HR 875 and S 425
While browsing online today, I stumbled across an article (http://shepardpolitics.blogspot.com/2009/03/hr-875-would-essentially-outlaw-family.html) on possible legislation that could make a small backyard garden subject to enormous fines if the gardener refuses to use chemicals. You can read the bills yourself:
HR 875: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h875/text
S425: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s425/text
What I found more helpful than the blog article were some of its comments:
------------------------------
-...There are currently 39 cosponsors and Rosa DeLauro (the sponsor) is buddies with Rahm Emanuel (he stayed in their house for free when he went to DC, there’s a little tax scandal surrounding that, but I digress.)1. DeLauro’s husband has Monsanto as a client.2. DeLauro receives large contributions from agribusiness.Follow the money. She has practically a direct line to DC, this law may very well pass unless we seriously do something about it.--end comment--I don't have anything to support or refute the claim made in that comment, but it was interesting to read and worth an investigation I think....
----------
- One thing that I have heard nobody say on here is that "The Large is Better" mentality is actually the problem.
For instance, in the peanut butter situation. Do you really think we would have had that problem if we still had food being produced in the local community where everybody grew up together and everybody knows each other?I think Not.
The same thing applies to our hospitals, to our police departments, to our schools, and many thousands of other items. Until we put the community back into all being responsible for and taking care of the community, it is just going to get worse.
When your friends and neighbors raise something or grow something or produce something, they take special care of it because their NAME is on the final product and they want you to be happy with it. When it is a very large conglomerate, the owner is so far removed from the actual process where the lower level managers are only interested in meeting production quotas and they could care less if a little something gets in it, just as long as they meet their quota so that they get paid and don't get fired.
If you want to fix the salmonella thing, the jalapeno thing, the peanut thing, or even the staph infections in hospital, or the education problems in schools, or the fact that it is turning into a us against them thing with the police, then you have to get back to basics and by that, get back to a community level, rather then a one size fits all and bigger is better mentality.
Virgil
http://www.KeepAmericaAtWork.com
----------
- PapaSmurerf said...
Will this bill (HR-875) regulate private gardens? Not explicitly but review & consider Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), a United States Supreme Court decision interpreting the Commerce Clause. Under this decision a farmer growing wheat for himself with no intention to sell it at market was deemed in violation under this interpretation. wiki - "Farmer Roscoe Filburn argued that since the excess wheat he produced was intended solely for home consumption it could not be regulated through the interstate Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, reasoning that if Filburn had not used home-grown wheat he would have had to buy wheat on the open market. This effect on interstate commerce, the Court reasoned, may not be substantial from the actions of Filburn alone but through the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers just like Filburn its effect would certainly become substantial. Therefore Congress could regulate wholly intrastate, non-commercial activity if such activity, viewed in the aggregate, would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, even if the individual effects are trivial."Therefore, according to SCOTUS, Roscoe Filburn was not at liberty to provide for himself at his own discretion, but to be 'legal' had to go to the 'open market' and purchase what he was entirely capable of growing for himself more cheaply.
This is how private gardens can get roped into being subject under FSA purview. By the above interpretation, since you're growing more of your own food in a garden for yourself, you're affecting 'interstate commerce' by not buying as much food from your 'interstate' supplied grocer, lowering demand and thereby depressing 'interstate' prices. Multiply that by a million people, and golly, gee, Monsanto, Cargill, Tysons, ADM, et al lose market share!
Raising a garden in this environment, you risk being at fault for having overtly done nothing but try to feed yourself by growing your own food! These bills (hr-845 & s-425) are not so benign in their reach as you might think, especially in light of this dark spirit of judicial interpretation.
So now we know why the shoemaker's kids went barefoot, the government made it illegal for them to wear shoes their father made.-----"Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people."~ Henry Kissinger, 1970
----------
- I'd much rather we bring things back to the local level- there, accountability can be had. Besides, I like talking to the men and women that grow my food and raise the animals that I eat. I have a sense of pride that I support my community and that the money stays where I live. This is something I would hate to lose.
----------
- Remember this one: "In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist; And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist; And then they came for the Catholics, And I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant; And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew; And then they came for me. By that time there was no one left to speak up." -----Martin Niemöller
------------------------------
If you think the Filburn case is a rarity, take a look at what Monsanto has been doing: http://www.mindfully.org/GE/Schmeiser-Duke-Law3may01.htm
Percy Schmeiser, a canola farmer in Canada whose farm runs parallel to a road heavily trafficked by grain trucks, was sued by Monsanto because their patented seeds blew into Schmeiser's land. Since Schmeiser saved seed from one harvest to use the following year, an age-old tradition with roots as deep as farming itself, Monsanto claimed that the farmer knew he was using their genetically altered Roundup resistant product...and won in court. Though Schmeiser was let off having to pay damages (after 3 rounds in court with the agribusiness monolith,) the legal fees alone have made his livelihood next to impossible. To top it off, Monsanto agreed to reimburse Schmeiser for clean-up of his land--taking their patented seeds out of it--only if the Schmeisers would sign an agreement barring them from ever saying a word about the ordeal.
In this instance, the little guy had a victory. Small claims court decided in the Schmeisers' favor; Monsanto paid $660.00 for cleam-up expenses and the farmer and his wife didn't have to sign a gag order. However, the goliath has proven its willingness to swallow up small farms.
God gave us judgment and free will. I urge you to exercise both. Whether you agree or disagree with these bills, make your voice known--contact your local representative. It's easier than you think...just google your state representative (ex: wv congress person,) and send an e-mail to the address provided on that party's website. They *all* have web sites, and they *all* have e-mail addresses--primarily because they want to hear from us.
HR 875: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h875/text
S425: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s425/text
What I found more helpful than the blog article were some of its comments:
------------------------------
-...There are currently 39 cosponsors and Rosa DeLauro (the sponsor) is buddies with Rahm Emanuel (he stayed in their house for free when he went to DC, there’s a little tax scandal surrounding that, but I digress.)1. DeLauro’s husband has Monsanto as a client.2. DeLauro receives large contributions from agribusiness.Follow the money. She has practically a direct line to DC, this law may very well pass unless we seriously do something about it.--end comment--I don't have anything to support or refute the claim made in that comment, but it was interesting to read and worth an investigation I think....
----------
- One thing that I have heard nobody say on here is that "The Large is Better" mentality is actually the problem.
For instance, in the peanut butter situation. Do you really think we would have had that problem if we still had food being produced in the local community where everybody grew up together and everybody knows each other?I think Not.
The same thing applies to our hospitals, to our police departments, to our schools, and many thousands of other items. Until we put the community back into all being responsible for and taking care of the community, it is just going to get worse.
When your friends and neighbors raise something or grow something or produce something, they take special care of it because their NAME is on the final product and they want you to be happy with it. When it is a very large conglomerate, the owner is so far removed from the actual process where the lower level managers are only interested in meeting production quotas and they could care less if a little something gets in it, just as long as they meet their quota so that they get paid and don't get fired.
If you want to fix the salmonella thing, the jalapeno thing, the peanut thing, or even the staph infections in hospital, or the education problems in schools, or the fact that it is turning into a us against them thing with the police, then you have to get back to basics and by that, get back to a community level, rather then a one size fits all and bigger is better mentality.
Virgil
http://www.KeepAmericaAtWork.com
----------
- PapaSmurerf said...
Will this bill (HR-875) regulate private gardens? Not explicitly but review & consider Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), a United States Supreme Court decision interpreting the Commerce Clause. Under this decision a farmer growing wheat for himself with no intention to sell it at market was deemed in violation under this interpretation. wiki - "Farmer Roscoe Filburn argued that since the excess wheat he produced was intended solely for home consumption it could not be regulated through the interstate Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, reasoning that if Filburn had not used home-grown wheat he would have had to buy wheat on the open market. This effect on interstate commerce, the Court reasoned, may not be substantial from the actions of Filburn alone but through the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers just like Filburn its effect would certainly become substantial. Therefore Congress could regulate wholly intrastate, non-commercial activity if such activity, viewed in the aggregate, would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, even if the individual effects are trivial."Therefore, according to SCOTUS, Roscoe Filburn was not at liberty to provide for himself at his own discretion, but to be 'legal' had to go to the 'open market' and purchase what he was entirely capable of growing for himself more cheaply.
This is how private gardens can get roped into being subject under FSA purview. By the above interpretation, since you're growing more of your own food in a garden for yourself, you're affecting 'interstate commerce' by not buying as much food from your 'interstate' supplied grocer, lowering demand and thereby depressing 'interstate' prices. Multiply that by a million people, and golly, gee, Monsanto, Cargill, Tysons, ADM, et al lose market share!
Raising a garden in this environment, you risk being at fault for having overtly done nothing but try to feed yourself by growing your own food! These bills (hr-845 & s-425) are not so benign in their reach as you might think, especially in light of this dark spirit of judicial interpretation.
So now we know why the shoemaker's kids went barefoot, the government made it illegal for them to wear shoes their father made.-----"Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people."~ Henry Kissinger, 1970
----------
- I'd much rather we bring things back to the local level- there, accountability can be had. Besides, I like talking to the men and women that grow my food and raise the animals that I eat. I have a sense of pride that I support my community and that the money stays where I live. This is something I would hate to lose.
----------
- Remember this one: "In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist; And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist; And then they came for the Catholics, And I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant; And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew; And then they came for me. By that time there was no one left to speak up." -----Martin Niemöller
------------------------------
If you think the Filburn case is a rarity, take a look at what Monsanto has been doing: http://www.mindfully.org/GE/Schmeiser-Duke-Law3may01.htm
Percy Schmeiser, a canola farmer in Canada whose farm runs parallel to a road heavily trafficked by grain trucks, was sued by Monsanto because their patented seeds blew into Schmeiser's land. Since Schmeiser saved seed from one harvest to use the following year, an age-old tradition with roots as deep as farming itself, Monsanto claimed that the farmer knew he was using their genetically altered Roundup resistant product...and won in court. Though Schmeiser was let off having to pay damages (after 3 rounds in court with the agribusiness monolith,) the legal fees alone have made his livelihood next to impossible. To top it off, Monsanto agreed to reimburse Schmeiser for clean-up of his land--taking their patented seeds out of it--only if the Schmeisers would sign an agreement barring them from ever saying a word about the ordeal.
In this instance, the little guy had a victory. Small claims court decided in the Schmeisers' favor; Monsanto paid $660.00 for cleam-up expenses and the farmer and his wife didn't have to sign a gag order. However, the goliath has proven its willingness to swallow up small farms.
God gave us judgment and free will. I urge you to exercise both. Whether you agree or disagree with these bills, make your voice known--contact your local representative. It's easier than you think...just google your state representative (ex: wv congress person,) and send an e-mail to the address provided on that party's website. They *all* have web sites, and they *all* have e-mail addresses--primarily because they want to hear from us.
Comments
Post a Comment