Bill outlawing ORGANIC farming !!!!

[w***@gmail.com]

House and Senate are about (in a week and a half) to vote on bill
that will OUTLAW ORGANIC FARMING (bill HR 875). There is an enormous
rush to get this into law within the next 2 weeks before people
realize what is happening.
Main backer and lobbyist is Monsanto  - chemical and genetic
engineering giant corporation (and Cargill, ADM, and about 35 other
related agri-giants). This bill will require organic farms to use
specific fertilizers and poisonous insect sprays dictated by the newly
formed agency to "make sure there is no danger to the public food
supply". This will include backyard gardens that grow food only for a
family and not for sales.
If this passes then NO more heirloom clean seeds but only Monsanto
genetically altered seeds that are now showing up with unexpected
diseases in humans.
There ar videos on the subject.
http://www.7gen.com/blog/20090311/25491-food-safety

The name on this outrageous food plan is Food Safety Modernization Act
of 2009 (bill HR 875).
THIS IS REAL, FOLKS! PASS THIS ALONG TO ALL CONCERNED ON YOUR MAILING
LISTS & CALL YOUR SENATE REPRESENTETIVES TODAY! Get on that phone and
burn up the wires. Get anyone else you can to do the same thing. The
House and Senate WILL pass this if they are not massively threatened
with loss of their position.... They only fear your voice and your
vote.
To address the Hous, the best thing to do is go towww.house.gov/writerep
<http://www.house.gov/writerep>  all you have to do is put in your zip and
it will give you your congressperson and how to get in touch with them.
When you call their office someone will
answer the phone, just tell them (politely) that you are calling to express
your views on HR 875.  Tell them your views, they'll take your name and
address and pass your comments along to the congressperson.
For the senate, the following linkhttp://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfmis a list
of the U.S. senators and their contact info.
--
--
+
Pucker your lips for the Apocalypse!
Johnny Asia, Guitarist from the Future
http://johnnyasia.com
-

FYI

Walt

[Jim Elbrecht]

House and Senate are about (in a week and a half) to vote on bill
that will OUTLAW ORGANIC FARMING (bill HR 875). There is an enormous
rush to get this into law within the next 2 weeks before people
realize what is happening.

-snip-

FYI

And for yours. . . Here's what Monasanto says;
http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto_today/for_the_record/hr875_monsanto_dream_bill.asp

and here's the bill if you care to read it and [God forbid] form your
own opinion on its worthiness or aim-
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-875

Jim

[Elmo]

Post by Jim Elbrecht

House and Senate are about (in a week and a half) to vote on bill
that will OUTLAW ORGANIC FARMING (bill HR 875). There is an enormous
rush to get this into law within the next 2 weeks before people
realize what is happening.

-snip-

FYI

And for yours. . . Here's what Monasanto says;
http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto_today/for_the_record/hr875_monsanto_dream_bill.asp
and here's the bill if you care to read it and [God forbid] form your
own opinion on its worthiness or aim-
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-875
Jim

Nothing like a few facts to puncture a perfectly useful conspiracy
theory. Not that it will have any effect on the junk thinking
crowd.

I am a bit concerned by the way that the term "organic" has been
redefined in the process of making a USDA definition. I'm lucky
to know the head of a certification organization who is also
a licensed, non-practicing attorney. It has helped me to navigate
through the minefields known as grocery stores. I'm also lucky
to live in a place where I can get a lot of what I can't grow from
people I trust. That's the real benefit of buying local.

[Peter Huebner]

Post by Elmo
Nothing like a few facts to puncture a perfectly useful conspiracy
theory. Not that it will have any effect on the junk thinking
crowd.

<chuckles> I have yet to meet a conspiracy theory fan who lets his/her
thinking be disturbed by mere facts.

-P.

[Doug.Chadduck]

Post by Peter Huebner

Post by Elmo
Nothing like a few facts to puncture a perfectly useful conspiracy
theory. Not that it will have any effect on the junk thinking
crowd.

<chuckles> I have yet to meet a conspiracy theory fan who lets his/her
thinking be disturbed by mere facts.
-P.

Facts? We don't need no stinkin' facts!

[Ann]

Post by Doug.Chadduck

Post by Peter Huebner

Post by Elmo
Nothing like a few facts to puncture a perfectly useful conspiracy
theory. Not that it will have any effect on the junk thinking crowd.

<chuckles> I have yet to meet a conspiracy theory fan who lets his/her
thinking be disturbed by mere facts.
-P.

Facts? We don't need no stinkin' facts!

Another factor is that the more effective way to rally supporters is to
be against, rather than for, something. Also much simpler to say "NO!"
than to offer a solution.

With some people, it's a matter of rhetoric, not principle. They're OK
with "socialism" (or whatever) when they are the beneficiaries.

[Larry Caldwell]

Post by Jim Elbrecht

House and Senate are about (in a week and a half) to vote on bill
that will OUTLAW ORGANIC FARMING (bill HR 875). There is an enormous
rush to get this into law within the next 2 weeks before people
realize what is happening.

-snip-

FYI

And for yours. . . Here's what Monasanto says;
http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto_today/for_the_record/hr875_monsanto_dream_bill.asp
and here's the bill if you care to read it and [God forbid] form your
own opinion on its worthiness or aim-
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-875

I don't see anything about organic farming in the bill, but it would be
a horrible blow to local food production of all kinds. It would create
a black market in local foods. I certainly don't want my local produce
stand to have to register with the feds. I can see how the vegetables
are produced, and go pick them myself if I want. I don't see why they
need to be inspected quarterly, or why they need to produce a bunch of
paperwork for the federal bureaucracy. It would apparently make it
illegal for me to buy honey from a local bee keeper unless he got
permission from the feds first to sell honey.

This bill is certainly worth opposing on its own merits.

[Ann]

(Jim Elbrecht) says...

Post by Jim Elbrecht

House and Senate are about (in a week and a half) to vote on bill
that will OUTLAW ORGANIC FARMING (bill HR 875). There is an enormous
rush to get this into law within the next 2 weeks before people
realize what is happening.

-snip-

FYI

And for yours. . . Here's what Monasanto says;
http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto_today/for_the_record/hr875_monsanto_dream_bill.asp
and here's the bill if you care to read it and [God forbid] form your
own opinion on its worthiness or aim-
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-875

I don't see anything about organic farming in the bill, but it would be a
horrible blow to local food production of all kinds. It would create a
black market in local foods. I certainly don't want my local produce
stand to have to register with the feds.

Unless your local produce stand is involved in interstate commerce, it
wouldn't have to register. That is, assuming they aren't passing off some
California produce as "local". I live close to the state line and there
is one seasonal produce stand that sells NY-grown produce in PA. Even if
they did have to go online and provide some minimal registration
information and perhaps be subject to an annual inspection (Category 5),
how would that put them out of business? Restaurants manage to do
business in spite of being required to register and be inspected.

I can see how the vegetables are
produced, and go pick them myself if I want. I don't see why they need to
be inspected quarterly, or why they need to produce a bunch of paperwork
for the federal bureaucracy. It would apparently make it illegal for me
to buy honey from a local bee keeper unless he got permission from the
feds first to sell honey.

Not unless he is selling you repackaged Chinese (or other "imported")
honey. Also, the cite for your claim that 875 would require an end user
to confirm that the seller is registered?

This bill is certainly worth opposing on its own merits.

So in spite of the peanut debacle you think that the present system is
adequate?

[Jim Elbrecht]

Ann <***@epix.net> wrote:

-snip-

Post by Ann
So in spite of the peanut debacle you think that the present system is
adequate?

My opinion- and open to change- is that there were plenty of laws
already on the books that would have shut them down. The failure
on the gov't's part [and apparently all the big businesses other than
Nestle who was burned badly a year ago] was lack of inspection.

That's a budget problem, not a 'we need more regulation' problem.

Jim

[Ann]

Post by Jim Elbrecht
-snip-

Post by Ann
So in spite of the peanut debacle you think that the present system is
adequate?

My opinion- and open to change- is that there were plenty of laws
already on the books that would have shut them down. The failure on
the gov't's part [and apparently all the big businesses other than
Nestle who was burned badly a year ago] was lack of inspection.
That's a budget problem, not a 'we need more regulation' problem.
Jim\

My impression from browsing the bill and from what I've read about the
peanut mess is that the bill's primary objective is to get the system
organized and working. Required records aren't being kept, inspections
aren't being done, and there is minimal communication among the states.

---------------
"Investigators Find Source of Many Foods Untraceable

Most food 7 manufacturers and distributors cannot identify the suppliers
or recipients of their products despite federal rules that require them to
do so, federal health investigators have found.

A quarter of the food facilities contacted by investigators as part of the
study were not even aware that they were supposed to be able to trace
their suppliers, according to a report by Daniel R. Levinson, the
inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services.

The report, expected to be made public Thursday, comes as President Obama
and a bipartisan chorus of lawmakers have promised major changes to the
nation’s food-safety system. ..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/26/health/policy/26fda.html

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

[Grizzly]

Post by Jim Elbrecht
-snip-

Post by Ann
So in spite of the peanut debacle you think that the present system is
adequate?

My opinion- and open to change- is that there were plenty of laws
already on the books that would have shut them down. The failure
on the gov't's part [and apparently all the big businesses other than
Nestle who was burned badly a year ago] was lack of inspection.
That's a budget problem, not a 'we need more regulation' problem.
Jim

Yes and most food borne illness isn't caused by contamination on the
farm, it is in the processing plants which have gone largely under
inspected over the past eight years. Big facilities can spread illness
far and wide because they ship their products all over the USA. Some of
the slaughter houses which are supposed to have a veterinarian on site
every day and a meat inspector on line to inspect the carcasses for
contamination have gone months without having anyone on line but the
employees who process the animals.. If they did their job there a lot
fewer problems would occur.
Shipping food in from foreign countries has also caused its share of
problems. DDT is still used on fruits and veggies in south and central
America and Tyson Perdue wants to set up factory farms in China, not so
much to supply the Chinese, but for export to the USA. If Avian
influenza hits us in Pandemic form it will either be deliberately caused
by our government dispersing a bio weapon on us, or through the import
of cheap Chinese produced poultry. In general locally grown foods are
safer and cleaner.

[Terri]

Post by Grizzly
Shipping food in from foreign countries has also caused its share of
problems. DDT is still used on fruits and veggies in south and central
America

I feel an odd sense of hope, knowing that you realize this.
:)
Waaaayyyy back in my college days I did a huge research project on
that. The bizarre part to me was how many people had no idea and content
to be blissfully unaware despite the fact it was during the day of
the big 1984 Union Carbide spill and all of this *suff came out then.
Fast foward to all of the people who managed to forget and act all
surprised during the big Alar scare.


Since then they've coined a word for these people: NIMBYs.
And, since then, I've become far more picky in wanting to know
where my food comes from. [Could someone please tell me why
in the hell anyone needs to import babyfood formula from cows in China??]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal


In general locally grown foods are

Post by Grizzly
safer and cleaner.

Yup.
* Many chemicals we've deemed to be unsafe and environmentally
unsound enough to ban in the USA were simply shifted to other
countries for continued production, and that production has
never stopped.

And virtually everything we buy now is made somewhere other
than in the USA. For fun sometime I invite people to go on
little shopping trip [without spending money] to see if they
can find a child's board game or a pair of shoes that carry
the words "Made in USA".

Then go and look at the manufacturing label on all of those Easter candies
that come out every year around this time.

[Elmo]

Post by Terri

Post by Grizzly
Shipping food in from foreign countries has also caused its share of
problems. DDT is still used on fruits and veggies in south and central
America

I feel an odd sense of hope, knowing that you realize this.
:)
Waaaayyyy back in my college days I did a huge research project on
that. The bizarre part to me was how many people had no idea and content
to be blissfully unaware despite the fact it was during the day of
the big 1984 Union Carbide spill and all of this *suff came out then.
Fast foward to all of the people who managed to forget and act all
surprised during the big Alar scare.
Since then they've coined a word for these people: NIMBYs.
And, since then, I've become far more picky in wanting to know
where my food comes from. [Could someone please tell me why
in the hell anyone needs to import babyfood formula from cows in China??]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal

Because the ingredients (which don't need to be inspected) are
cheaper, the labor is cheaper, and the packaging is cheaper.
All of which adds up to more profit. I'm pretty sure that
neither of our kids ever got formula -- we tossed the samples
that came with the "new baby" package of Pampers, Enfamil, etc.
that we were given upon discharge from the hospital. I was
appalled when a cow-orker told me that she wouldn't think of
breastfeeding because she didn't want to "deface" her body.

Post by Terri
In general locally grown foods are

Post by Grizzly
safer and cleaner.

Yup.
* Many chemicals we've deemed to be unsafe and environmentally
unsound enough to ban in the USA were simply shifted to other
countries for continued production, and that production has
never stopped.
And virtually everything we buy now is made somewhere other
than in the USA. For fun sometime I invite people to go on
little shopping trip [without spending money] to see if they
can find a child's board game or a pair of shoes that carry
the words "Made in USA".
Then go and look at the manufacturing label on all of those Easter candies
that come out every year around this time.

[Terri]

Post by Elmo

Post by Terri
Since then they've coined a word for these people: NIMBYs.
And, since then, I've become far more picky in wanting to know
where my food comes from. [Could someone please tell me why
in the hell anyone needs to import babyfood formula from cows in
China??] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal

Because the ingredients (which don't need to be inspected) are
cheaper, the labor is cheaper, and the packaging is cheaper.
All of which adds up to more profit.

IOW=Corporate greed

I was

Post by Elmo
appalled when a cow-orker told me that she wouldn't think of
breastfeeding because she didn't want to "deface" her body.

<sputter>

What??

Jeebus.

[Larry Caldwell]

Post by Jim Elbrecht
-snip-

Post by Ann
So in spite of the peanut debacle you think that the present system is
adequate?

My opinion- and open to change- is that there were plenty of laws
already on the books that would have shut them down. The failure
on the gov't's part [and apparently all the big businesses other than
Nestle who was burned badly a year ago] was lack of inspection.
That's a budget problem, not a 'we need more regulation' problem.

The bill actually has some good features, like consolidating all the
food regulations enforced by the USDA, FDA, ICC, etc. into one agency.
However, the peanut thing was caused by the plant falsifying test
results. Food safety has to be on the honor system. There will never
be enough inspectors to look at every food source and processing plant.

Sometimes all the inspection in the world won't tell you there's a
problem. The e-coli outbreak in 2006 was finally traced to baby spinach
packed on a single day, from a single field. It took them six months to
trace the source back, and they never did figure out how the spinach got
contaminated. In 2008, the whole country spent months avoiding tomatoes
because of a salmonella outbreak, then found out the problem never was
tomatoes, it was jalopeños; a single shipment imported by a single
importer in Texas. Once again, they never found the source of the
contamination. It took them 3 months to track that one down. And of
course, there is the idiocy of recalling hamburger contaminated with e
coli or salmonella. If someone is stupid enough to eat uncooked
hamburger, they deserve to get sick. All you have to do to make
hamburger safe to eat is cook it until the juices run clear.

These infections are only dangerous to people with impaired immune
systems. They should have access to irradiated food. The rest of us
can get along fine on the same old standards that have been in place
since the 1950s.

[Larry Caldwell]

Post by Jim Elbrecht
-snip-

Post by Ann
So in spite of the peanut debacle you think that the present system is
adequate?

My opinion- and open to change- is that there were plenty of laws
already on the books that would have shut them down. The failure
on the gov't's part [and apparently all the big businesses other than
Nestle who was burned badly a year ago] was lack of inspection.
That's a budget problem, not a 'we need more regulation' problem.

I received a response from my representative, Peter DeFazio, one of the
co-sponsors of the bill:

"I am certainly mindful of the impact on small farmers this bill could
have. My district is home to many wonderful specialty crops with small-
scale producers, and I have been a backyard gardener for years. Routine
inspections of farms would still remain under the jurisdiction of
states. FDA officials will not be showing up on farms to inspect it on a
regular basis. There is no language in the bill that would penalize or
shut down backyard farmers.

"In 1990 I succeeded in passing the Organic Food Product Act in the
House of Representatives, which established the original organics
standards and the National Organics Program. I have always supported
organic issues, and I will make certain there are no unintended
consequences that will impinge on organic producers or any small farm
should this bill move forward. The National Organic Program is under the
jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, while the Food
Safety Modernization Act only addressed food safety issues under the
jurisdiction of the FDA.

"I do believe this bill can be improved by addressing concerns
surrounding the broad definition of food production facilities currently
included in the bill. As stated, food production facilities are defined
as "any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or
confined animal-feeding operation". While I support the larger concepts
of this bill, this definition could be clearer and more concise. I have
reached out to the author of the legislation to push for a better
definition, and I am hopeful that as the bill moves through committee
this definition will be revised."

[Larry Caldwell]

In article <***@epix.net>, ***@epix.net
(Ann) says...

Post by Ann
Unless your local produce stand is involved in interstate commerce, it
wouldn't have to register.

Where does it say that? As far as I can tell, a local produce stand is
a Category 4 Food Establishment, and would be required to register and
provide quarterly reports. So would the bee keeper next door.

[Ann]

Post by Larry Caldwell
(Ann) says...

Post by Ann
Unless your local produce stand is involved in interstate commerce, it
wouldn't have to register.

Where does it say that?

Interstate commerce is mentioned in the beginning and the definitions,
then in the Title IV--Enforcement section.

-----------

SEC. 401. PROHIBITED ACTS.

It is prohibited--

(1) to manufacture, introduce, deliver for introduction, or receive in
interstate commerce any food that is adulterated, misbranded, or otherwise
unsafe;

(2) to adulterate or misbrand any food in interstate commerce; <...>

SEC. 403. NOTIFICATION AND RECALL.

(a) Notice to Administrator of Violation-

(1) IN GENERAL- A person that has reason to believe that any food
introduced into or in interstate commerce, or held for sale (whether or
not the first sale) after shipment in interstate commerce, may be in
violation of the food safety law shall immediately notify the
Administrator of the identity and location of the food. ...

(b) Recall and Consumer Notification-

(1) VOLUNTARY ACTIONS- If the Administrator determines that food is in
violation of the food safety law when introduced into or while in
interstate commerce or while held for sale (whether or not the first sale)
after shipment in interstate commerce and that there is a reasonable
probability that the food, if consumed, would present a threat to public
health ... <...>

SEC. 406. PRESUMPTION.

In any action to enforce the requirements of the food safety law, the
connection with interstate commerce required for jurisdiction shall be
presumed to exist.

-----------

Post by Larry Caldwell
As far as I can tell, a local produce stand is a
Category 4 Food Establishment, and would be required to register and
provide quarterly reports. So would the bee keeper next door.

Actually, neither is a "Food Establishment". They are "Food Production
Facilities" (and/or retail outlets) - so they don't fall in any Category.

----------

Section 3 - Definitions

(13) FOOD ESTABLISHMENT-
(A) IN GENERAL- The term `food establishment' means a slaughterhouse
(except those regulated under the Federal Meat Inspection Act or the
Poultry Products Inspection Act), factory, warehouse, or 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.

(B) EXCLUSIONS- For the purposes of registration, the term `food
establishment' does not include a food production facility as defined in
paragraph (14), restaurant, other retail food establishment, nonprofit
food establishment in which food is prepared for or served directly to
the consumer, or fishing vessel (other than a fishing vessel engaged in
processing, as that term is defined in section 123.3 of title 21, Code of
Federal Regulations).

(14) FOOD PRODUCTION FACILITY- The term `food production facility' means
any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined
animal-feeding operation.

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

[Grizzly]

Post by Ann

Post by Larry Caldwell
(Ann) says...

Post by Ann
Unless your local produce stand is involved in interstate commerce, it
wouldn't have to register.

Where does it say that?

Interstate commerce is mentioned in the beginning and the definitions,
then in the Title IV--Enforcement section.
-----------
SEC. 401. PROHIBITED ACTS.
It is prohibited--
(1) to manufacture, introduce, deliver for introduction, or receive in
interstate commerce any food that is adulterated, misbranded, or otherwise
unsafe;
(2) to adulterate or misbrand any food in interstate commerce; <...>
SEC. 403. NOTIFICATION AND RECALL.
(a) Notice to Administrator of Violation-
(1) IN GENERAL- A person that has reason to believe that any food
introduced into or in interstate commerce, or held for sale (whether or
not the first sale) after shipment in interstate commerce, may be in
violation of the food safety law shall immediately notify the
Administrator of the identity and location of the food. ...
(b) Recall and Consumer Notification-
(1) VOLUNTARY ACTIONS- If the Administrator determines that food is in
violation of the food safety law when introduced into or while in
interstate commerce or while held for sale (whether or not the first sale)
after shipment in interstate commerce and that there is a reasonable
probability that the food, if consumed, would present a threat to public
health ... <...>
SEC. 406. PRESUMPTION.
In any action to enforce the requirements of the food safety law, the
connection with interstate commerce required for jurisdiction shall be
presumed to exist.
-----------

Post by Larry Caldwell
As far as I can tell, a local produce stand is a
Category 4 Food Establishment, and would be required to register and
provide quarterly reports. So would the bee keeper next door.

Actually, neither is a "Food Establishment". They are "Food Production
Facilities" (and/or retail outlets) - so they don't fall in any Category.
----------
Section 3 - Definitions
(13) FOOD ESTABLISHMENT-
(A) IN GENERAL- The term `food establishment' means a slaughterhouse
(except those regulated under the Federal Meat Inspection Act or the
Poultry Products Inspection Act), factory, warehouse, or 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.
(B) EXCLUSIONS- For the purposes of registration, the term `food
establishment' does not include a food production facility as defined in
paragraph (14), restaurant, other retail food establishment, nonprofit
food establishment in which food is prepared for or served directly to
the consumer, or fishing vessel (other than a fishing vessel engaged in
processing, as that term is defined in section 123.3 of title 21, Code of
Federal Regulations).
(14) FOOD PRODUCTION FACILITY- The term `food production facility' means
any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined
animal-feeding operation.
-------------

Interstate commerce is so loosely defined that -Any- food product that
could possibly be purchased and carried by the buyer to another state
and sold or given away could be classed as that. Would that happen?
Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps they would just selectively try to make
examples of one or two independent farmers here and there to make the
rest toe the line.. If your neighbor has his entire harvest and property
seized and sold by the "government" for violations that might be
incentive to get out of business or fall in line with the rules and
regulations.. It is currently being done in Wisconsin with some Amish
farms in the central part of the state who are standing against the
"mandatory" NAIS regulations forcing premises registration. The proposed
jail terms involved are up to 10 yrs. The fines run half a million..how
many farmers can withstand that type of assault..?

[Ann]

Post by Grizzly

Post by Ann

Post by Larry Caldwell
(Ann) says...

Post by Ann
Unless your local produce stand is involved in interstate commerce, it
wouldn't have to register.

Where does it say that?

Interstate commerce is mentioned in the beginning and the definitions,
then in the Title IV--Enforcement section.
-----------
SEC. 401. PROHIBITED ACTS.
It is prohibited--
(1) to manufacture, introduce, deliver for introduction, or receive in
interstate commerce any food that is adulterated, misbranded, or
otherwise unsafe;
(2) to adulterate or misbrand any food in interstate commerce; <...>
SEC. 403. NOTIFICATION AND RECALL.
(a) Notice to Administrator of Violation-
(1) IN GENERAL- A person that has reason to believe that any food
introduced into or in interstate commerce, or held for sale (whether or
not the first sale) after shipment in interstate commerce, may be in
violation of the food safety law shall immediately notify the
Administrator of the identity and location of the food. ...
(b) Recall and Consumer Notification-
(1) VOLUNTARY ACTIONS- If the Administrator determines that food is in
violation of the food safety law when introduced into or while in
interstate commerce or while held for sale (whether or not the first
sale) after shipment in interstate commerce and that there is a
reasonable probability that the food, if consumed, would present a
threat to public health ... <...>
SEC. 406. PRESUMPTION.
In any action to enforce the requirements of the food safety law, the
connection with interstate commerce required for jurisdiction shall be
presumed to exist.
-----------

Post by Larry Caldwell
As far as I can tell, a local produce stand is a
Category 4 Food Establishment, and would be required to register and
provide quarterly reports. So would the bee keeper next door.

Actually, neither is a "Food Establishment". They are "Food Production
Facilities" (and/or retail outlets) - so they don't fall in any Category.
----------
Section 3 - Definitions
(13) FOOD ESTABLISHMENT-
(A) IN GENERAL- The term `food establishment' means a slaughterhouse
(except those regulated under the Federal Meat Inspection Act or the
Poultry Products Inspection Act), factory, warehouse, or 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.
(B) EXCLUSIONS- For the purposes of registration, the term `food
establishment' does not include a food production facility as defined
in paragraph (14), restaurant, other retail food establishment,
nonprofit food establishment in which food is prepared for or served
directly to the consumer, or fishing vessel (other than a fishing
vessel engaged in processing, as that term is defined in section 123.3
of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations).
(14) FOOD PRODUCTION FACILITY- The term `food production facility' means
any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined
animal-feeding operation.
-------------

Interstate commerce is so loosely defined that -Any- food product that
could possibly be purchased and carried by the buyer to another state and
sold or given away could be classed as that. Would that happen? Maybe,
maybe not. Perhaps they would just selectively try to make examples of one
or two independent farmers here and there to make the rest toe the line..
If your neighbor has his entire harvest and property seized and sold by
the "government" for violations that might be incentive to get out of
business or fall in line with the rules and regulations.. It is currently
being done in Wisconsin with some Amish farms in the central part of the
state who are standing against the "mandatory" NAIS regulations forcing
premises registration. The proposed jail terms involved are up to 10 yrs.
The fines run half a million..how many farmers can withstand that type of
assault..?

What rules and regulations? R&Rs for Food Production Facilities haven't
been written yet.

The premises registration in Wisconsin is a state requirement, not
federal. Since Wisconsin requires a license to operate a dairy farm
anyway, why are the Amish willing to do that, but not premises
registration? (One of the requirement for the license application is that
it include the information required for premises registration.)

[Grizzly]

Post by Ann

Post by Larry Caldwell
(Ann) says...

Post by Ann
Unless your local produce stand is involved in interstate commerce, it
wouldn't have to register.

Where does it say that?

Interstate commerce is mentioned in the beginning and the definitions,
then in the Title IV--Enforcement section.
-----------
SEC. 401. PROHIBITED ACTS.
It is prohibited--
(1) to manufacture, introduce, deliver for introduction, or receive in
interstate commerce any food that is adulterated, misbranded, or otherwise
unsafe;
(2) to adulterate or misbrand any food in interstate commerce; <...>
SEC. 403. NOTIFICATION AND RECALL.
(a) Notice to Administrator of Violation-
(1) IN GENERAL- A person that has reason to believe that any food
introduced into or in interstate commerce, or held for sale (whether or
not the first sale) after shipment in interstate commerce, may be in
violation of the food safety law shall immediately notify the
Administrator of the identity and location of the food. ...
(b) Recall and Consumer Notification-
(1) VOLUNTARY ACTIONS- If the Administrator determines that food is in
violation of the food safety law when introduced into or while in
interstate commerce or while held for sale (whether or not the first sale)
after shipment in interstate commerce and that there is a reasonable
probability that the food, if consumed, would present a threat to public
health ... <...>
SEC. 406. PRESUMPTION.
In any action to enforce the requirements of the food safety law, the
connection with interstate commerce required for jurisdiction shall be
presumed to exist.
-----------

Post by Larry Caldwell
As far as I can tell, a local produce stand is a
Category 4 Food Establishment, and would be required to register and
provide quarterly reports. So would the bee keeper next door.

Actually, neither is a "Food Establishment". They are "Food Production
Facilities" (and/or retail outlets) - so they don't fall in any Category.
----------
Section 3 - Definitions
(13) FOOD ESTABLISHMENT-
(A) IN GENERAL- The term `food establishment' means a slaughterhouse
(except those regulated under the Federal Meat Inspection Act or the
Poultry Products Inspection Act), factory, warehouse, or 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.
(B) EXCLUSIONS- For the purposes of registration, the term `food
establishment' does not include a food production facility as defined in
paragraph (14), restaurant, other retail food establishment, nonprofit
food establishment in which food is prepared for or served directly to
the consumer, or fishing vessel (other than a fishing vessel engaged in
processing, as that term is defined in section 123.3 of title 21, Code of
Federal Regulations).
(14) FOOD PRODUCTION FACILITY- The term `food production facility' means
any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined
animal-feeding operation.
-------------

Actually food production facilities under the regulations proposed would
have to report and produce a "plan" to avoid contamination by both wild
animals and livestock waste (organic fertilizer ). They would have to
provide traceback information. What this is really about is a land grab
in the instance of the NAIS program and an effort to make sure everybody
declares any income they might garner from their produce or their animal
operations.. Plus it changes property to "premises" in the case of NAIS
and calls the owners of the property (both land and animals)
stakeholders, not owners. If you look up the definitions these are
words which abrogate the legal ownership of property and give your
rights away to the government once you sign on. Your property becomes a
"premises" upon which the government may trespass without a warrant or
due process. Your livestock become part of the "national herd" and you
are an endentured servant or serf of the federal government. The
animals and crops are all subject to seizure by the government with
fines to be levied should a "problem" occur.. I'm not paranoid even
without these laws in effect the USDA has gone in and depopulated
people's livestock in several states and recently in Ohio they seized
the entire food holdings/ inventory as well as the personal food stock
of a natural foods COOP and the family operating it for allegedly
selling an undercover agent some locally grown non USDA inspected beef..
They took over $10000 worth of food from this family and left them
without a means of survival..

[Ann]

Post by Grizzly

Post by Ann

Post by Larry Caldwell
(Ann) says...

Post by Ann
Unless your local produce stand is involved in interstate commerce, it
wouldn't have to register.

Where does it say that?

Interstate commerce is mentioned in the beginning and the definitions,
then in the Title IV--Enforcement section.
-----------
SEC. 401. PROHIBITED ACTS.
It is prohibited--
(1) to manufacture, introduce, deliver for introduction, or receive in
interstate commerce any food that is adulterated, misbranded, or
otherwise unsafe;
(2) to adulterate or misbrand any food in interstate commerce; <...>
SEC. 403. NOTIFICATION AND RECALL.
(a) Notice to Administrator of Violation-
(1) IN GENERAL- A person that has reason to believe that any food
introduced into or in interstate commerce, or held for sale (whether or
not the first sale) after shipment in interstate commerce, may be in
violation of the food safety law shall immediately notify the
Administrator of the identity and location of the food. ...
(b) Recall and Consumer Notification-
(1) VOLUNTARY ACTIONS- If the Administrator determines that food is in
violation of the food safety law when introduced into or while in
interstate commerce or while held for sale (whether or not the first
sale) after shipment in interstate commerce and that there is a
reasonable probability that the food, if consumed, would present a
threat to public health ... <...>
SEC. 406. PRESUMPTION.
In any action to enforce the requirements of the food safety law, the
connection with interstate commerce required for jurisdiction shall be
presumed to exist.
-----------

Post by Larry Caldwell
As far as I can tell, a local produce stand is a
Category 4 Food Establishment, and would be required to register and
provide quarterly reports. So would the bee keeper next door.

Actually, neither is a "Food Establishment". They are "Food Production
Facilities" (and/or retail outlets) - so they don't fall in any Category.
----------
Section 3 - Definitions
(13) FOOD ESTABLISHMENT-
(A) IN GENERAL- The term `food establishment' means a slaughterhouse
(except those regulated under the Federal Meat Inspection Act or the
Poultry Products Inspection Act), factory, warehouse, or 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.
(B) EXCLUSIONS- For the purposes of registration, the term `food
establishment' does not include a food production facility as defined
in paragraph (14), restaurant, other retail food establishment,
nonprofit food establishment in which food is prepared for or served
directly to the consumer, or fishing vessel (other than a fishing
vessel engaged in processing, as that term is defined in section 123.3
of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations).
(14) FOOD PRODUCTION FACILITY- The term `food production facility' means
any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined
animal-feeding operation.
-------------

Actually food production facilities under the regulations proposed would
have to report and produce a "plan" to avoid contamination by both wild
animals and livestock waste (organic fertilizer ). They would have to
provide traceback information. What this is really about is a land grab in
the instance of the NAIS program and an effort to make sure everybody
declares any income they might garner from their produce or their animal
operations.. Plus it changes property to "premises" in the case of NAIS
and calls the owners of the property (both land and animals) stakeholders,
not owners. If you look up the definitions these are words which abrogate
the legal ownership of property and give your rights away to the
government once you sign on. Your property becomes a
"premises" upon which the government may trespass without a warrant or
due process. Your livestock become part of the "national herd" and you
are an endentured servant or serf of the federal government. The animals
and crops are all subject to seizure by the government with fines to be
levied should a "problem" occur.. I'm not paranoid even without these laws
in effect the USDA has gone in and depopulated people's livestock in
several states and recently in Ohio they seized the entire food holdings/
inventory as well as the personal food stock of a natural foods COOP and
the family operating it for allegedly selling an undercover agent some
locally grown non USDA inspected beef.. They took over $10000 worth of
food from this family and left them without a means of survival..

Those (206) are a "wish list" of general objectives.

---------

SEC. 206. FOOD PRODUCTION FACILITIES

(c) Regulations- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of
Agriculture and representatives of State departments of agriculture, shall
promulgate regulations to establish science-based minimum standards for
the safe production of food by food production facilities. Such
regulations shall ....

[and]

(f) Enforcement- The Administrator may coordinate with the agency or
department designated by the Governor of each State to perform activities
to ensure compliance with this section.

-----------

I interpret that to mean that the sponsors of the legislation recognize a
hot potato when they see one and they're kicking it down the road. That
is, their priority is food processing and distribution inspection and
traceability.

Post by Grizzly
I'm not paranoid even without these laws
in effect the USDA has gone in and depopulated people's livestock in
several states and recently in Ohio they seized the entire food holdings/
inventory as well as the personal food stock of a natural foods COOP and
the family operating it for allegedly selling an undercover agent some
locally grown non USDA inspected beef.. They took over $10000 worth of
food from this family and left them without a means of survival..

The raid on the Manna Storehouse in LaGrange, OH certainly was an example
of government gone berserk ... but the USDA had nothing to do with it.
The initial visit to the co-op was by the local health district sanitarian
and two inspectors on 11/30/2007. There was a question of whether the
co-op required a license and the sanitarian forwarded the information to
the county prosecutor. Then, in Nov 2008, an Ohio Dept. of Agriculture
enforcement agent visited and the Stowers "reluctantly" gave him a dozen
EGGS (not beef), which he offered to pay for. On 12/1/2008, said Ohio DOA
agent returned with about a dozen assorted officers of the law and
conducted the search and seizure. All that for a possible charge by the
county of "operating a retail food establishment without a license, a
misdemeanor." As of last Tuesday, the food was being held by the health
district to prevent it from being sold; they claim it failed their
inspection.

Articles from the Morning Journal, a local Ohio newspaper:

"Local food cooperative searched by state"
http://www.morningjournal.com/articles/2008/12/03/news/mj309059.txt

"Duo suing over armed raid: Experience 'traumatic' for Manna Storehouse
owners"
http://www.morningjournal.com/articles/2008/12/18/news/mj365952.txt

"Boose intervenes on behalf of food co-op"
http://www.morningjournal.com/articles/2009/03/24/news/mj795853.txt

[Doug.Chadduck]

Post by Ann

Post by Larry Caldwell
(Ann) says...

Post by Ann
Unless your local produce stand is involved in interstate commerce, it
wouldn't have to register.

Where does it say that?

Interstate commerce is mentioned in the beginning and the definitions,
then in the Title IV--Enforcement section.
-----------

BIG SNIP

Kinda off topic but on

If I remember any part of the 70s correctly, doesn't the federal
government claim they can make and enforce pot laws because it comes
under "interstate commerce" reasoning? And they are in charge of that.
So even the hypothetical pot my neighbor could grow and sell me would
come under federal control.

[Ann]

Post by Doug.Chadduck

Post by Ann

Post by Larry Caldwell
(Ann) says...

Post by Ann
Unless your local produce stand is involved in interstate commerce, it
wouldn't have to register.

Where does it say that?

Interstate commerce is mentioned in the beginning and the definitions,
then in the Title IV--Enforcement section.
-----------

BIG SNIP
Kinda off topic but on
If I remember any part of the 70s correctly, doesn't the federal
government claim they can make and enforce pot laws because it comes under
"interstate commerce" reasoning? And they are in charge of that. So even
the hypothetical pot my neighbor could grow and sell me would come under
federal control.

I don't know, but Google does:

"controlled substances act" 1970 "interstate commerce" "supreme court"

[BR]

Post by Doug.Chadduck

Post by Ann

Post by Larry Caldwell
(Ann) says...

Post by Ann
Unless your local produce stand is involved in interstate commerce, it
wouldn't have to register.

Where does it say that?

Interstate commerce is mentioned in the beginning and the definitions,
then in the Title IV--Enforcement section.
-----------

BIG SNIP
Kinda off topic but on
If I remember any part of the 70s correctly, doesn't the federal
government claim they can make and enforce pot laws because it comes
under "interstate commerce" reasoning? And they are in charge of that.
So even the hypothetical pot my neighbor could grow and sell me would
come under federal control.

The interstate commerce clause has been used, or I should say abused, to
have more federal government intervention.

But what if the pot never leaves the state it was grown in?

[Doug.Chadduck]

Post by BR

Post by Doug.Chadduck

Post by Ann

Post by Larry Caldwell
(Ann) says...

Post by Ann
Unless your local produce stand is involved in interstate commerce, it
wouldn't have to register.

Where does it say that?

Interstate commerce is mentioned in the beginning and the definitions,
then in the Title IV--Enforcement section.
-----------

BIG SNIP
Kinda off topic but on
If I remember any part of the 70s correctly, doesn't the federal
government claim they can make and enforce pot laws because it comes
under "interstate commerce" reasoning? And they are in charge of that.
So even the hypothetical pot my neighbor could grow and sell me would
come under federal control.

The interstate commerce clause has been used, or I should say abused, to
have more federal government intervention.
But what if the pot never leaves the state it was grown in?

Details? We don't need no stinkin' details!

Accepted legal interpretations, standards, decisions etc have left that
possible battle/question way far behind long long ago.

They just classed it same as Heroin etc so it doesn't make any
difference whether you transport it or not.

Reality is, they can do anything they want. Bush/Cheney proved that.
Laws? We don't need to heed no stinkin' laws!

But, thankfully, it's sounding like the new kids on the block may have a
more realistic outlook on the whole overall subject.

We can hope.

[Ann]

Post by Doug.Chadduck

Post by BR

Post by Doug.Chadduck

Post by Ann

Post by Larry Caldwell
(Ann) says...

Post by Ann
Unless your local produce stand is involved in interstate commerce,
it wouldn't have to register.

Where does it say that?

Interstate commerce is mentioned in the beginning and the definitions,
then in the Title IV--Enforcement section. -----------

BIG SNIP
Kinda off topic but on
If I remember any part of the 70s correctly, doesn't the federal
government claim they can make and enforce pot laws because it comes
under "interstate commerce" reasoning? And they are in charge of that.
So even the hypothetical pot my neighbor could grow and sell me would
come under federal control.

The interstate commerce clause has been used, or I should say abused, to
have more federal government intervention.
But what if the pot never leaves the state it was grown in?

Details? We don't need no stinkin' details!
Accepted legal interpretations, standards, decisions etc have left that
possible battle/question way far behind long long ago.
They just classed it same as Heroin etc so it doesn't make any difference
whether you transport it or not.
Reality is, they can do anything they want. Bush/Cheney proved that. Laws?
We don't need to heed no stinkin' laws!
But, thankfully, it's sounding like the new kids on the block may have a
more realistic outlook on the whole overall subject.
We can hope.

Supposedly the new federal policy with medical marijuana will be that if
the state legalizes it, the feds will stay hands-off.

[Day Brown]

Post by Ann

Post by Doug.Chadduck
But, thankfully, it's sounding like the new kids on the block may have a
more realistic outlook on the whole overall subject.
We can hope.

Supposedly the new federal policy with medical marijuana will be that if
the state legalizes it, the feds will stay hands-off.

What they HAVE is a variety of dwarf lines you can order seeds for
from Amsterdam. Both medicinal and recreational varieties. Either way,
its so small, mostly under 75cm tall, that aerial surveillance wont
work. Developed for hydroponics, it needs less light, and does well
under the forest canopy, so it dont matter how low and slow they fly,
they still cant see it.

Its a real nightmare for rural landowners. These lines are so vigorous
they can be sown throwing seed out the window driving by, and because
they dont stick up over the fence, the land owner wont know they are
there until the cops arrive to bust him and seize his land.

I've emailed realtors about this because when LEO seizes the land, they
sell it ASAP, unwilling to wait for a good price, and driving down all
other prices in the area.

And whoever buys the land needs to be assiduous because it reseeds
itself, and then that landowner will be busted. Its a terrific cash cow
for lawyers.

[Dean Hoffman]

Post by BR

Post by Doug.Chadduck

Post by Ann

Post by Larry Caldwell
(Ann) says...

Post by Ann
Unless your local produce stand is involved in interstate commerce, it
wouldn't have to register.

Where does it say that?

Interstate commerce is mentioned in the beginning and the definitions,
then in the Title IV--Enforcement section.
-----------

BIG SNIP
Kinda off topic but on
If I remember any part of the 70s correctly, doesn't the federal
government claim they can make and enforce pot laws because it comes
under "interstate commerce" reasoning? And they are in charge of that.
So even the hypothetical pot my neighbor could grow and sell me would
come under federal control.

The interstate commerce clause has been used, or I should say abused, to
have more federal government intervention.
But what if the pot never leaves the state it was grown in?

That apparently doesn't matter according to the U.S. Supreme
Court:
http://tinyurl.com/cg8cmo

[Don Bruder]

Post by BR

Post by Doug.Chadduck

Post by Ann

Post by Larry Caldwell
(Ann) says...

Post by Ann
Unless your local produce stand is involved in interstate commerce, it
wouldn't have to register.

Where does it say that?

Interstate commerce is mentioned in the beginning and the definitions,
then in the Title IV--Enforcement section.
-----------

BIG SNIP
Kinda off topic but on
If I remember any part of the 70s correctly, doesn't the federal
government claim they can make and enforce pot laws because it comes
under "interstate commerce" reasoning? And they are in charge of that.
So even the hypothetical pot my neighbor could grow and sell me would
come under federal control.

The interstate commerce clause has been used, or I should say abused, to
have more federal government intervention.
But what if the pot never leaves the state it was grown in?

Hell, what if it never leaves the *PROPERTY* it's grown on? (I'm
thinking about the average pothead who would almost certainly grow half
a dozen or a dozen plants in the back yard - or maybe even in the living
room - with the vast majority, if not all, of the product never crossing
a property line. Let alone a state line!)

[Larry Caldwell]

In article <***@epix.net>, ***@epix.net
(Ann) says...

Post by Ann

Post by Larry Caldwell
(Ann) says...

Post by Ann
Unless your local produce stand is involved in interstate commerce, it
wouldn't have to register.

Where does it say that?

Interstate commerce is mentioned in the beginning and the definitions,
then in the Title IV--Enforcement section.
-----------
SEC. 401. PROHIBITED ACTS.
It is prohibited--
(1) to manufacture, introduce, deliver for introduction, or receive in
interstate commerce any food that is adulterated, misbranded, or otherwise
unsafe;
(2) to adulterate or misbrand any food in interstate commerce; <...>

You didn't read far enough.

(3) for a food establishment or foreign food establishment to fail to
register under section 202, or to operate without a valid registration;

Post by Ann
SEC. 403. NOTIFICATION AND RECALL.
(a) Notice to Administrator of Violation-
(1) IN GENERAL- A person that has reason to believe that any food
introduced into or in interstate commerce, or held for sale (whether or
not the first sale) after shipment in interstate commerce, may be in
violation of the food safety law shall immediately notify the
Administrator of the identity and location of the food. ...
(b) Recall and Consumer Notification-
(1) VOLUNTARY ACTIONS- If the Administrator determines that food is in
violation of the food safety law when introduced into or while in
interstate commerce or while held for sale (whether or not the first sale)
after shipment in interstate commerce and that there is a reasonable
probability that the food, if consumed, would present a threat to public
health ... <...>
SEC. 406. PRESUMPTION.
In any action to enforce the requirements of the food safety law, the
connection with interstate commerce required for jurisdiction shall be
presumed to exist.
-----------

Post by Larry Caldwell
As far as I can tell, a local produce stand is a
Category 4 Food Establishment, and would be required to register and
provide quarterly reports. So would the bee keeper next door.

Actually, neither is a "Food Establishment". They are "Food Production
Facilities" (and/or retail outlets) - so they don't fall in any Category.

(7) CATEGORY 3 FOOD ESTABLISHMENT- The term ‘category 3 food
establishment’ means a food establishment (other than a category 1 or
category 2 establishment) that processes cooked, pasteurized, or
otherwise ready-to-eat seafood or other animal products, fresh produce
in ready-to-eat raw form, or other products that pose a risk of
hazardous contamination.

(8) CATEGORY 4 FOOD ESTABLISHMENT- The term ‘category 4 food
establishment’ means a food establishment that processes all other
categories of food products not described in paragraphs (5) through (7).

(9) CATEGORY 5 FOOD ESTABLISHMENT- The term ‘category 5 food
establishment’ means a food establishment that stores, holds, or
transports food products prior to delivery for retail sale.

Post by Ann
----------
Section 3 - Definitions
(13) FOOD ESTABLISHMENT-
(A) IN GENERAL- The term `food establishment' means a slaughterhouse
(except those regulated under the Federal Meat Inspection Act or the
Poultry Products Inspection Act), factory, warehouse, or 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.
(B) EXCLUSIONS- For the purposes of registration, the term `food
establishment' does not include a food production facility as defined in
paragraph (14), restaurant, other retail food establishment, nonprofit
food establishment in which food is prepared for or served directly to
the consumer, or fishing vessel (other than a fishing vessel engaged in
processing, as that term is defined in section 123.3 of title 21, Code of
Federal Regulations).
(14) FOOD PRODUCTION FACILITY- The term `food production facility' means
any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined
animal-feeding operation.

Farm produce stands typically process a variety of foods, including
syrups, jellies, pies, salsa, candies, etc. They get inspected by my
county health department, and are required to have a certified
commercial kitchen. I think you are being pretty oblivious if you think
the feds would give them a blanket exemption under this act.

[Ann]

Post by Larry Caldwell
(Ann) says...

Post by Ann

Post by Larry Caldwell
(Ann) says...

Post by Ann
Unless your local produce stand is involved in interstate commerce,
it wouldn't have to register.

Where does it say that?

Interstate commerce is mentioned in the beginning and the definitions,
then in the Title IV--Enforcement section.
-----------
SEC. 401. PROHIBITED ACTS.
It is prohibited--
(1) to manufacture, introduce, deliver for introduction, or receive in
interstate commerce any food that is adulterated, misbranded, or
otherwise unsafe;
(2) to adulterate or misbrand any food in interstate commerce; <...>

You didn't read far enough.
(3) for a food establishment or foreign food establishment to fail to
register under section 202, or to operate without a valid registration;

No, you didn't read far enough (in my previous post). A food production
facility is not a food establishment.

<...>

Post by Larry Caldwell

Post by Ann
Section 3 - Definitions
(13) FOOD ESTABLISHMENT-
(A) IN GENERAL- The term `food establishment' means a slaughterhouse
(except those regulated under the Federal Meat Inspection Act or the
Poultry Products Inspection Act), factory, warehouse, or 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.
(B) EXCLUSIONS- For the purposes of registration, the term `food
establishment' does not include a food production facility as defined
in paragraph (14), restaurant, other retail food establishment,
nonprofit food establishment in which food is prepared for or served
directly to the consumer, or fishing vessel (other than a fishing
vessel engaged in processing, as that term is defined in section 123.3
of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations).
(14) FOOD PRODUCTION FACILITY- The term `food production facility' means
any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined
animal-feeding operation.

Farm produce stands typically process a variety of foods, including
syrups, jellies, pies, salsa, candies, etc. They get inspected by my
county health department, and are required to have a certified commercial
kitchen. I think you are being pretty oblivious if you think the feds
would give them a blanket exemption under this act.

It doesn't say "blanket exemption". It says "EXCLUSIONS- For the purposes
of registration ..."

[Larry Caldwell]

Post by Larry Caldwell
I certainly don't want my local produce
stand to have to register with the feds.

I wrote a letter to my congressman this morning saying exactly this.