|
November 23, 2010
I Have Another One
It seems the Senate is about to pass S 510. Maybe. It is about food safety (do you really believe that?) and the regulation of food products that could cause illness from contamination. According to what I consider overblown (for now) rhetoric it will be messing with home gardeners and legacy seed growers and collectors. "If accepted [S 510] would preclude the public's right to grow, own, trade, transport, share, feed and eat each and every food that nature makes. It will become the most offensive authority against the cultivation, trade and consumption of food and agricultural products of one's choice. It will be unconstitutional and contrary to natural law or, if you like, the will of God." ~Dr. Shiv Chopra, Canada Health whistleblowerNow is that true? I haven't looked. But I doubt it. But suppose it is true. Is it unconstitutional? Of course not. Hemp/cannabis has been banned for a long time on health and safety grounds. Why not everything else? They have decades of precedents on their side. Well what do you know? The Drug War justification works for ObamaCare and the TSA too. And now the control of plants. There is nothing the Drug War can't do. Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon on 11.23.10 at 06:26 AM
Comments
That should read: ...fill congress with lawyers... Frank · November 23, 2010 09:59 AM Simon, one example of contamination: Lawyers always point to the big growers since THEY have the money to pay up. That's why they are protecting themselves by setting up a tracing system. And that's why there are going to be laws that lay out best growing methods, so that the farmers can point to complying with those laws as a defense in court. This is all the result of greedy, immoral, lawyers leaching off the productive part of our economy. It's great conspiracy. Frank · November 23, 2010 10:34 AM It's NO great conspiracy. Frank · November 23, 2010 10:35 AM "And that's why there are going to be laws that lay out best growing methods, so that the farmers can point to complying with those laws as a defense in court." Compliance with the law is never a defense in court. Meeting FDA guidelines doesn't bar lawsuits against drug companies, meeting DOT guidelines doesn't bar lawsuits against auto companies, and meeting these guidelines will be no bar to food lawsuits. But then, the big-agriculture lobbyists who wrote it know that. Like all big regulatory endeavors created and run by the big players in an industry, the real aim is to squash the small-time competition. Bob Smith · November 23, 2010 11:41 AM " the real aim is to squash the small-time competition" There may be some truth to that. But the real problem is with government ability to write any laws relating to food safety. The ag industry in California has their eye on import regulations in Europe as a potential huge problem down the road. The are afraid they will be used as a blueprint here. For instance, Europe has draconian regulations relating to pesticide residue. As a commonwealth country, India exports to the UK and other countries. Their field testing is a nightmare, where all samples must be run through government labs and certified before shipment. Yes, they can trace every orange or mango back to the tree it was picked from, the day it was picked, and the entire history from field to market. Do you remember the asparagas that was contaminated by cholera in Peru a few years ago? That type of thing is what's driving this government intervention. WE shouldn't have to worry about it, but the government may be thinking about purposeful contamination which could be very deadly. Frank · November 23, 2010 02:38 PM Libertarian Survivalist Jack Spirko has 2 posts on this bill today. He's read the entire thing and has a reasoned response to S510 hysteria (you won't be able to give your neighbor a homegrown tomato, etc). It's a bad bill, yes, but there is an amendment moving along with it that will exempt farms producing http://www.thesurvivalpodcast.com/ Karen · November 23, 2010 05:36 PM crap... It will exempt farms producing less than $500,000 in annual revenue. Karen · November 23, 2010 08:26 PM Karen, thank you for the Spirko link. The site looks interesting. After reading his posts, I would add the following: I have a direct interest in this, since part of my business provides barcode tracking labels to a section of the ag industry. One of the widely used products (not mine) for produce and fruit is on the market now. It's called Harvest Mark. It is a 2D barcode that is generated for an individual grower, and its cost is a half mil per label. You already see it on clamshells of strawberries, watermelons, and a lot of other items. It allows the consumer to access information through a website that will tell them where the fruit was picked & from which field or farm. In Europe they use the same thing, and shoppers can point their Apple phone at the label, and up pops the info. The big problem for the growers is integrating all this information, and providing a Julian date on each item. The date problem hasn't been solved yet. The software and scanners provided to even the smaller growers are relatively inexpensive, and in many cases pay for themselves by also integrating payroll with the tracing. Since most ag workers, pickers, as well as packing crews, are paid piece wages in addition to a set hourly wage, the farmer needs to know how many of an item each picker has handled. These tracing labels provide that info instantly without having to manually count and tally. It is a huge time saver, and paper saver. It also links every lug or box of produce or fruit to the individual who picked it, or packed it. The integration of all this information is the big problem that retailers and government have pushed onto the farmers. Let's say you have a pallet of table grapes, packed in 40 boxes, and inside each box there are 18 to 20 bags of grapes. They want each bag to have an individual tracing code with date, packer, and place information included, which must be linked to a master code on each box with the same information, and each pallet must have a pallet label containing all the information. The pallet label is also mandated by Wal-Mart, Costco, Kroeger, Safeway, etc. to be a label with embedded RFID chip that will pick up added information as the pallet leaves cold storage, is placed on a truck, unloaded at a distribution warehouse, and finally delivered to the retail location. The really small growers are outside this loop. It shouldn't affect them.
Frank · November 23, 2010 09:58 PM "Really small" is right. Half a million in annual revenue (revenue, not profit) is trivial. This is going to kill the small growers. If you're doing billions in annual revenue like some of the big ag congomerates are this won't be a huge cost. It will add to food prices though, not exactly something cash strapped families need right now. Too bad most of those families will be too stupid to blame the real culprits for rising food prices, Congress. If you're a small grower doing 5 million in revenue all the extra labor and hardware needed to do all this tracking will add significant overhead. Bob Smith · November 24, 2010 12:22 AM Bob Smith: Frank · November 24, 2010 11:02 AM Bob, the tracing is an attempt to insulate farmers from any type of contamination to their product after it leaves their control. That is where the most likely source will come from is it is done on purpose. Also, right now, if even one small load is contaminated, ALL the product from that grower is suspect, and is rejected by the retailer. This could easily break even large farms. If the source is from a single row, in a single field, then it can be contained with adequate tracing. Frank · November 24, 2010 03:00 PM "These people are not trying to run their competition out of business, but simply protect their own asses." Do you know why that's not true? Because if it were true they'd do it spontaneously. They don't need government to tell them how to "protect their own asses". The fact that some growers are are trying to use the force of law to burden their competition as much as they burden themselves says they are in fact trying to run the competition out of business. Bob Smith · November 24, 2010 07:50 PM I'm sure I won't convince, but within my own group of customers I doubt that is the case. From a lot of conservations I've had on the tracing issue with these people, THEY are being pushed by the huge big box retailers like Costco, Wal-Mart, and especially Kroeger. The retailers are even more afraid of lawsuits than the growers. Maybe I've got my head up my ass, but I believe my customers are honest. They've always been, with me anyway. Many of these people are 2nd or 3rd generation immigrant families, and in California that means Armenians, other Slavs, Swedes, and Japanese. Frank · November 24, 2010 10:08 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
November 2010
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
November 2010
October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
The A'tist and the Businessman
I saw you face thieves coming! So hands off my f-ing face! How long will I be allowed the safety of my own car? Out In Force My Imagination Is Getting Better A Mopping Up Operation A "right" that puts an end to rights I Have Another One A Grinding Mill No sardines and no quarter?
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Simon, this all revolves around contamination of produce and fruit. The ag industry itself has been formulating a plan to help insulate against lawsuits. They have already started this outside any government mandates. Trade groups like United Fresh, and big retailers like Kroeger have in place the Produce Traceability Initiative (PTI) which you can investigate at: http://www.producetraceability.org/
Michigan is a big supplier of produce, hence Dingell's involvement. Also, software suppliers for traceability are headquartered in Michigan. It looks like most of the mom and pop and organic growers concerns in S510 have been taken care of. Sections relating to small growers have been struck from the bill. I'm not saying there couldn't be some very bad things in this, but with the money and lobbyists from the ag industry essentially writing the bill, I doubt if it will adversely affect production.
But, smaller producers above the backyard/farmer's market types, would probably be wise to investigate coops for their own protection.
Without tort law reform, (and as long as we continue to fill congress with layers there never will be any reform) laws like this are inevitable.