Pet peeve, and this applies to more then just this forum, is that nobody bothers to do their own research.
I doubt that even your state representative who will be tasked to pass or reject this bill will have actually read the bill in its entirety, if fact I could guarantee that they will not have.
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, including to: (1) allow the inspection of records of food that the Secretary reasonably believes is likely to be affected in a similar manner as an adulterated food; and (2) require that each person (excluding farms and restaurants) who manufactures, processes, packs, distributes, receives, holds, or imports an article of food permit inspection of his or her records if the Secretary believes that there is a reasonable probability that the use of or exposure to such food will cause serious adverse health consequences or death.
The exclusion about farms to which you refer does not relate to the S510 Act specifically but to how it relates to the way the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act is to be amended to ensure that farms (Monsanto) and Restaurants (McDs etc) still has an open loophole within the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
To be more specific from a legal standpoint, when you continually see text such as 'Secretary reasonably believes is likely' (i.e. could mean anything to anyone) and 'adulterated food' (i.e. all food is adulterated to some extent esp
processed food) etc peppered (pun intended) throughout the legislative bill, then the subjectivity inherent with a legal document should be of a great concern.
Give the S510 its dues though, it appears to be a wonderfully crafted 'good' bad piece of legislation. There does appears to be some very talented 'food industry' lawyers who crafted this bill