more big government screwing with food and kids

April 26, 2012

wow

http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/obama-video-games-better-than-farm-chores\

/

April 26, 2012

A little reality please! Check out the real info from the dept of

Labor:

The new regs would not affect kids working on their parents farm at all.

" The parental exemption for the owner or operator of a farm is statutory

and cannot be eliminated through the regulatory process. A child of any

age may perform any job, even hazardous work, at any age at any time on

a farm owned by his or her parent. A child of any age whose parent

operates a farm may also perform any task, even hazardous jobs, on that

farm but only outside of school hours. " (except home schooled kids, like

mine, whose farm work is part of their 'school' , and even non-homed

schooled kids where only paid (resulting in tax forms and a w-2) work

would be affected by the school hours like all paid employment currently

is)

Also, please note the following announcement that new rules will be

presented this summer and we should continue to send our comments to the

Dept of Labor, if they do not adequately adjust the rules.

But second, and more important, it is our system of one rule fits all

size business that creates these problems. Notice there is no

exceptions for small farms that are not owned by the parents – which

are totally exempt from ALL rules. Just like the fake food safety bill.

Big Ag, which is behind this, fights all attempts to make safety laws

which differentiates between the size of business. This is done on

purpose to eliminate the competition of small businesses and small

farms. Of course, small farms use local and related family members

(nephews, etc) to work, even for pay (which is the only work addressed

in these laws), and it is this source of employees that are not subject

to the same restrictions and minimum pay laws as the large corporations

are that those large corporations are against. In their view it is

unfair competition. So, Big Ag wants to eliminate that work source. We

already have 75% of farms losing money (according to the USDA's own

info), so why not just push the rest of those small farms out of

business. That would especially hit CSAs and farmer's markets. But

this would affect work done by neighboring or related kids but Not the

farm family's own kids.

Third, what specific part of the new regulations that prevent dangerous

work by teens employed potentially by very large CAFOs would you want

your teen to do? Again, it goes back to size. Rounding up chickens for

slaughter on a free-range, pastured, local farm is of course no problem

for even very young children. Rounding up chickens in an ammonia soaked

CAFO, not owned by the parents, which will cause long-term lung problems

maybe should be regulated. Here we are all for Organics, and

non-GMO-drift corn and pesticide-drift being regulated, so as not to

contaminate our organic fields, wouldn't we also want our children

not to be subjected to pesticide use and contamination by some

unscrupulous big Ag company?

Finally, look at the comparison of the proposed laws and the current one

already in existence for many years under the Bush administration

(http://www.dol.gov/whd/CL/SidebySideNPRM.htm

<http://www.dol.gov/whd/CL/SidebySideNPRM.htm> ). I don't

understand why all the rhetoric when this had been going on for years.

I started farming in 2000 and the laws got worse and worse over the last

12 years. All of this anit-current pres. just takes the aim off of the

real problem: Big Corporations who are pushing CODEX and Agenda 21 and

have been for many years including the 8 under Bush. The Occupy

movement and Tea Partiers should unite and get the Corporate Dictators

out!

I appreciate what , the home economist has done (we are both

economist), but this is bad reporting, she didn't check out the facts on

what the law actually proposes and went for sensationalism. We need to

work with facts and fight back against the actual issues. Fighting fake

issues like " kids can't work on their family farm " drains our energy and

we lose credibility if we can't even read the proposed law. There are

real issues with the proposal, we need to address different standards

for different types or sizes of businesses including farms. Stay tuned

and send in comments this summer if they don't address these

differences.

~Jan

--small, organic, sustainable, farm & ranch owner and parent.

From http://www.dol.gov/whd/CL/AG_NPRM.htm

<http://www.dol.gov/whd/CL/AG_NPRM.htm> :

On February 1, 2012, the Department announced that it will re-propose

the portion of its regulation on child labor in agriculture interpreting

the " parental exemption. " The parental exemption allows children of any

age who are employed by their parent, or a person standing in the place

of a parent, to perform any job on a farm owned or operated by their

parent or such person standing in the place of a parent. The re-proposal

process will seek comments and inputs as to how the department can

comply with statutory requirements to protect children, while respecting

rural traditions. The re-proposed portion of the rule is expected to be

published for public comment by early summer. The department will

continue to review the comments received regarding the remaining

portions of the proposed rule for inclusion in a final rule.

Five Facts about the Proposed Child Labor in Agriculture Rule

Fact # 1: The proposed Child Labor in Agriculture rule will not prohibit

all people under the age of 18 from working on a farm.

The proposed rule would not change any of the Fair Labor Standards Act's

minimum age standards for agricultural employment. Under the FLSA, the

legal age to be employed on a farm without restrictions is 16. The FLSA

also allows children between the ages of 12 and 15 years, under certain

conditions, to be employed outside of school hours to perform

nonhazardous jobs on farms. Children under the age of 12 may be employed

with parental permission on very small farms to perform nonhazardous

jobs outside of school hours.

Young people can be employed to perform many jobs on the farm – and

this would be true even if the proposed rule were adopted as written.

The proposed rule would, however, prohibit the employment of workers

under the age of 18 in nonagricultural occupations in the farm-product

raw materials wholesale trade industries. Prohibited establishments

would include country grain elevators, grain elevators, grain bins,

silos, feed lots, feed yards, stockyard, livestock exchanges, and

livestock auctions not on a farm or used solely by a single farmer. What

these locations have in common is that many workers, including children,

have suffered occupational deaths or serious injuries working in these

facilities over the last few years.

Fact # 2: The proposed rule would not eliminate the parental exemption

for owners/operators of a family farm.

The parental exemption for the owner or operator of a farm is statutory

and cannot be eliminated through the regulatory process. A child of any

age may perform any job, even hazardous work, at any age at any time on

a farm owned by his or her parent. A child of any age whose parent

operates a farm may also perform any task, even hazardous jobs, on that

farm but only outside of school hours. So for children working on farms

that are registered as LLCs, but operated solely by their parents, the

parental exemption would still apply.

Fact # 3: This proposed regulation will not eliminate 4-H and FFA

programs.

The Department of Labor fully supports the important contributions both

4-H and the FFA make toward developing our children. The proposed rule

would in no way prohibit a child from raising or caring for an animal in

a non-employment situation — even if the animal were housed on a

working farm — as long as he or she is not hired or

" employed " to work with the animal. In such a situation, the

child is not acting as an " employee " and is not governed by the

child labor regulations. And there is nothing in the proposed rule that

would prevent a child from being employed to work with animals other

than in those specific situations identified in the proposal as

particularly hazardous.

Fact # 4: Under the proposed rule, children will still be able to help

neighbors in need of help.

In order for the child labor provisions of the FLSA to apply, there must

first be an employer/employee relationship. The lone act of helping a

neighbor round up loose cattle who have broken out of their fencing, for

example, generally would not establish an employer/employee

relationship.

Fact # 5: Children will still be able to take animals to the county fair

or to market.

A child who raises and cares for his or her animal -- for example, as

part of a 4-H project -- is not being employed by anyone, and thus is

outside the coverage of the FLSA. Even if the child needs to rent space

from a farm, the animal is not part of the farm's business and with

regard to the care of the animal no employer/employee relationship

exists, so the child labor provisions would not apply. Likewise, there

would be no problem with taking the animal to the county fair or to

market, since the child is doing this on his/her own behalf – not on

behalf of an employer. The proposed prohibitions would apply only if the

child was an employee of the exchange or auction.

>

> wow

>

http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/obama-video-games-better-than-far\

m-chores/

>

April 26, 2012

Good points but I & #39;d still rather make decisions for my kids rather than the

federal government. The government is stealing our freedoms a slice at a time

and almost always with good intentions and someone & #39;s " best interests " in

mind.

April 26, 2012

One more thought on Regulations:

I totally agree, but if your kid, or the 1 in 5 kids living in poverty,

goes to work for a big CAFO, with or without the parent's knowledge

(maybe they are desperately poor and will take any job that pays

anything no matter what the toxic conditions are), the parent has no say

in what the child can or can't do and we are turning over our decisions

to the corporations, like field hogs or Tyson's chickens or the

30,000 cow dairy, Fair Oaks Farms, owned by only 9 families in Indiana-

the largest dairy in the USA. http://politicsoftheplate.com/?p=598

<http://politicsoftheplate.com/?p=598>

The corporation's " best interests " will prevail and there will be no

consequences, since there would be no regs for them to care about, only

their bottom line. Just like Cargill's Turkey outbreak, including

deaths, they only care about their bottom line, not what their

young-employee's parents want or agree to.

The question is just like in `food safety', how do we truly

regulate the gigantic profit-at-any-cost food producers and farms while

leaving the majority of farms – small family owned sustainable

(hopefully, but not always) alone to make their own decisions? We want

consumers to make their own choice. Should we require laws requiring

truth in labeling? How about GMO labeling? I want to know, they

don't want to tell me. Without a law or regulation, they won't

and don't tell. Because they know we won't buy it.

The corporations are banking on a railroad Supreme Court ruling in the

1800's which said you could not set different rules for different

businesses, no matter what size. This is a huge part in what is driving

the one-size fits all regs, pushed by the corporations to their benefit

(because it closes small businesses and shuts out competition). They

actually want the regs and usually write them, themselves. The fake

`food Safety' bill is a good example of this written by Monsanto

and the Food Industry. But it was also a major break though to have any

different standards for small farms, even though the exceptions were

very weak, and of course the industry still fought that amendment very

hard.

The on-going struggle is to get this old supreme court ruling and more

recent `corporations are people' rulings overturned so that

Families, that is people, can make their own decisions, but

corporations, that is entities driven only by profit, (or they

wouldn't legally be a corporation), without a conscious and with the

ability to live forever and outlast any individual fighting them, have

some controls over them for our children and grand-children's sake.

This is a long struggle with no easy answers!

Ok, need to run, we have a long drive to the cities!

~Jan

>

> Good points but I & #39;d still rather make decisions for my kids rather

than the federal government. The government is stealing our freedoms a

slice at a time and almost always with good intentions and someone & #39;s

" best interests " in mind.

>

April 26, 2012

Here is another article about this issue:

http://www.oldthinkernews.com/2012/04/obama-ban-youth-farm-chores-part-large

r-power-grab/

From: [mailto: ]

On Behalf Of Gene Leistico

Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 5:21 PM

Subject: Re: Re: more big government screwing with food and kids

Good points but I & #39;d still rather make decisions for my kids rather than

the federal government. The government is stealing our freedoms a slice at a

time and almost always with good intentions and someone & #39;s " best

interests " in mind.

April 26, 2012

Here is another article about this issue:

http://www.oldthinkernews.com/2012/04/obama-ban-youth-farm-chores-part-large

r-power-grab/

From: [mailto: ]

On Behalf Of Gene Leistico

Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 5:21 PM

Subject: Re: Re: more big government screwing with food and kids

Good points but I & #39;d still rather make decisions for my kids rather than

the federal government. The government is stealing our freedoms a slice at a

time and almost always with good intentions and someone & #39;s " best

interests " in mind.

April 26, 2012

That is what a cogent theory of private property rights and personal

responsibility does.

You certainly avoid GMO's by and large even if they aren't labelled by avoiding

any food that's not organic or that you haven't purchased from a trusted

farmer/producer. Even though I won't support GMO's, I'm not in to forcing anyone

to do anything unless they're violating someone else's person or property.

People freak out about that 'extreme' point of view because they think that is

going to allow greedy corporations to pollute the world beyond measure, but

guess what, that would be an infringement on others' property rights and they

would be fully liable for the damage.

It's just that we have become addicted to passing the blame and shoveling our

personal responsibility off on someone else in this society.

If your neighbor's pesticides run off on to your property, they're responsible,

and will be held to make it right, no matter the cost to them.

And your hypothetical scenario of the child going to work at a cafo is an

example of passing the responsibility. There is rarely only one choice for work,

but even if that were the case, it's still their company and you can do it their

way or don't work there. That doesn't make it pleasant or nice, but if we are

going to pretend to have property rights, then you have to protect the nasty

ones as well. In any case, under a sound system of private property rights,

conventional farms would evaporate like gasoline in the hot sun because there is

NO way you can truly keep x-icides contained to your land only. They eventually

find their way in to the water, or the air or the neighbor's soil and the moment

that happens, someone else' rights have been infringed and it's then a matter

for the court if the perpetrator is unwilling to fully address the situation to

the victim's satisfaction.

One thing is for sure, no good comes of government intervention. It only results

in more control, more bureaucracy, more red tape, less freedom, more taxes which

is a vicious cycle that will only end in collapse or revolution, after some

length of time. We have an innate drive to be autonomous and you can only

trample on that for so long.

April 26, 2012