S. 510, passed the senate (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Termyn8or -> S. 510, passed the senate (12/15/2010 11:01:57 PM)

It  basically is an attempt to put the whole food industry under controls like the drug industry Not in prescribing, but in production. At least that's how it looks to me. In it :

"Amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) to expand the authority of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to inspect records related to food"

The summary is here :

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

Notice sections 306 and 309. While those are repugnant enough, there also have to be some exclusions. We all know that when we go to an open market we don't know exactly what happened to the vegetables before we bought them. And it is an unreasonable intrusion possibly upon people who deal mainly privately, like raw milk dealers who have had to go underground. However these things rarely travel across state lines and should not be affected by federal law, but that is not the case anymore.

This bill, without the provision of having FDA offices across the globe, is not all that repugnant if it applies to mass food production. However the proper exclusions need to be added. Otherwise if I were to trade my neighbor a bag of tomatoes for a couple of CDs, we would be required to fill out so much paperwork it's ridiculous. It seems to attack the problem like 2257, totally ineffective and unenforcable, but detrimental to some here in this country. Those that the senate is supposed to represent.

T



DomKen -> RE: S. 510, passed the senate (12/16/2010 6:28:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
Otherwise if I were to trade my neighbor a bag of tomatoes for a couple of CDs, we would be required to fill out so much paperwork it's ridiculous.

Only if you didn't grow the tomatoes. Read the law. It is a good law and will have no significant negative impact.



KenDckey -> RE: S. 510, passed the senate (12/16/2010 6:32:28 AM)

I have a problem with section 112 where you have to start turning your kids medical records over and make them public documents.  



DomKen -> RE: S. 510, passed the senate (12/16/2010 6:48:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

I have a problem with section 112 where you have to start turning your kids medical records over and make them public documents.  

id you read section 112? It requires no such thing.

Section 112 is about controlling life threatening allergy attacks in school. Do you think a child with powerful food or environmental allegies should keep it secret from his school teachers?



KenDckey -> RE: S. 510, passed the senate (12/16/2010 7:30:02 AM)

The requirement is for documentation.   Documentation to me means proof.   Proof comes from Doctors.   Doctors therefore must release medical information, even if it is that the child has a problem that is covered.   No option for the parent.   Proof does not consist of a parent saying so.  



DomKen -> RE: S. 510, passed the senate (12/16/2010 9:19:30 AM)

Here's the section:
quote:

Requires the Secretary to develop and make available to local educational agencies, schools, early childhood education programs, and interested entities and individuals guidelines for developing plans for individuals to manage the risk of food allergy and anaphylaxis in schools and early childhood education programs, to be implemented on a voluntary basis. Sets forth issues for such guidelines to address, including: (1) parental obligation to provide documentation of their child's food allergy; (2) the creation of an individual plan for food allergy management; (3) communication strategies between schools or childhood education programs and providers of emergency medical services; and (4) strategies to reduce the risk of exposure to anaphylactic causative agents in classrooms and common school or early childhood education program areas, such as cafeterias. Allows the Secretary to award matching grants to assist local educational agencies in implementing such food allergy and anaphylaxis management guidelines.

It says the government will develop and make available a plan(s) for dealing with allergic children. There is no mandate that a school use such a plan. Although why you wouldn'twant to let your child's school know about the child's life threatening allergy is beyond me.



KenDckey -> RE: S. 510, passed the senate (12/16/2010 9:57:34 AM)

Where it says   and individual is where it gets to the parents.   Then it kicks in that a parental note isn't enough   That is where I intrepret that you have to have medical records to prove it.



Lucylastic -> RE: S. 510, passed the senate (12/16/2010 10:01:29 AM)

mmmm I bet you are the kind of parent who would sue the school if your kid took a bite of someones peanut cookie tho 



KenDckey -> RE: S. 510, passed the senate (12/16/2010 11:02:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

mmmm I bet you are the kind of parent who would sue the school if your kid took a bite of someones peanut cookie tho 


Are you saying by this comment that you believe that medical records should be made a matter for anyone to look at?   That is what it appears to me.    And no   I have never sued anyone.   Get serious here.  



Lucylastic -> RE: S. 510, passed the senate (12/16/2010 11:32:15 AM)

life stopping allergies  should be known by the school yes
absolutely

you need to provide proof of vaccinations etc to get into school also of any other rmedical issues, medications being prescribed
yes absolutely if the school is responsible for my childs care during the hours of school, I have to give them the correct information otherwise I am endangering my child.

but then im a socialist commie
[8|]




LadyPact -> RE: S. 510, passed the senate (12/16/2010 11:53:43 AM)

I highly doubt it's a case of medical records that are available for anyone to look at.  It's probably very much the same thing as any medical instruction, restriction, or limitation.  The same as when a child brings a note to school saying that they can not take PE class for a week because of an injury.  They don't send the whole file.  Just the pertinent information.

Schools absolutely need to be aware of food allergies.  I have one Myself  and have to use caution any time that I eat out.  Of course, I am a responsible grown up and have the maturity to pass on the things that I can't have.  When we're talking about kids eating in a cafeteria, that's not always the case.



DomKen -> RE: S. 510, passed the senate (12/16/2010 12:29:23 PM)

Can you imagine a school allowing a child without a known to them serious allergy bring an epi pen to school? Most schools have serious policies forbidding weapons which I'm sure an auto injector qualifies as.



LadyPact -> RE: S. 510, passed the senate (12/16/2010 1:52:31 PM)

I never had to carry one.  I'm sure it would be the same as any other medication that is dispensed during school hours.  It's at the nurses station, brought in by the parents along with the information on the medication that the pharmacy provides.  I'd have to think it would go the same way as the standard procedure for those children who are epileptic and need to have insulin on school grounds should a seizure occur.

As to the dietary side, this might be a case of making more of it than the situation requires.  Most schools provide a selection of choices and the only time there was much of an issue for Me was if the main entree was spaghetti or some type of Mexican food.  (My particular allergy is to onion.)  All it ever amounted to for Me was a gentle reminder to take the other option for that day.



Knightwalker -> RE: S. 510, passed the senate (12/16/2010 1:59:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

Where it says   and individual is where it gets to the parents.   Then it kicks in that a parental note isn't enough   That is where I intrepret that you have to have medical records to prove it.


It says "obligation to provide documentation of their child's food allergy." Nowhere does it say anything about a mandatory release of full medical records. It limits its verbiage to the food allergy only -- which is exactly what the schools need to know so the child doesn't die because they accidentally got hold of something they're allergic to.

Any other assumption is simply reading too much into the text as its written.



Termyn8or -> RE: S. 510, passed the senate (12/17/2010 4:14:58 AM)

Knight, the problem is the non-issue. Commercial food producers are greedy. The FDA has to require that mineral supplements be given to cattle for example. Actually they didn't but the producers have to. They asked to stop giving the supplemments for a time before slaughter, just to save a dollar or so per carcass. The FDA in that case did it's job and said no. They must give the supplements to ensure good growth, therefore weight, and they are paid by the pound, not the nutritional value. But they reasoned that in the final stages of growth, the livestock would not benefit IN WEIGHT by continuing the supplements that were required for their growth.

The exclusions must be clear. The exclusions should apply to small farms who wish to sell raw milk. This is a Constitutional right as it is necessary to be nourished to live, and therefore comes under the right to life. People who grow gardens do so to get better vegetables and fruit. I remember going to pick your own places with cherry trees, whatever. This law has already shut down a couple of them in anticipation of it's implementation.

They want every fucking tomato under their jurisdiction. There are already all kinds of regulations in place when it comes to mass production.

We grew tomatoes here years ago. Not alot of land but it was that good black dirt, and I mean black. Had gardens for about three years and the results were fantastic. People who sold tomatoes came to get our's. Then the yields decreased and we got tired of it anyway. The grass growed over that spot and it didn't even get mowed for seven years. Then it was viable then for at least a year. The next year we didn't have the time to maintain it so we didn't do it.

I don't see where a reasonable assumed exclusion can be made for a grower rather than a distributor, so that would mean that I need a soil analysis, history of whatever may have happened to the dirt and who knows what else. That's how it seems to read and that is not even the point. They are going to fuck up on the enforcement. We will still have poisons in our food and if you try to grow your own they could concievably bury you in paperwork. That is how the big boys take and keep control. You think they care about us ? Hello, this is Earth.

Someone with money was the impetus for this, because the system does not work without money. Whoever put up that money did it on the hopes of making more money. Who might that be ? You think the half a fucking million regulations on manufacturing a car are for our own good ? Hell no, they are to limit the competition.

Get it ?

T



DomYngBlk -> RE: S. 510, passed the senate (12/17/2010 5:38:05 AM)

Man, are you stoned when you write this stuff? No manufacturer of any car has ever been for any regulation on the manufacture or use of said car. Same for food. Big Food producers hate regulation as much as big auto manufacturers. I don't get your reasoning at al.



TreasureKY -> RE: S. 510, passed the senate (12/17/2010 5:51:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

It  basically is an attempt to put the whole food industry under controls like the drug industry Not in prescribing, but in production. At least that's how it looks to me. In it :

"Amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) to expand the authority of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to inspect records related to food"

The summary is here :

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

Notice sections 306 and 309. While those are repugnant enough, there also have to be some exclusions. We all know that when we go to an open market we don't know exactly what happened to the vegetables before we bought them. And it is an unreasonable intrusion possibly upon people who deal mainly privately, like raw milk dealers who have had to go underground. However these things rarely travel across state lines and should not be affected by federal law, but that is not the case anymore.

This bill, without the provision of having FDA offices across the globe, is not all that repugnant if it applies to mass food production. However the proper exclusions need to be added. Otherwise if I were to trade my neighbor a bag of tomatoes for a couple of CDs, we would be required to fill out so much paperwork it's ridiculous. It seems to attack the problem like 2257, totally ineffective and unenforcable, but detrimental to some here in this country. Those that the senate is supposed to represent.

T


Re-posted from this thread almost a month ago...

... this bill is an amendment to the existing Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. 

Glancing through the bill, I don't find where the scope of who is impacted will be broadened.  Several parts specify that only facilities required to register under 21 USC 350d will be affected.  From that regulation...

"The term `facility' includes any factory, warehouse, or establishment (including a factory, warehouse, or establishment of an importer) that manufactures, processes, packs, or holds food. Such term does not include farms; restaurants; other retail food establishments; nonprofit food establishments in which food is prepared for or served directly to the consumer; or fishing vessels (except such vessels engaged in processing as defined in section 123.3(k) of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations)."

Please note the portions I've highlighted above. 

I think most people who have a home garden would fall under the "nonprofit food establishments in which food is prepared for or served directly to the consumer".

You can find a copy of the bill here, and you can follow along with the proposed changes here. 



Musicmystery -> RE: S. 510, passed the senate (12/17/2010 7:30:55 AM)

quote:

if you try to grow your own they could concievably bury you in paperwork


No--only if you decided to then sell it.



DMFParadox -> RE: S. 510, passed the senate (12/17/2010 9:48:43 AM)

I read the thing. 2 notes:

1)The current version seems to have most of the worst crap edited out. Also, they specifically exclude farms and restaurants; it only applies to distribution/manufacturing 'middlemen'.

2) It seems to be a minor amendment to an already existing bill, which contained the bulk of the legislation already and has been around for a long time. The amendments seem to mostly clarify language.

In sum, it looked like ok lawmaking to me. Anyone want to point out specific details that aren't? (from the actual bill,not from some hysterical 3rd party website plz okthxbai)

Edit: fuck, TreasureKY beat me to the punch and did a better job of it. So, this post is now +1 tky.



Termyn8or -> RE: S. 510, passed the senate (12/17/2010 3:14:08 PM)

"No manufacturer of any car has ever been for any regulation "

Then it would follow that drug manufacturers would not be for drug regulations. If you look at the resumes' of those who write the regulations, you will find what seems to be quite the conflict of interest. So would they go against their own best interest ?

I could build a car. I assure you I could do it, but....... it would not meet the "standards" without spending more money than it is worth. Pollution is one thing, but they want so many of the model crashed to see how bad people get hurt when they forget how to drive.

Like drug manufacturers can sell a drug that is dangerous (note the lawsuits), car manufacturers can use braking systems more suited to motorcycles.

In lobbyland (Washington DC) those tough regulations are generally passed if and when they can be met cost effectively.

If anyone gave a shit about this, new drugs wouldn't be on the market until the owners of the company tried them. Automobile safety and crumple zones my ass, if they gave a shit there would be a walled bike path to prevent injuries to bicycle riders. Motorcycles as well as trucks would have their own dedicated lanes.

And what of pedestrians ?

As a result of current "wisdom" there are class action lawsuits all over the place, while people die waiting for a new drug to be approved and the cost of new cars is ridiculous. I don't mean in dollars so much as what your getting. You get about a hundred bucks worth of steel covered up with junk, and an operating system that makes any version of Windows look like Nirvana.

Most don't share my level of cynicism, but oh well.

T



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875