A little crazy internet story here. Any truth to it? Though the way things seem to be headed I don't know anymore.

http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2010/04/24/s-510-is-hissing-in-the-grass/

The black helicopters circling overhead as the SWAT teams grab your illegally grown spuds, onions and beetroots.

No of course there's no truth in it. Do a search on that act and look on the Congress web site. The act contains none of this nonsense.
No offence meant; but this is not a survivalist site. Why bring up these obvious fantasies?
qjs

Sometimes the dangers are not what is said, but in what is not said, the loopholes that are left open.

Here in WA, a bill was just voted on to create (currently none) an income tax JUST for people whose incomes exceeded $200,000/$400,000. Do you honestly think the politicians wouldn't circumvent those limits when they needed money more to spend?

We have state and city governments here in WA NOW that are openly doing illegal things. Will they stop voluntarily? No.

Sue

This is quite an interesting development but to say there is no truth in the claims made for the Food Safety Modernization Act S510 rings a little hollow especially after watching this video;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2G15I-z-4w0

It appears that Food safety bill is all encompassing requiring all food producers (no matter the size or organisation i.e. anyone who produces food on any scale) will be subject to this bill.

http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2009/06/13/seeds-how-to-criminalize-them/

This link basically sums up the controversy including such items as seed contamination. It can be well argued that even this small aspect of the bill gives the Government the ability to determine what constitutes seed contamination. Once on that slippery slope then the government then decides which suppliers of seeds have licenses to produce uncontaminated seed. I wonder which agribusinesses who contribute so much financially to freedom and democracy will get those licenses.

Slippery slope; Oh Yes.

Another example would be the organic spuds growing quite happily (potentially fertilised by your own urine, ) in your back yard would be legally subject to surveillance by the appropriate government authorities (Dept of Homeland Security) if required.

Terrorist Spuds. This is along way from how straight your EU bananas are!

I think someone has been drinking too much of the J.W. Rawles private label flavored Kool-Aid...

Follow the below links for summary, full text, and other information on S510.

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

If you read the text/summary of the bill, you will find an exclusion for farms. Which means, in addition to common sense, you can grow your own backyard vegetable patch. If you're processing or selling the food, then S510 applies to you.

<Rant ON>
Pet peeve, and this applies to more then just this forum, is that nobody bothers to do their own research. It took me less then a minute to find information on the bill. Everybody relies on some left/right wing hired gun talking head for their information. It doesn't seem to matter if it's TV, daytime radio talk, or the web. No theory to ludicrous, no distortion of fact to flagrant.

We live in the information age with access to a stunning amount of material. Running down the facts is no longer a couple days at the library, it's a matter of a minutes with Google.
<Rant OFF>

Exactly right! Quoting more invented 'facts' is not evidence. A youtube rant is worthless evidence. Nothing plus nothing equals nothing.
The bill is detailed in the Congress website, why not look there? We just had a very high minded discussion on how it's important to be fair when 'finding the truth'. But the most basic step 'before condemning someone for what they are proposing; see if they are actually doing so' is often overlooked. Just believing what others claim is not doing that.
And common sense should have told anyone this couldn't be true.
qjs



>Pet peeve, and this applies to more then just this forum, is that >nobody bothers to do their own research. It took me less then a >minute to find information on the bill. Everybody relies on some >left/right wing hired gun talking head for their information. It >doesn't seem to matter if it's TV, daytime radio talk, or the web. >No theory to ludicrous, no distortion of fact to flagrant.

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.



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

ETS for reality.
www.ar15.com for tinfoil.

This thread is locked.
-Blast, grumpy on a Monday morning.