesspools. At home, invaders who don't follow our cleanliness standards are allowed to be used as near-slave labor, subsidized by federal handouts.
If there were no rules, there'd be no restrictions on corporate farming. With that, you'd get even more of the problems they cause.
I said at the federal level. Reel it in. Or, feed at the same trough. Up to you.
There have to be the minimum necessary of food saftety rules at the federal level or the corporate culprits will shop for the states that let them get away with the most.
Heh. I’m well aware of the Wickard ruling, and the “conservative” justice Scalia furthering it in Raich. He’s no friend of us. Thomas is a blessed gift to free citizens.
What you’ve done is make my point. I was trying to do so without making it about a specific plant, which is how laws should read. Government is given the power to govern over an activity or it’s not.
There is no such power given to the fedguv. If you believe there is, then you can’t be upset with other usurpations like Obamacare. Think I tried to make this point earlier. I’ll have to look at the thread again.
Those states will allow your restrictions and become ostracized. Or they will prosper and be emulated.
Bingo.
I think everyone in these federal power poaitions was a former board member of one of the big 3 ag conglomerates. ADM owned Bush and they sure aren’t about to bash Obama with his love of ethanol mandates.
Many of those, of course [assuming the numbers are even close to accurate] have no idea of how to clean the food or cook it. This is an example of the liberal communist view that the people are too stupid to even cook their own dinner without the state's help.
Food safety advocates have urged regulators to hang tough. "We don't believe large facilities are the only place where outbreaks are happening," said Caroline Smith DeWaal, food safety director at the Center for Science in the Public Interest in Washington.It's not about food safety, it's about totalitarian control. Thanks matt04.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.