Food safety ?

Food safety ? (Full Version)

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

Message

Termyn8or -> Food safety ? (11/24/2011 2:05:28 PM)
All these regulations for food safety and it doesn't work, or does it ? If I choose to take the risk of drinking lemonade from some kid's stand in the summer, I guess I need to be protected from myself. If I want raw milk I have to buy it like a bag of weed, even farmers can't just sell it to me. Oh in some states they can, but only for my pets. Does that make it illegal for me to drink it ? It must right ? So then those old people living on cat food must starve to death - by law. Go ahead and kill the messnger but : http://americanfreepress.net/?p=1470 is a story about the Bledsoes, a couple who farm organically and were to have a big feast. It was public knowledge that all the food was grown on their farm and some on a couple of others, all organically I presume. As if that matters. A petty harrassment officer was sent to protect and serve, and ordered them to destroy all the food. "Mrs. Bledsoe then informed the inspector: “We have a big family gathering tomorrow. Can I at least save it for that?” Ms. Oaks said that would not be acceptable. Mrs. Bledsoe then told Ms. Oaks that their farm was fully sustainable and that everything they didn’t use would be fed to their animals or added to the compost pile. “At least let me feed it to my pigs,” she implored. Ms. Oaks made a phone call to her supervisor, but again the answer was, “No.”" That is from the AFP article on the story and it is shorter than this other one. http://www.farmtoconsumer.org/quail-hollow-farm-dinner.htm Inspector Oaks apparently did finally bring in the cops, but it didn't quite go her way. The cops refused to issue a citation, asking exactly on what law would it be based. The Bledsoes I think asked that as well and I don't think there will be further problems. This because the next time the inspector will be asked to produce a warrant or leave the property. What does this mean to me ? I am not a farmer. It means to me that people have been cowed. Sheeplised. I would never have even thought of a permit they made her get. I would say "I don't need a permit". If they could prove by law that I needed one the event would have been over by the time they did it. I can't believe what people have become. I remember keg parties, you chip in and there could be 100 people there. Same way with pig roasts. The pig was running around a few hours ago, there is no USDA stamp on it. Those regulations are indeed there to serve and protect. Just not us. T^T

tazzygirl -> RE: Food safety ? (11/24/2011 2:08:13 PM)
quote: If I want raw milk I have to buy it like a bag of weed, even farmers can't just sell it to me. Oh in some states they can, but only for my pets. Does that make it illegal for me to drink it ? It must right ? So then those old people living on cat food kust starve to death - by law. I thought they could give it away, they just couldnt sell it. Not sure what the difference is though.

Ishtarr -> RE: Food safety ? (11/24/2011 2:16:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: If I want raw milk I have to buy it like a bag of weed, even farmers can't just sell it to me. Oh in some states they can, but only for my pets. Does that make it illegal for me to drink it ? It must right ? So then those old people living on cat food kust starve to death - by law. I thought they could give it away, they just couldnt sell it. Not sure what the difference is though. They can't. It's been ruled not to long ago that Americans aren't even legally entitled to grow food for their own consumption if it doesn't follow the standards the government has set. Having a cow in your own backyard and milking it for your own consumption can get you arrested and prosecuted -at least in WI. quote: "(1) no, plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to own and use a dairy cow or a diary (sic) herd; "(2) no, plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow; "(3) no, plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to board their cow at the farm of a farmer; "(4) no, the Zinniker plaintiffs' private contract does not fall outside the scope of the state's police power; "(5) no, plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice; and http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=352249#ixzz1efCpFt6Q

Termyn8or -> RE: Food safety ? (11/24/2011 2:56:56 PM)
Hmmm, WI has alot of commercial farms doesn't it ? I don't think that's a coincidence. http://www.farmtoconsumer.org/ is the URL for a group who doesn't like this shit either, right on their homepage there is a map showing the status of the "legality" of raw milk sales. From your link : "The attorneys conceded that states ordinarily are expected to regulate intrastate activity but noted, "it is within HHS's authority … to institute an intrastate ban as well." Natural News reported the ban could be seen as violating the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which leaves to states all powers not specifically designated in the Constitution for the federal body. " I don't want this to sound pessimistic, but do you really think state "courts" are going act more responsibly with regard to the Constitution ? I doubt it. We need another gun control debate. Nothing is going to stop them from takng it all. T^T

DomKen -> RE: Food safety ? (11/24/2011 3:42:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: If I want raw milk I have to buy it like a bag of weed, even farmers can't just sell it to me. Oh in some states they can, but only for my pets. Does that make it illegal for me to drink it ? It must right ? So then those old people living on cat food kust starve to death - by law. I thought they could give it away, they just couldnt sell it. Not sure what the difference is though. They can't. It's been ruled not to long ago that Americans aren't even legally entitled to grow food for their own consumption if it doesn't follow the standards the government has set. Having a cow in your own backyard and milking it for your own consumption can get you arrested and prosecuted -at least in WI. quote: "(1) no, plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to own and use a dairy cow or a diary (sic) herd; "(2) no, plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow; "(3) no, plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to board their cow at the farm of a farmer; "(4) no, the Zinniker plaintiffs' private contract does not fall outside the scope of the state's police power; "(5) no, plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice; and http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=352249#ixzz1efCpFt6Q You belived the wingnutdaily? The case in question was a scam to get around the laws forbidding the sale of raw milk. The so called owners were in reality simply paying a dairy farmer for the milk and claiming it was a boarding fee for their own cattle. The law has been quite clear for a long time. If it's your farm and you produce food on it for your own consumption the state and the feds does not get involved. However if you try and sell your products then you have to meet the requirements of food safety and purity put forth by teh state and the feds. This is part and parcel of the incredibly ignorant raw milk movement that won't go away until the next time some kids die from drinking raw milk.

Termyn8or -> RE: Food safety ? (11/24/2011 3:52:46 PM)
How did I know you were going to write something like that ? No matter what it is you are in favor of the rules and regulations. Leave the people alone dammit. If a few die so what ? Hospitals kill hundreds of thousands a year. The only reason that's OK is because they're paying fucking retail for the priveledge of dying. The government can do no wrong according to you and rights mean nothing. You should use that as a sigline, or maybe make a poster saying that and use it for a photo. I really can't recall the last time you came down on the side of the People. T^T

Ishtarr -> RE: Food safety ? (11/24/2011 4:08:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The law has been quite clear for a long time. If it's your farm and you produce food on it for your own consumption the state and the feds does not get involved. However if you try and sell your products then you have to meet the requirements of food safety and purity put forth by teh state and the feds. If that's the case, then why was it explicitly ruled that the plaintiffs -the FARMERS- weren't allowed to use the milk for their OWN consumption. The judge literally told them that they -or anybody else- where not allowed to grow and raise food for they OWN consumption if it didn't comply with the laws for food meant for consumers. The original judgment can be read in full here: http://www.thecompletepatient.com/storage/WIorder-clarification9-11.pdf

Termyn8or -> RE: Food safety ? (11/24/2011 4:33:59 PM)
""(4) no, the Zinniker plaintiffs' private contract does not fall outside the scope of the state's police power" They worded that wrong, it should be "police state's power". T^T

Ishtarr -> RE: Food safety ? (11/24/2011 4:35:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or ""(4) no, the Zinniker plaintiffs' private contract does not fall outside the scope of the state's police power" They worded that wrong, it should be "police state's power". T^T I always read it like that when I read that section.

DomKen -> RE: Food safety ? (11/24/2011 5:35:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The law has been quite clear for a long time. If it's your farm and you produce food on it for your own consumption the state and the feds does not get involved. However if you try and sell your products then you have to meet the requirements of food safety and purity put forth by teh state and the feds. If that's the case, then why was it explicitly ruled that the plaintiffs -the FARMERS- weren't allowed to use the milk for their OWN consumption. The judge literally told them that they -or anybody else- where not allowed to grow and raise food for they OWN consumption if it didn't comply with the laws for food meant for consumers. The original judgment can be read in full here: http://www.thecompletepatient.com/storage/WIorder-clarification9-11.pdf Because the farmers were selling raw milk and trying to claim they were simply boarding and milking cows that belonged to the people who were buying the milk. It was a scam.

Ishtarr -> RE: Food safety ? (11/24/2011 5:39:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The law has been quite clear for a long time. If it's your farm and you produce food on it for your own consumption the state and the feds does not get involved. However if you try and sell your products then you have to meet the requirements of food safety and purity put forth by teh state and the feds. If that's the case, then why was it explicitly ruled that the plaintiffs -the FARMERS- weren't allowed to use the milk for their OWN consumption. The judge literally told them that they -or anybody else- where not allowed to grow and raise food for they OWN consumption if it didn't comply with the laws for food meant for consumers. The original judgment can be read in full here: http://www.thecompletepatient.com/storage/WIorder-clarification9-11.pdf Because the farmers were selling raw milk and trying to claim they were simply boarding and milking cows that belonged to the people who were buying the milk. It was a scam. Yes, that explains why they're not allowed to sell to those people anymore... However, it does not explain why they where told that they do not have the right to CONSUME the foods of their own choice, or produce those foods for their OWN consumption.

Termyn8or -> RE: Food safety ? (11/24/2011 6:10:26 PM)
quote: It was a scam. Sure was, it took precious money out of the pockets of big agra. That's the definition of a scam ? What, do they all have to go feed their own cow then ? Would it still be a scam if they did the milking themselves as well ? Don't board your pets when you go on vacation. So if it's right for the court to rule wrongly that it's a scam, what about the part about keeping a cow on your own and using the milk yourself ? How is that a scam ? You don't seem to see the pattern here. They want ALL the money. Someone has to lose money for something to be a scam, at least that's how it used to be. Who loses money ? That will tell you who is behind all these stupid, unconstitutional laws. T^T

gungadin09 -> RE: Food safety ? (11/24/2011 6:31:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or If I want raw milk I have to buy it like a bag of weed, even farmers can't just sell it to me. Oh in some states they can, but only for my pets. Does that make it illegal for me to drink it ?... It depends, the laws vary by state. In California, it's legal to sell unpasteurized milk for human consumption, although it must have a warning label. i think in most states it's legal to serve your own household the ungraded, uninspected food from your own private garden or from your own private livestock. But i believe all food sold, given away to the public, or commercially produced for public consumption is subject to restrictions, and that's where the Bledsoe's got in trouble. Their event was open to the public, and they were serving food from a commercial farm, and NOT serving a family dinner made from produce grown in their backyard garden. Thus the food safety laws applied, and the Bledsoes couldn't prove their food met any safety standards. What does this mean to me ? I am not a farmer. It means to me that people have been cowed. Sheeplised. I would never have even thought of a permit they made her get. I would say "I don't need a permit". If they could prove by law that I needed one the event would have been over by the time they did it. It was illegal for the Bledsoe's to try and serve ungraded food to the public. Their ignorance of the law does not excuse them. However, the government had no authority to act without a warrant, and the Bledsoe's, at that point, could have told them to get lost. The fact that they DIDN'T is partially their own fault. However, if i were them, i would be filing a lawsuit against law enforcement for their improper actions. I can't believe what people have become. I remember keg parties, you chip in and there could be 100 people there. Same way with pig roasts. The pig was running around a few hours ago, there is no USDA stamp on it. I think the government displayed a disgusting double standard here. Restaurants operate under exactly the same laws, and i have yet to see the health department walk in to any restaurant and subject their food to the same level of scrutiny, or expect them to prove the origen of each cut tomato. pam

JstAnotherSub -> RE: Food safety ? (11/24/2011 6:39:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gungadin09 I think the government displayed a disgusting double standard here. Restaurants operate under exactly the same laws, and i have yet to see the health department walk in to any restaurant and subject their food to the same level of scrutiny, or expect them to prove the origin of each cut tomato. pam In a way we do have to account for where every tomato comes from. It is all by using HACCP trained suppliers. I would love it if I could go to Kroger and get berries when they are on sale or something like that, but there has to be an invoice showing that everything comes from an approved source. I'm a cafeteria manager for a school, but, since the Serv Safe requirements became nationwide, I believe it is the same across the board for any food services operation. ETA Let those government agents try to come get the fresh maters my neighbor gives me every year. Only when they pry em from my cold dead fingers! Gawd they are delicious!

tazzygirl -> RE: Food safety ? (11/24/2011 6:47:26 PM)
http://www.realmilk.com/milk-laws-5.html Seems, according to this site, that there are some states where selling raw milk is legal.

Termyn8or -> RE: Food safety ? (11/24/2011 6:49:10 PM)
FR They say an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, but what we're getting is a ton of prevention and a gram of cure, if that. T^T

gungadin09 -> RE: Food safety ? (11/24/2011 6:59:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr However, it does not explain why they where told that they do not have the right to CONSUME the foods of their own choice, or produce those foods for their OWN consumption. I haven't read the whole ruling yet, but it looks like they were NOT told that. The court found that they were operating a dairy farm, they must comply with the laws of Wisconsin for operating dairy farms. In other words, the court found that this was not a case of privately owned animals being boarded at a farm and producing food for private consumption, which would have been legal. pam

Ishtarr -> RE: Food safety ? (11/24/2011 7:01:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gungadin09 quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr However, it does not explain why they where told that they do not have the right to CONSUME the foods of their own choice, or produce those foods for their OWN consumption. I haven't read the whole ruling yet, but it looks like they were NOT told that. The court found that they were operating a dairy farm, they must comply with the laws of Wisconsin for operating dairy farms. In other words, the court found that this was not a case of privately owned animals being boarded at a farm and producing food for private consumption, which would not have been illegal. pam The judge told them: "no, plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice"

gungadin09 -> RE: Food safety ? (11/24/2011 7:05:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr The judge told them: "no, plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice" Damn, that sucks. pam

Termyn8or -> RE: Food safety ? (11/24/2011 7:46:32 PM)
It said that the plaintiff's Constitutional claims were wholly without merit because they are extremely underdeveloped. After a bit of bumbling around I think the best way to fight this is on the basis of the fifth amendment, not the tenth. There was no action in any due process concerning these people. There was no suscpicion or anything to invoke same. They deprived these people of their property without due cause TO START WITH. An officer cannot lawfully order you to destroy something without a court order. I know there are many violations in the country but that is fact. The fifth also covers life, and if you have the right to life you have the right to live it without their help, at least when it comes to the ability to feed yourself. If this is not a fundamental right then what the fuck is ? This law's application is too broad, as I think a higher court will find. However that guy doesn't want to be the one to overturn it. He may well be loyal to the local "family" farmers like the cargils or the adms families. If so we definitely need a higher judge to overturn him. I think he may expect it. " [image]local://upfiles/196508/638845F435604BB4B9959C5339A1F10D.jpg[/image] " Lemme translate to : "I'm getting the fuck outta the way of this one". T^T

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125