Re: Food Safety- what to do.

[Guest guest]

We need some expertise here.

What we are seeing are lots of 'charges' that we need help in determining their

validity. I have been reading a 'Summary' of S.510 but recognize a summary is

just that and not the full text.

I was Fortunate in that sent me a full page about the 'bad' in the bill

but a bit more pointed information is needed above the possible 'stretches' it

contained. I also went to a video on line and really got turned off because

there was little on could hang their hat on.

I did read a lot of things that interested me that I would like to see

implemented and I also saw a lot of things that some would wonder about but

which are routine in large organizations that put together 'Plans'. Planning

has become an art in itself and people make careers out of using a lot of words

to say a little.

We know We The People need to be vigilant but before I jump onboard and condemn

this in its entirety, those that are vehemently opposed to S.510 need to put

something in a concise format that can be explored to determine if the fears are

'real' or a 'stretch'.

For example the headline on one opposition piece I read attempted to lead us to

the conclusion the 'Egg Fiasco' and S.510 are somehow connected. It implied a

'Conspiracy'. I think it a stretch. However, if there is some evidence to

come to this conclusion, fire away and show us.

Most of what I read does not reach the heights warranting fear but that may be

because I only read a portion of the summary. I suggest more read the summary

and see if there are some areas that seem to be of value and then, perhaps, when

the opponents of this bill provide us with an accurate and detailed expose` of

S.510 we can either help kill it or have it changed to suit our needs. I am

just not sure the current laws on the books are adequate to accomplish what some

say they can. One thing I can surely agree with is, The Department of

Agriculture is very understaffed....and probably underfunded. Summary:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-510 & tab=summary

Joe C.

[Guest guest]

Greetings,

Any kind of required certification for most small farmers, that costs

money will put the business on a bankruptcy footing. Considering that

it costs more to grow produce than walmart sells for, additional costs

of any sort are a disaster. For those who grow food, not commodities

there are no subsidies. It is not a level playing field to start with.

The farmers will have to pay for the inspections, the additional

paperwork also costs major time, which is money. None of which is of

any value for the direct market farmer.

Yes, the rules that are being proposed are a good idea for any producer

that is doing third party sales, regardless of the size of the farm. As

you said before, not all small farms are good. We do not want the bill

stopped, just corrected.

The real problem with the bill is that it applies to everyone. Direct

marketing should be the exception. Direct market customers have the

right of inspection themselves, and generally use it. For those who

want to do their own inspections, this is a great way to get really

healthy food and no one in this market, customers or growers want the

government in the middle. Any direct marketer that does not allow

basically on demand inspections is quickly out of business.

Transparency in farming practices is demanded by most customers.

For example: my customers know exactly what goes on, exactly how we do

things. If they have questions, they show up when we are doing various

jobs and either watch and/or help. Most consider the farm, their farm.

No one wants to pay the additional costs for something that there is

absolutely no need for.

The farmers that are screaming are the direct market farmers.

Exemptions are needed as the business models do not work with government

regulations and interference. This type of business is not a threat to

the public at large, we do not sell through stores, or we would no

longer be direct marketers.

Bright Blessings,

Garth & Kim

www.TheRoseColoredForest.com

Bedias, Texas

936-395-0110

On 9/2/2010 11:38 PM, JoeCastron wrote:

>

>

> We need some expertise here.

>

> What we are seeing are lots of 'charges' that we need help in

> determining their validity. I have been reading a 'Summary' of S.510 but

> recognize a summary is just that and not the full text.

>

> I was Fortunate in that sent me a full page about the 'bad' in the

> bill but a bit more pointed information is needed above the possible

> 'stretches' it contained. I also went to a video on line and really got

> turned off because there was little on could hang their hat on.

>

> I did read a lot of things that interested me that I would like to see

> implemented and I also saw a lot of things that some would wonder about

> but which are routine in large organizations that put together 'Plans'.

> Planning has become an art in itself and people make careers out of

> using a lot of words to say a little.

>

> We know We The People need to be vigilant but before I jump onboard and

> condemn this in its entirety, those that are vehemently opposed to S.510

> need to put something in a concise format that can be explored to

> determine if the fears are 'real' or a 'stretch'.

>

> For example the headline on one opposition piece I read attempted to

> lead us to the conclusion the 'Egg Fiasco' and S.510 are somehow

> connected. It implied a 'Conspiracy'. I think it a stretch. However, if

> there is some evidence to come to this conclusion, fire away and show us.

>

> Most of what I read does not reach the heights warranting fear but that

> may be because I only read a portion of the summary. I suggest more read

> the summary and see if there are some areas that seem to be of value and

> then, perhaps, when the opponents of this bill provide us with an

> accurate and detailed expose` of S.510 we can either help kill it or

> have it changed to suit our needs. I am just not sure the current laws

> on the books are adequate to accomplish what some say they can. One

> thing I can surely agree with is, The Department of Agriculture is very

> understaffed....and probably underfunded. Summary:

> http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-510 & tab=summary

> <http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-510 & tab=summary>

>

> Joe C.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Your response makes sense but I see the problem is going to be no easy job

getting the bill 'changed' to make it effective while bringing relief where

needed.

What is especially noteworthy is your not using some of the 'scare tactics'

that others have used and which might 'turn off' good people trying to do a

good job. If ever accuracy is needed, it is needed when we are trying to

enlist the masses..........no easy chore.

People may wonder why so much dialogue on one issue however the more

examined, the more they will realize the subject applies to all people.

Your posts have been more educational than some that have no impact other

than to raise issues that have no place on the list. While there may be an

attempt to exert more 'control' for reasons beyond protecting the masses,

the entire bill, as you point out, is not bad. I see some application to

imported food that I would like to see enforced. We are partly to blame

for buying imported food and other products because of the price difference.

Haven't we all seen the masses entering Big Box Stores?

It is unfortunate that not all people can be trusted and the 'Free Market'

does not always result in the 'best' for the masses. Because people cannot

be trusted, government is necessary and is the price we pay for

Civilization. Without it, there would be anarchy and only the strong would

survive. Look at free market at work in the Insurance Industry (my

industry) No, don't look at it........it will spoil your day.

Let us work hard to get the bill changed where change is needed. Let us

not attack for the sake of attacking because it is politically expedient.

If some of those on-line sites have an impact, it will be to further

segregate us into the " nut-case " set. We need Consumer Reports to

understand the issues we are concerned about not blast them for being

Co-Conspirators. They are not. Only people that pick apart one issue and

do not know their work might think that but the overall picture puts them in

our camp, not that of big business.

Now let's get to work but no 'jumping off cliffs' or we'll only get hurt.

Joe C.

Joe C.

--------------------------------------------------

From: " Garth & Kim " .

> Greetings,

>

> Any kind of required certification for most small farmers, that costs

> money will put the business on a bankruptcy footing. Considering that

> it costs more to grow produce than walmart sells for, additional costs

> of any sort are a disaster. For those who grow food, not commodities

> there are no subsidies. It is not a level playing field to start with.

> The farmers will have to pay for the inspections, the additional

> paperwork also costs major time, which is money. None of which is of

> any value for the direct market farmer.

>

> Yes, the rules that are being proposed are a good idea for any producer

> that is doing third party sales, regardless of the size of the farm. As

> you said before, not all small farms are good. We do not want the bill

> stopped, just corrected.

>

> The real problem with the bill is that it applies to everyone. Direct

> marketing should be the exception. Direct market customers have the

> right of inspection themselves, and generally use it. For those who

> want to do their own inspections, this is a great way to get really

> healthy food and no one in this market, customers or growers want the

> government in the middle.