Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
Thank you, Sharon. it's good when people like you dig in to find facts and I applaud you for it.
"unlikely" is a dangerous word when describing what a law might do. It may be unlikely to you but that doesn't mean unlikely to someone else, like the people behind the bill. A bill shouldn't describe what might or might not happen....b ut what will happen. Everything in that bill you linked to shouts of three things - money, power, control. Also on that same page is this article...
S.510, the Food Safety and Modernization Act of 2010, requires federal definition of "food," federal certification of "food" before it can be sold (even from a farmers' market), federal licensing of food growers (formerly known as farmers), processors and sellers – all in the name of "food safety," of course, and funded by a new food tax (VAT tax?), of course.
It looks like a couple of outbreaks of salmonella in eggs or peanut butter (even when no one died) is enough of a "crisis" to advance the agenda of total federal takeover of the largely free-market, American food-producing cornucopia. Three generations ago, 40 percent of Americans worked on the farm. Today, 2 percent do, and they produce more food of higher quality for more people at a lower price than their ancestors did. Democrats believe it's time to step in and stop the success.
The attitude of this regime was best expressed in a recent brief filed by the Obama Justice Department in opposition to a lawsuit brought by the Farm-To-Consumer Legal Defense Fund challenging the federal ban on the interstate sale of raw milk.
The brief asserted, "There is no 'deeply rooted' historic tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds. … Plaintiffs assertions to a 'fundamental' right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish." According to Obama, you only have the "right" to food the government chooses.
The Democrats act to not only build yet another federal staff of unionized, dues-paying Democrat voters, and not only to satisfy their inner nanny, but also to satisfy the corporate fat-cat supporters they love to hate in their speeches and love to get campaign money from at glittering events like the recent two-day golf tournament at Pebble Beach, Calif.
S.510 was drafted by Monsanto and other agribusiness giants that want to use federal law to bolster public confidence in their products, and, oh yes, make entry of new competitors in their business all the more expensive.
But the prize proposal among Democrats last week was clearly the Healthy Choices Act, authored by Democrat Rep. Ron Kind of Wisconsin.
Kind's gem amends the Public Health Services Act to require the states to in turn force all doctors in their state to determine the body mass index of all their patients, ages 2 through 18, and report that information to the state and then send this information to the feds.
Given the problems with the BMI (according to the BMI, Arnold Schwarzenegger in his prime was "overweight"), imagine your sweet 16 daughter's BMI on every computer from your town to Washington, D.C. Surely the SEC porn surfers will be delighted.
In fact, Kind would be delighted. His past legislative efforts include earmark grants to the National Institutes of Health to study "the sex lives of Vietnamese prostitutes" and the "masturbation habits of old men."
Kind's bill goes further. Grants to the states would fund "the capacity to store basic demographic information (including date of birth, gender and geographic area of residence), height, weight and immunization data for each resident of the state." It's information the government promises to use to "help" us make the "right" decisions.
How palatable does that sound to you?