Help stop this Stupid Bill! H.R. 4167

[JereGettle]

Congress Poised to Pass Bill Taking Away Right to Know What's in Your Food
Tell your Congressman or Congresswoman to vote "No" on House of Representatives Bill H.R. 4167, the "National Uniformity for Food Act"

The House of Representatives will vote this week on a controversial "national food uniformity" labeling law that will take away local government and states' power to require food safety food labels such as those required in California and other states on foods or beverages that are likely to cause cancer, birth defects, allergic reactions, or mercury poisoning. This bill would also prevent citizens in local municipalities and states from passing laws requiring that genetically engineered foods and ingredients such as Monsanto's recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH) be labeled.

The House will vote March 2, 2006 on a bill that would gut state food safety and labeling laws. H.R. 4167, the "National Uniformity for Food Act," lowers the bar on food safety by overturning state food safety laws that are not "identical" to federal law. Hundreds of state laws and regulations are at risk, including those governing the safety of milk, fish, and shellfish. The bill is being pushed by large supermarket chains and food manufacturers, spearheaded by the powerful Grocery Manufacturers of America.

Big food corporations and the biotech industry understand that consumers are more and more concerned about food safety, genetic engineering, and chemical-intensive agriculture, and are reading labels more closely. They understand that pesticide and mercury residues and hazardous technologies such as genetic engineering and food irradiation will be rejected if there are truthful labels required on food products. Industry-sponsored H.R. 4167 is gaining momentum and must be stopped! Act now! Preserve local and regional democracy and protect yourself and your family from unsafe food by sending an email or calling your Representative and urging them to vote "No" on H.R. 4167.

Please Take Action Now--Send a Message to Your Congress Member in the House of Representatives to Vote "No" on H.R. 4167
http://www.organicconsumers.org/rd/labeling.cfm

And please call your Congress Member at 202-224-3121

Regards & Solidarity,

Ronnie Cummins,
Organic Consumers Association

[PhilosopherStorm]

ANYTHING which reduces the number of laws on the books is necessarily a good thing. The less power ANY government has the better. The solution to the perceived problem of getting the type of food each of us wants, is quite simply personal responsibility. Rather than to use force, the threat of force, and theft on others, simply step up to the plate and make the decisions yourself on what food you wish to purchase. NOTHING now prevents this.

That said, this is clearly a case of a tempest in a teapot. Read the bill.. it is not the bugaboo that it was described to be. The exemptions, such as for organics, are clearly listed such that these labeling requirements by states WILL NOT BE REMOVED OR OVERTURNED. Ronnie Cummins is either woefully ignorant of this fact, though it is clearly stated in the bill (see below) else is being intentionally dishonest. Makes you wonder why he/she wants to so strongly support additional government regulation on our lives, regulations which LIMIT our choices, REDUCE the number of people who can afford to go in to business, and INCREASES the burden upon the small time farmer who is most likely to produce the foods which those of us here are most likely to prefer and enjoy. He/She is clearly acting in the interest of the large corporations at the expense of the smaller outfits, and of course at the expense of the freedom and choice of each of us.


In trying to find reliable information on the bill I discovered this:

"Status:
Introduced (By Rep. Michael Rogers [R-MI])
This bill is in the first step in the legislative process. Introduced House bills go first to House committees that consider whether the bill should be presented to the House as a whole. The majority of bills never make it out of committee.
Introduced: Oct 27, 2005
Last Action: Dec 15, 2005: Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 30 - 18."

From the bill itself:

"--Nothing in this section
9 shall be construed to prohibit a State from con-
10 ducting the State's notification, disclosure, or other
11 dissemination of information, or to prohibit any ac-
12 tion taken relating to a mandatory recall, civil ad-
13 ministrative order, embargo, detention order, or
14 court proceeding involving food adulteration under a
15 State statutory requirement identical to a food adul-
16 teration requirement under this Act."

And this too:

"(1), the State may petition
14 the Secretary for an exemption or a national stand-
15 ard under subsection (c). If a State submits such a
16 petition within 180 days after the date of enactment
17 of the National Uniformity for Food Act of 2005,
18 the notification or food safety requirement shall re-
19 main in effect in accordance with subparagraph (C)
20 of paragraph (3), and the time periods and provi-
21 sions specified in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of such
22 paragraph shall apply in lieu of the time periods and
23 provisions specified in subsection (c)"

Here we see the opportunity for those who believe in using government against others to step up: "(A) PUBLICATION.--Not later than 270
3 days after the date of enactment of the Na-
4 tional Uniformity for Food Act of 2005, the
5 Secretary shall publish a notice in the Federal
6 Register concerning any petition submitted
7 under paragraph (2) and shall provide 180 days
8 for public comment on the petition."

This appears to allow legitimate concerns and warnings to be imposed:
"EXEMPTIONS.--Any State may petition
15 the Secretary to provide by regulation an exemption
16 from section 403A(a)(6) or subsection (a), for a re-
17 quirement of the State or a political subdivision of
18 the State. The Secretary may provide such an ex-
19 emption, under such conditions as the Secretary may
20 impose, for such a requirement that--
21 ``(A) protects an important public interest
22 that would otherwise be unprotected, in the ab-
23 sence of the exemption;"

"(A) the requirement is needed to address
21 an imminent hazard to health that is likely to
22 result in serious adverse health consequences or
23 death;"

"Nothing in this section shall be construed to modify or
12 otherwise affect the product liability law of any State."

"Nothing in
ON

14 this section relating to a food shall be construed to prevent
15 a State or political subdivision of a State from estab-
16 lishing, enforcing, or continuing in effect a requirement
17 that is identical to a requirement of this Act, whether or
18 not the Secretary has promulgated a regulation or issued
19 a policy statement relating to the requirement."

For those of us here interested in Organic designations, these are exempted:

"Noth-
ON

21 ing in this section or section 403A relating to a food shall
22 be construed to prevent a State or political subdivision of
23 a State from establishing, enforcing, or continuing in ef-
24 fect a requirement relating to--




HR 4167 IH
14
1 ``(1) freshness dating, open date labeling, grade
2 labeling, a State inspection stamp, religious dietary
3 labeling, organic or natural designation, returnable
4 bottle labeling, unit pricing, or a statement of geo-
5 graphic origin; or
6 ``(2) a consumer advisory relating to food sani-
7 tation that is imposed on a food establishment, or
8 that is recommended by the Secretary, under part
9 36 of the Food Code issued by the Food and Drug
10 Administration and referred to in the notice pub-
11 lished at 64 Fed. Reg. 8576 (1999) (or any cor-
12 responding similar provision of such a Code)."

To see it in full:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-4167

[PhilosopherStorm]

Where can you find any infringement on our "right" to make decisions as consumers? Can you cite the specific language of the bill that states this?

No one is stopping you from knowing what is in your food. There IS NO INFRINGEMENT of personal rights at all here. No company is prevented from labeling their foods beyond the minimums required. The existing restrictions remain in place except in limited circumstances, which appear to be non-existent.

Let's turn this around. Say that you want your food labeled for organic. Okay this is ALREADY EXEMPTED. Okay, so you want it labeled for safety. THIS IS ALREADY EXEMPTED. So what is left? Say that someone wants their food labeled as to the color of the skin of the farmer.. okay this labeling can still be done, it simply cannot be mandated by the individual states (though the feds could still do this). But more importantly upon what would this "right" to have one's food labeled with regard to skin color be based? Yes this is simply an example, and one which is intended to be absurd to demonstrate the absurdity of the position taken in opposition to this bill (other than the natural opposition to all government regulations).

You want to know what is in your foods? Then go find out.. NOTHING prevents this. NOTHING stands in the way of personal responsibility. Mandating that the individual states must cater to the whims and irresponsibility of anyone and everyone with regard to food (NOT FOOD SAFETY!!!) reduces the choices available to us all, as I noted. It does NOT increase that choice as you imply. How is choice increased by reducing the cost of production, which necessarily removes the smaller producers from the market?

Indeed oppose this bill and support the huge food companies and the bland produce that they put out.. By all means stop this bill and stop the rest of us who like what the smaller producers, the natural farmers produce, from having a choice...

:rolleyes:

Out of curiosity, did you read the bill, or my post which quotes the relevant elements? If so, then how do you refute these?

More importantly, or perhaps more basically, how do you get the notion that freedom and choice is increased by limitation on freedom and choice?

[zebraman]

Hey PhilosopherStorm:Thanks for a GREAT Post.

[JereGettle]

I just don't follow ya "Storm" but that's ok!

I think it is our right to know what we are eating (But if you don't you live in the right country, yup good ol'USA just stay here long enough and you can package petroleum as food! (oh I forgot.... yes they already have!)

"Goverment regulation in our lives" ..........who's lives.......Labeling GMO's, Growth Hormones, Red 40, etc sure does not burdon my life!

"Storm" are you working for Biotec, Oil, Pesticide or the food industry? Just curious....

Food Safty, forget it! in this country it is already in the trash, big business is has been making the laws, not the people.

An R from MI introducing a bill about food safty, do you really believe it is about us consumers?


Jere

[PhilosopherStorm]

Jere,

Clearly you are not following me, nor reading the actual bill. I did post a link as well as quote it directly, though unsurprisingly those seeking to limit our choice by trying to INCREASE the regulations which are destroying small farmers, the very same small farmers who are catering to those of us who are concerned with food safety and organic produve, have not addressed ANY of the facts or issues raised.

Let me do you the courtesy that you have failed to grant to me, and address your points clearly and specifically.

"Right" to know what we are eating. It is bizarre to claim that such a right exists in this context, since clearly no one is forcing you to eat anything about which you do not or cannot know whatever you would like to know. It seems that you are actually wanting to claim that there is an obligation upon the rest of humanity to cater to you personally, saving you from the dreaded trouble of personal responsibility as it pertains to what you choose to consume.

Okay so petroleum is packaged as food (no idea what you are talking about here, but whether or not this exists is unimportant). Who is forcing you to eat it? Do you buy it from your local farmers? Are you unable to find anything else to eat? If I am uncertain about a product, I pass it over, in other words I choose to be responsible for my own health rather than pretend that some faceless mindless and certainly careless (pun intended) bureaucrat can know what is better for me than I myself do.

I wonder, is your tap water labeled?

Government regulation. A simple lesson in economics or practical political theory would clarify this particular point. Each regulation on our lives costs producers a certain amount. For the large industries this amount is trivialized by being spread to the many products that they are selling. For the small farmer, this cost is enormous. Take the organic and historic farm at Monticello (Jefferson's home). They cannot sell the food that they grow there because the regulations by government officials are such a hurdle as to remove all possible profit. Neither can they donate the food to shelters or the needy, because these absurd regulations on labeling (we are NOT talking about food safety) stand in the way. The result is tons of organic heirloom vegetables literally rotting on the vine, tree, and stem..

Then too there are the regulations with regard to taxation and other nonsense which increase the cost of doing business in these united States to the point that most small time producers, again the very people upon which those of us who love flavor, tradition, and healthy food rely!, cannot afford to get started or if already in business then stay in business.

And as a matter of basic freedom, can you name one action you do or even can take which is no in some fashion regulated by the government?

This makes me search far more for healthy foods. I cannot run over to my local farmer, because if he sells direct to me without the labels and nonsense (again those regulations well beyond food safety) he risks his farm. Remember those regulations also include the incentive for bureaucrats, that being the profits from all seized property. All of this for the crime of producing non-modified, organic, heirloom vegetables... Preventing us from getting healthy food, non-modified, organic heirloom produce, is exactly what you are arguing for.

Which leads into your next "point" which is nothig more than an ad hominem attack. (look it up)

I work in none of those fields, which is very evident by my opposition to these efforts to eradicate any hope of the consumer being able to choose good, healthy, non-modified, organic, heirloom produce. That you are so strongly opposing the existence of such producers begs the question to be turned back upon yourself, but as I am not one to engage in ad hominem attacks, suffice it to say that your attack has no merit though it is very telling.

Food safety. First you assume that food cannot be safe unless some mindless, faceless, and again pun intended, careless bureaucrat pats you on the head and says "there there dearie... just trust me.. this is safe.. " This goes against all reason, personal responsibility, and of course all of our experience with governments.

To point, I was watching a show on water purity and taste several weeks ago, and the mindless, faceless, careless bureaucrat who was advocating city water was asked about the chemical taste. He answered, "The chemical taste just tells you that it is pure."

Pure?? This water the bureaucrat proclaimed to be pure contained the usual suspects, chlorine (lethally poisonous gas), flouride (also poisonous, but also linked to many other ailments beyond mere death), but also lovely substances such as toluline, methylethyl ketones (extremely harsh solvent used with automotive paints), zinc chromate, and a laundry list of other solvents and chemicals, all of which were added to the water by these bureaucrats you are suggesting are in a better position to decide what you and I consume than we are individually.

The definition of irrationality is taking the same action again and again but expecting a different result. On top of the water example, recall that it was the government that suggested the "reuse" of beef into the feed system, that has now been shown to be not only not healthy (um.. cows are NOT carnivores, or cannibals in nature), but has contributed to the spread of Mad Cow disease internationally. The list of horrors is infinite, so I would ask, why on earth would we shut our eyes to this and irrationally believe that this time would be any different?

As to the politician who introduced the bill (whom I suspect you mean to refer, though if you actually go to the page I linked you will find MANY names on the bill..) it does not matter. NO POLITICIAN has your interest at heart. Nor can he/she because none of them know you, none of them have lived your life for you. ONLY YOU can make the best decisions for you, just as only I can make the best decisions for myself.

As for the ad hominem inherent in this quip, let me offer an analogy, which happens to be completely true as well, the best kind! :

Hitler was a vegetarian from Germany, so does it follow from this that vegetarianism is evil and leads to genocide? By the implication you employ here that must be the accepted conclusion.

For what it is worth, I recognize no difference between the two faces of the one party in the US. Both oppose freedom, both increase government intervention and power at the expense of the individual, and neither has any principles upon which they stand. So an implication on bias on my part would be misplaced.


Does this mean that I cannot just run down to the local burger doodle and get an organic burger, on a bun made from heirloom spelt or kashi, with condiments made from old family recipes which have no unnecessary additions for color or storability? Yep.. but that is a result of my choice to be healthy and eat healthy. So I have to get my food from producers I know, or I choose to trust, such as Baker seeds..

So Jere, assuming you are indeed interested in food safety and supporting healthy, locally grown, organic, heirloom foods, can you find any error in my argument by citing the bill, logical errors, or facts which I have wrong? So far the three posts which oppose the bill, and by doing so oppose small producers, choice, and food safety, have been naught but emoting without connection to the bill, the facts, or to reason. I know that reads quite harsh, but it is true as well as harsh. Can the argument for restricting choice and regulating small producers out of existance be made through sound reasoning and referring to the actual bill?


Zebraman, Thanks and you are welcome. I am a big fan of freedom, healthy food, small local producers, and of course good critical thinking as is probably quite evident.. :)

[SunflowerMeg]

Great posts Storm! I signed the "petition", but I feel they fall on deaf ears and likely don't amount to a hill of beans anyway. But, I'm making an assumption there. Could we be more effective as educated consumers by NOT purchasing what we know to be crapfood, and spreading the info we know by word of mouth??? Will hitting pocketbooks have more of an affect then online petitions? But, we have to be careful because what we THINK we know, may be hype. For instance, take the canola oil industry. I won't touch the stuff with a 10-foot pole (organic or not) now that I know what I know about it, but 10 years ago, I talked my whole family into switching to it because of it's higher monosaturated fat content. Now, I'm trying to talk then out of using it. So, even though we think we may be educated, we still may be getting misinformation based on hype and influenced science. (I hope I didn't get too far off subject here). :)

[PhilosopherStorm]

LoreD,

I am sorry that you take offense to refutation and sound argument. I asked if the material had been read because of the use of ad hominem attacks, and emoting, without any reference at all to facts and the bill itself. In honest civil discussion it is common to refer to the facts and issues at hand citing specifics so that everyone is on the same page. Instead of doing this you (and Jere) choose to criticize me for having the audacity to read the bill and point out that the claims made about it are patently false, citing the bill in the process so that if I made an error you could very easily point it out and correct me.

As for what you take to be the implication, as Socrates reminded his listeners more than 2000 years ago "Ideas are not our children, we ought not treat them as such." The idea here is that refuting an argument is NOT insulting the person. Our ideas do not make up the totality of us, and for those interested in truth and personal growth, our ideas change throughout our lives.

I clearly intended no offense, rather I was simply trying to get past the emoting to get at the meat of the matter. If we actually share the goal of wanting to promote healthy foods, including organic and heirloom foods, then it behooves us to think critically and rationally take the steps which will advance us towards that objective. The characterization of this bill by Ronnie Cummins and then those similarly characterizing this bill, are demonstrably false. The evidence thus far provided proves this beyond any shadow of a doubt. The sooner we drop the emoting and embrace the truth, the sooner we can take steps in the right direction, rather than shooting ourselves in the foot.

Let's help the small producers rather than contribute to their downfall. Just as popular speech is never in need of protection, so too with the major corporations. They do not need further protection, so let's not support adding barriers to entry for the little guys who are providing the minority who want heirlooms and organics, with what we want.

Again, no offense was offered nor intended, just facts, sound argument, and sincere questions (none of which have been answered).

[PhilosopherStorm]

Meg,

Thanks for the kind words. What petition?

Yes action such as you describe, called "voting with our dollars" is exactly what promotes those products and services which we wish to have. I know folks who complain about the impact of wal-mart on their town, but then do not shop locally because the prices are "too high." They fail to recognize that their actions are the reason that Wal-mart moved into their town in the first place.

So too with this situation. If you want to know the source of your food, simply go find it out. Sure putting the small guys out of business will make it easier to know your food source, but it will also make it much more difficult to get the sort of good healthy foods that we want. Those opposing this bill are arguing in effect that we ought to run every small producer out of business by lumping so many regulations on him/her so that he/she cannot afford to be in the business, leaving only the major corporations in power.

Back to you point, sure we can make mistakes, or learn more later. All we can do is all we can do... we learn as we go and make the best decisions that we can based upon the evidence available. (Which is why I am encouraging Jere and LoreD to read the bill, or at least the quotes provided which clearly and resoundingly refute the diatribe by Ronnie Cummins).

Thanks again.. It is nice to have support especially when getting the sort of personal attacks that I have here for daring to read the bill..

[PhilosopherStorm]

LoreD,

Again, I see no reason for the personal attacks which are the entirety of your posts. I have not once insulted you in any fashion.
You have said people need to stop "emoting" and start having a "civil discussion."

Can you cite examples of this? I fear that you have again misunderstood, else are intentionally mischaracterizing the facts.

As for "my rules" I am not insisting on any. I refer to what is commonplace in honest civil discussions, in those discussions where truth matters. I am also referring to the tools of reason which are the only tools we have for determining truth, for knowing reality. As for "debate" I do not engage in it, though I will gladly offer sound arguments and ample evidence in honest civil intellectual discussions.

If you consider adherence to truth, reason, and evidence to be "rigid" then your accusation is correct. If you mean anything else, then this is yet another false attack on your part, one for which I would request an apology to go along with the others which by courtesy you already owe me for your personal attacks.

Government has no other purpose but to protect, serve, and regulate its citizens.

Again, all we need to do is refer to reality. Governments throughout time have failed consistently and miserably to succeed at any of these but the last, and I would contend that control over others for one's personal gain is not the ideal you seem to want to believe that it is. Recall that in Germany (and the US for that matter) segments of the population were very securely regulated in specialized camps. This is what you are claiming is the ideal, rather than freedom and justice.. In this we clearly disagree.

As for your false accusations regarding my arguments and corporate public relations, I would ask that you cite where I have taken ANYTHING AT ALL, from such sources. Failing that I would ask for an apology for this false accusation as it is baseless and yet another ad hominem attack, one which reveals the desperation of those wishing to support the effort to reduce freedom, reduce the choice available for those of us who want to know what is in our foods, and want to have the option to buy organic and heriloom produce.

I am asking as politely as I can that you stop your personal attacks, as they serve no positive purpose. I have not insulted you in any fashion, and have done nothing but simply refuted the claims made by referring to the actual facts here. If I made an error then it ought to be easy to point to exactly where that error occurred. If I have not, then this practice of offering insult in place of argument will not suffice to demonstrate any error on my part, while revealing much about yourself.

[zebraman]

Hey Guy's;I work in Television and Our Whole Objective in Life is to get people Excited in buying things that they DO NOT need or want.The reason why tasteless,hybrid Tomatoes exist is Buisenesses and Not Government create these to make money.They follow this with a very slick Ad Campaign.Now if the 85 percent of the Population stopped and thought,and realized every ad campaign in the past has not paid off,Then they would not fall again for this new one.The More a Co. pays for advertising the less their product is actually worth.If you don't want garbage in your Diet Don't eat out of a Bag,Box or Can.I Love LA

[JereGettle]

The people against the Bill ARE small farmers, consumers and the organic industry....

and the people for the bill ARE Monsanto, Big Goverment, The GMO industry, The Chemical industry.

Tell your Leaders to vote YES: if your for more freedom for selling GMO crops, Chemicals, Hormones, all unlabeled, untested.

Tell your Leaders to vote NO: if your for organic farms, seed saving, heirlooms, pure food,

Otherwise go ahead and please go into the nothing can be done anyway mode.

Yes, Storm you have some great points, only I feel the facts are wrong!

But there is many ways, views, political ideas and more out there!

I just happen to support the organic consumers Assc. and the idea that each community has the right to label what ever we like, on one hand you say your against "Big Goverment" on the other hand you want to strip us of our right to control our own counties and states, you seem willing to give all the power to the "Big Goverment" to make the rules!

I perfer local laws, by my local friends and farmers!

The reason the Big Goverment and Corporations are supporting this is to strip the rights away from counties such as Mendocino, that are working to keep America GMO free, if this law goes into effect we will not have any local power to label anything!

Sorry I have to run, it is seed season here and I just don't have time to keep chating here!

I have been working 15 hour days and if I post here often I just don't have time to lobby! LOL!
Jere

[zebraman]

Hey ;Mendocino County is filled with Hippie,Socialist- Losers.And just for the record"The 60's" are over.

[PhilosopherStorm]

Yes, Storm you have some great points, only I feel the facts are wrong!

Well then can you cite what facts you "feel" are wrong? Near as I can tell only one individual has actually read the bill, and certainly only one of us has posted any facts.

Tell your Leaders to vote YES: if your for more freedom for selling GMO crops, Chemicals, Hormones, all unlabeled, untested.

Tell your Leaders to vote NO: if your for organic farms, seed saving, heirlooms, pure food,

Otherwise go ahead and please go into the nothing can be done anyway mode.

This is at best empty rhetoric, at face value simply dishonest. Requiring additional regulation HURTS SMALL BUSINESS, FAMILY FARMS, SMALL PRODUCERS. No amount of spin and rhetoric can get past this fact. The big guys have entire sections of the company dedicated to creating the regulations you speak of and whole heartedly endorse, so the costs per regulation are negligible. The small producer who finds a corder of the dining room to put the "office" does not have the time to be hassled with these pro-big corporation regulations you are so gleefully suggesting, nor does he have the income to afford to hire a service to handle the additional and completely pointless work. So he either goes out of business else he works illegally risking losing all in seizures which are part of the regulations you would have thrust upon him.

you seem willing to give all the power to the "Big Goverment" to make the rules!

Such dishonest does not behoove you. If you read and follow my posts you will find that in fact I am opposed to increasing the number of regulations, and you have consistently been arguing FOR MORE REGULATION to be placed upon the heads of the small producers.

How many of your "friends" (I question it because I never would treat my friends as you suggest we ought to treat them) have to go out of business before the additional costs in time and economic loss become of some value to you?

As for not having any local power to label anything, this is simply false rhetoric. I have cited the bill itself conclusively proving that this claim has no merit at all. This is not mere opinion, as you seem to wish to characterize it, but clear and already proved fact. Read the bill.. read the excepts already provided. None of this is a mere difference of political view, but rather simple easy to verify fact.

I can accept that you may want to create more hardship for yourself. That is absolutely your right. But to do it to others, those you call "friends?" That is unexcusable.

Work to increase the regulation and hardships on your "friends" and you share in the responsibility for the loss of the choice of consumers, the loss of the livelihood of those otherwise innocent farmers and producers, and work against all practical solutions.

Or if you prefer political terminology, you work so as to aggress against all of your fellow citizens.

[PhilosopherStorm]

Zebraman.. Even though those supporting increasing regulation on small time producers, and decreasing the availability of organic and heirloom produce are being uncivil, it does not help their case. Neither does it help the case of those of us who are actually acting on behalf of freedom, choice, and the small time producer if we are uncivil.

The facts are clear enough and the arguments so strong as to need no personal attacks to distract from them. The use of personal attacks, such as those LoreD used, are examples of the red herring tactic which is used to draw attention away from the facts and arguments, because they employ neither fact nor sound reasoning in emoting at others.

Not like we cannot take a few knocks on the chin. Those who are willing to stand up and go to the effort to gather the necessary information to make informed decisions are oft the recipients of such attacks... fortunately we also believe in the notion of not aggressing against others, so we can take it.

[PhilosopherStorm]

Jere,

The appraoch you are advocating is known as "protectionism" and it is often the tactic used by those in a field to keep out competition. In all instances of such regulation and licensing the result is the same: more expensive products/services, fewer options, and increased government power.

This works for the big guys, and against the individual in every instance. It is clearly impractical in practice, as well as unjust in principle. That on top of the clear and plentiful refutations of the false rhetoric coming from the pro-agribusiness lobby, such as Ronnie, and nothing is left upon which to build that house of cards...

As always, if you "feel" that I am in error, all you need do is cite counter-examples (which of course should be verifiable), as I have done for the claims of Ronnie, LoreD, and yourself.

[JereGettle]

Far-out! Zebra,

thanks for the update!

but I still like pure food ... I guess many of us are just "old-fashioned"

Your hippest host,
Jere

[zebraman]

Hey Jere;Thank You For creating this GREAT Forum.I am getting ready to put in another order to your Great Co.I'll get the mag.too (Screw the Rainforest).If I wasn't for Pure Food I wouldn't be growing it.And I wouldn't be ordering from you.Hippies are not old-fashioned,theyr'e Counter-Culture.I own a small Cabin in Taos Canyon and most of the Aging Hippies subside for the most part on Food Stamps and Welfare.The are Always Byachting about "something The Big,Bad Govt. is doing".This and the snow are the Two reasons I don't live in Taos.But anyway Thank You for such a Great Website.

[GreenCap]

Yes Jere, I have to agree with zebra on that, this is a great forum. That is the only thing that we agree on...lol. I am always byatching about the big, bad government. How could you not byatch about it, look at all the horrible things they have done to our country, and in such a short time.The really scary thing is it is not over yet.

[GreenCap]

Oh yeah Zebra, I am not on welfare or food stamps. I am sure there are a lot of people on government assistance that used to work for one of the MANY factories that have moved to china thanks to our "government". I don't think that they should be ashamed.

[PhilosopherStorm]

Should I be ashamed if I steal directly from my neighbors, friends, and family?

The abandonment of any illusion of principle in the govenment began with Lincoln, who fought for strong federal power at the expense of the individual as well as localities. This was the turning point from "these united States" to "The United States." In one sense I suppose that this is a short time, but in our lifetimes, even if you want to look to the most obvious anti-freedom president of recent history, FDR, this was still before the birth of most of us, so still not recent in the sense of our lives.

[JereGettle]

Thanks Zebra and and GreenCap for your kind words!
And for posting,
Jere

[AndrewK]

PhilosopherStorm: If you look at food stamp participation levels compared with the economy, I think you'll find there is some correlation there; Food stamp participation had fallen to 17 million people at one point in the Clinton administration, and has climbed to 25 million in recent years. The food stamp program seems to be one of the very few things the government is doing to offset the growing class gap.

I feel there is a time and place for them, and don't take lightly the insinuation that use of the food stamp program is a form of stealing. Please keep in mind we have a rule regarding hatefulness (http://idigmygarden.com/forums/rules.php).

[PhilosopherStorm]

Andrew,

With all due respect I would point out that I have been extremely civil (in fact quite generous), even mentioning to another poster that in fact we need not follow the practice of employing personal attacks. That said, if you will look on this thread you will find in fact TWO other posters have deliberately insulted me and offered ad hominem attaks without any basis or stimulus, while I have refrained from any similar behavior.

Then too there is nothing at all "hateful" about calling a spade a spade. If I use coercion to deprive you of your property, I have committed theft. THis is the very definition of theft, that being taking that which belongs to another. Since those programs to which you refer are funded through the involuntary taking of the property of others, it is necessarily theft. This is not an insult, it is simply reality and no more insulting than pointing out that a tall man is over 6 feet tall.

I have no idea what your reference to the last two administrations was intended to serve, but it does not relate to anything I have said. Nor does it demonstrate any "offset of the growing class gap."

To borrow your own language, I do not take lightly the insinuation that my property not only can but should be taken from me, or that I owe my life to others. This dehumanizes me (and everyone victimized by this system) which is certainly far more insulting and hateful than pointing out that wrongful taking of private property is stealing. Either I am morally worthwhile, and thus have a right to my labor, my life, and my property, else I am less worthwhile than any other (as you imply) which is necessarily insulting in the extreme. This is the same sentiment being expressed when you call someone a "piece of trash (or sh!t, or whatnot)."


By stipulating that opposing theft, one is being hateful, you are engaging in intellectual bullying. Now, that said I recognize that this is your forum, and you should be free to do whatever you wish with it. I have enjoyed the use of it, and have shown clear respect not only to you and the other owner/administrators, but to all who post here, even those who chose to personally attack me for daring to stand up for the small producers and against the effort to drive those small producers out of business, as well as to reduce the availability of the already relatively rare availability of organic and heirloom vegetables. That said, I would hope for some minimal degree of respect, just that level which would not employ the double standard clearly evident in this particular thread, as well as the level of respect which would not falsely accuse me of "hatefulness" or other mental states for which there is no evidence at all.

If you like I will gladly paste into a message the quotes of the direct personal attacks which clearly are off topic and hateful, thus in violation of your stated rules. I would hate for them to be missed since an interest has been taken in such language.

PhilosopherStorm

[SunflowerMeg]

Folks, our government is not ALL bad. When my husband died, I received social security in order to help finish raising my children, which I couldn't have done as well, without assistance. Late hubby worked for those benefits, and believe it or not, the system worked for us! And I have seen the system work for others as well, and they were truly needy, not bloodsuckers! But you have two extremes working on the government...big business and the lazy. We, the people, have created these monsters! We have also created the state of our medical system and our judicial system. If people won't go further than McDonalds for their nutrition, then why should we blame the politicians? There are truly those who need help. But the rest? Lazy. Lazy. Lazy.

[JereGettle]

I agree Meg! Great thoughts,

Jere

[PhilosopherStorm]

SunflowerMeg,

We should take care with our comparisons. Saying that the government is good because it gives you the funds taken from others, is akin to saying that prisons are good for prisoners because they are given food to eat. Such examples overlook the sources and the real problems while looking only at a small fraction of the equation. Remember that without the government initially taking your property you would be orders of magnitude better off, thus negating any pretense of any need for such programs..

The average subject of the US government pays over 50% of their income in some form of direct tax. Add to this the regulations and indirect taxes and you have a situation that is of course not only unjustifiable from any moral basis, but also impractical as it raises the cost of living so that those most in need are less able to afford the basics. Each regulation adds real cost to the price of goods and services. Each tax add real cost to the price of goods and services, while decreasing the money available to each of us to pay for these necessities.

The most conservative estimates as to the costs of such regulations plus taxation on the real cost of living exceed multiples of four. So instead of paying $2-$4.00 for a loaf of bread, you would be paying under fifty cents..


All of which overlooks the very real point that theft is simply wrong regardless of the theif or the use to which the theif might put the stolen property. If I hold a gun to your head, or threaten to put you in prison, if you do not give over your property I am committing theft regardless of whether I plan on giving a small fraction to the poor or elderly..

I agree with you about those too lazy to go past McDonalds, or in the case of this thread those arguing for greater regulation, should not blame others, but should take responsibility for themselves and make the effort to seek out the food that they want rather than force others to do the work and pay the costs for them.

[zebraman]

Hey Greencap;You are not in Taos,your'e in Ohio.I was talking about Hippies in Taos.They were like this in 1981 when I bought the Cabin and are now too.So this clearly has nothing to do with Outsourcing.This was actually a responce to a comment from Jere.I had a really great life in the 80's and I still have a great life now.The President doesn't have anything to do with the quality of my life.

[SunflowerMeg]

Hey Storm - I'm way too dumb to keep up with all your details and philosophising every teeny point, but I guess that's why you use the ID you do.

"Taking funds from others?" Isn't that what social security was designed for? Like it or not. Late hubby paid into that program since he was a teen. Died at 56. I also have been paying into it since I was a teen. I'm still alive, sort of. I had a 9-year old and a 10-year old to still raise with 2 1/2 years of college. Admin field, but I sort of liked being a good mom instead (though I did work part-time to help supplement the SS). Thought that was more important than career stuff. So I humbly accepted the SS that hubby worked his whole life for. It was not "taken" or stolen from anyone. I come from a family of 10 kids and not one of them, including my mom or dad ever took a cent of welfare money. All of us have been workhorses...good German stock. Now we are getting older and getting sick. One brother mentally disabled, another physically due to a fall that broke his back and went undetected by doctors. So, are they "taking" what doesn't belong to them too? S..t happens. Ya know.

I was careful making comparisons. It's okay that you see a problem with my comparisons (whatever they were), but not up to you to decide whether I was careful or not. It's just your humble opinion. As all of our words are that are exchanged here. We're all just "philosophising". And it's truly great to have some good debate.

And whether you agree or not, if someone is needy, truly needy, it IS okay to be helped by others and not to have it regarded as "taking" from someone else. I have no compassion for the lazy and the leeches our government has created. I do have compassion for the disabled, the young, and the elderly. What about children who lose both parents in a car accident? And the gov has to step in and support them until they are 18. Are they "taking" what doesn't belong to them? Or should we just throw em' into the closest river like a litter of unwanted kittens? Now, let's say those parents didn't die, but were lazy slobs laying around doing drugs all day? Should the kids get assitance from Uncle Sam? Therein lies the flaw. I don't know what the answer is.

Anyhow, I enjoy your posts. I don't necessarily understand them all, but they make a great read.

[PhilosopherStorm]

SunflowerMeg,

Believe me, I have completely ignored "every teeny point" and limited my comments to the major elements.

It was not "taken" or stolen from anyone.

This is simply false. In the US you do not have a choice with regard to taxation. The money is taken from every innocent individual under the threat of violence or imprisonment. This is coercion. This is the very defintion of theft. That part of that money was once stolen from your family as well does not cause it to cease to be theft. Nor is it a zero-sum game as you seem to be characterizing it, as a huge portion of the property stolen from each of us who works hard to earn it, goes to mindless, faceless bureaucrats's (and politicians) pockets. Social InSecurity is a Ponzi scheme, which is illegal in the US. It relies upon holding a gun to the heads of the younger generation to pay for the previous generation, thus preventing the younger from being able to properly invest their own money to take care of themselves and those for whom they care. Think large pyramid scam and you have a pretty good idea how SS is designed. Now you can add in the fact that the US Government steals the money a second time from the SS fund to spend on other pointless things which cost us even more and you have the picture of a scheme which as I noted is strictly illegal in the US, and certainly immoral under any notion of morality.

And whether you agree or not, if someone is needy, truly needy, it IS okay to be helped by others and not to have it regarded as "taking" from someone else

Again, this is clearly and simply false. If I hold a gun to your head and steal your money, your husband's watch, and your wedding ring, but I intend to give these to my "needy" brother, it is STILL theft! How I use the stolen funds does not change the nature of the acquisition.

Contrast that with actual charity, where you voluntarily help those in need and the difference is crystal clear. Theft, no matter the excuse is still theft and inherently evil. Charity, that is to say helping those in need through your own actions, or your own property, is a moral ideal, an inherently good action.

Let me make this difference clear another way. What makes one person more valuable than another, so valuable that they have a right to the body, time, and labor of another? Or to put it more simply, how is slavery justified?

I was careful making comparisons. It's okay that you see a problem with my comparisons (whatever they were), but not up to you to decide whether I was careful or not. It's just your humble opinion. As all of our words are that are exchanged here. We're all just "philosophising". And it's truly great to have some good debate.

Several problems here. 1. I included myself in the caution that we all should take care in our comparisons. 2. I OBJECTIVELY refuted the disanalogy you offered. 3. Objective facts and reason are not merely a "humble opinion." 4. Not all of the words exchanged here are meaningless, as you insist must be the case. Look to the objective and easily verifiable facts which make up a large portion of my own posts for clear counter-examples to this claim. 5. "Philosophizing" is not merely opining. Philosophy is critical thought, where as opining is usually naught but emoting, which is to say meaningless utterances.

I do have compassion for the disabled, the young, and the elderly.

As do I. This appeal to emotion is pointless. I also have sympathy for the victims of theft.. :) BTW I have TWO brothers who are disabled, and my family takes care of our own elderly.

And the gov has to step in and support them until they are 18. Are they "taking" what doesn't belong to them?

Turn your question around, What action did they take to earn the money? Now remember that I am a big fan of helping those in need, I just oppose stealing from innocent others.

Or should we just throw em' into the closest river like a litter of unwanted kittens?

This contains two logical fallacies. 1. Appeal to emotion. 2. False dichotomy. We can help others without commiting theft, so the alternative to stealing from others to benefit ourselves is not tossing the kids to the closest river like a litter of unwanted kittens (BTW wow.. I would never think of using that method of getting rid of kittens!).

The best thing we can do for the less fortunate is STOP STEALING THEIR PROPERTY AND THEIR LIVES. It really is that simple...

Anyhow, I enjoy your posts.

Thanks, tell that to Andrew. Apparently not goose-stepping in unison is considered "hateful speech" according to him.. :rolleyes:

[PhilosopherStorm]

Oh and BTW I'm way too dumb to keep up with all your details

is false also.. :) Never doubt your own mind.. If I have ever been unclear just ask and I will simply clarify what I should have already made more clear.

I make no pretense of being smarter than anyone else. I may have studied a particular subject or methodology more than another, but then that other person spent their time doing something I was not doing and so has something there to teach me.

[redbrick]

If I may step in and humbly make a statement, enough is enough. This thread has certainly strayed far from the original topic. It is apparant to me that tempers have gotten quite frayed and dignities quite ruffled in a way that was never meant by the original author. This has happened on all sides, I believe; and my opinion is that we should ALL walk away before enemies are created. I would hate to see that happen in what is meant to be a friendly gathering of like-minded idividuals. Note: that is like-minded, not identically-minded. Opinions will differ, and must differ for any kind of meaningful exchange to occur. I believe the trick is to know when to say (silently, to oneself, if necesary,) "I respectfuly disagree, and will say no more." Let us please drop the personal attacks (from many sides, I might add), and get on with life at hand.

[zebraman]

Hey Guys;Let Freedom Ring-And Let it be Rung By a Stripper!This is the most FUN thread on the site.Don't stop Now.I have No Problems with Differing Opinions.I am a Rep.and I live in Venice,CA.The Gardening stuff is great too.But I beleive it was Jere who started this thread.Don't stop until the Fat Hippie Chick Sings"Take Another Little Piece Of My Heart Now Baby"....Have a Great Day!

[PhilosopherStorm]

This has happened on all sides, I believe; and my opinion is that we should ALL walk away before enemies are created.

For the record I have had any temper flare up, but then I am a man of peace. As for the intention of the author (by whom I take you to mean Jere, not Ronnie) I could not speak, but the use of implied insult does speak as to the high probability that he intended to offend. Then to have Andrew follow up with what can only be called hypocrisy and doublespeak, this lends even more evidence as to intention. One cannot help but question the practice of calling the acceptance of reality by one individual "hate speech" while ignoring direct insult by another as perfectly acceptable..

I have been patiently waiting for Andrew (and Jere for that matter) to apologize or at least recognize publicly their false accusations and implications, just as they publicly made these false (and completely baseless) accusations and implications, but thus far the civility with which their posts were met, the respect shown to them as individuals, has not been granted by them to others.

As to the personal attacks they originated with LoreD, were followed by Jere's and unfortuantely one remark by Zebraman, then topped off by Andrew. Yet the only language called for being "hate speech" is that of civility in response to such attacks, and clear statement of easily verifiable objective fact.

We do a great disservice to honest and civil discourse when we pretend that all are at fault when it is but a few who behave inappropriately, hypocritically, and dishonestly.

It is sufficiently ambiguous, but if you intended to imply that I have engaged in personal attacks, I would ask that you clarify this, and then cite specific examples as I know that none exist to cite. Again, this would be simple respect for persons, which is not shown by suggesting that those at fault should be considered identical in principle and behavior as those who have refrained from such negative and harmful behavior.

I would guess (and hope) that you would not tell one who was raped and the rapist that "there are problems on both sides.. let's just say that you are both at fault and call all of the behaviors identical" :)

[redbrick]

I must say, for a "man of peace", PhilosopherStorm, you are rather eager to take offence and maintain an argument. I had originally posted in an attempt to smooth what I percieve to be an extremely tense and inflammable situation. Sadly, now I regret even trying.

As for personal attacks, let me point out that while not as simple to pin down as bold statements, implications are no less hurtful and powerful.

Perhaps my attempt at mediation could be read as ambiguous. As such:

"It is sufficiently ambiguous, but if you intended to imply that I have engaged in personal attacks, I would ask that you clarify this, and then cite specific examples as I know that none exist to cite." As posted by PhilosopherStorm.

I believe that you are implying that I am attacking you personally, while you have attacked no one.

"Thanks, tell that to Andrew. Apparently not goose-stepping in unison is considered "hateful speech" according to him.. " as posted by PhilosopherStorm.

In this statement, I believe you imply Andrew K to be some sort of "Neo-nazi Gestapo"

"When my husband died, I received social security in order to help finish raising my children, which I couldn't have done as well, without assistance. Late hubby worked for those benefits, and believe it or not, the system worked for us!" As posted by SunflowerMeg.

"SunflowerMeg,

We should take care with our comparisons. Saying that the government is good because it gives you the funds taken from others, is akin to saying that prisons are good for prisoners because they are given food to eat." Also in the same post: "All of which overlooks the very real point that theft is simply wrong regardless of the theif or the use to which the theif might put the stolen property. If I hold a gun to your head, or threaten to put you in prison, if you do not give over your property I am committing theft regardless of whether I plan on giving a small fraction to the poor or elderly..
" And in a later post, also addressing SunflowerMeg: "As do I. This appeal to emotion is pointless. I also have sympathy for the victims of theft.. BTW I have TWO brothers who are disabled, and my family takes care of our own elderly." As posted by PhilosopherStorm.

I believe you are implying that she is stealing from society at large.

Finally: "I would guess (and hope) that you would not tell one who was raped and the rapist that "there are problems on both sides.. " As posted by PhilosopherStorm

If you are implying that you have been somehow raped by the members of this board, let me point out that rarely do rape victims willingly return to the point of assault.

I must apologize for my poor attempts at quotation, as I have not had the time to learn the proper methods.

Finally, I shall end my presence on this thread with these words: "I respectfully disagree, and will say no more on this subject" Good night.

[PhilosopherStorm]

I believe that you are implying that I am attacking you personally, while you have attacked no one.

I was asking for clarification as to whether you were implying that I had personally attacked anyone. There is no logical way to reach the conclusion that I was implying that you were attacking me personally from that request for clarification.

In this statement, I believe you imply Andrew K to be some sort of "Neo-nazi Gestapo"

Again we have a case of simply false belief. I reiterated that Andrew made false accusations and employed a clear and demonstrable (in fact demonstrated) double standard, which appears to be based upon the fact of disagreement with the party line, rather than upoin any misbehavior or incivility on my part.

I believe you are implying that she is stealing from society at large.

Another false belief, this one is doubly false for it assumes that "society" can own property, which is necessarily impossible, and secondly because you are assuming a conclusion for which there is no evidence sadly in the face of direct counter-evidence as I have not been at all unclear on this point of theft.

If you are implying that you have been somehow raped by the members of this board, let me point out that rarely do rape victims willingly return to the point of assault.

Not at all. I used your argument form to demonstrate that it necessarily leads to absurdly false conclusions. This method is the most common one used in critical thought to demonstrate the invalidity of an argument. To put it another way, if you hold to your accusations, to the reasoning you employed in your argument, then as well as condemning those who have been civil here, in fact have been the object of personal attacks and insults, then so too should you condemn the victims of rape for being raped.

Disagree with reason and reality all you like, but it is not possible to do so respectfully, nor is there any hint of respect in your initial accusations, which I will quote here so that no confusion nor pretense of confusion can possibly exist: I must say, for a "man of peace", PhilosopherStorm, you are rather eager to take offence and maintain an argument.

I am indeed a man of peace, I am also a man of reason. Being a man of peace does not mean that I must be dishonest if it pleases others, or that I should disrespect myself to make others feel better about their own behavior. I cannot help but wonder at this tactic of attacking those who were insulted.. What purpose does this serve? What purpose does it serve to suggest that we all should ignore false accusations and insults? (I strongly suspect that you would not employ this suggestion universally given the context in which it was offered here, though if I am mistaken by all means you can easily demonstrate that here).

At what point are we to pull our collective heads out of the sand and recognize that insult is insult? At what point do we stand proudly and recognize the difference between direct, intentional insult, clear incivility, and honest discussion? Or should we indeed simply consider all statements equal, the insult and the compliment, civility and incivility, reason and emotion?

The path you suggest was made famous by Pastor Martin Niemöller:

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

In all of our life we should not ignore the respect that others deserve, not by insulting them, nor by pretending that an insult to a particular individual or group is not an insult because they are somehow less worthy. To forget this is to walk upon the easiest and shortest path to war regardless of scale.

Why so opposed to the simple notion of respect for others?

[dirtundernails]

I read LoreD's comment and was the first to respond with an attempt at defending Philosopherstorm. I deleted it after LoreD's were gone, because it made no sense hanging out there ignored, considering all the appreciation lavished on Sunflower Meg for all the kind words. Since then, I figured out why my defense went down the toilet. I said I thought you had a fair style of debate. Aha... wrong word, you say you don't debate.... you argue points, right?

So, here I am, first again, with your much sought after apology. I'm sorry I said it. Please forgive everyone after me who used the word "debate" - it was my fault.


dun

[goldpearl]

It is sad that someone finds space to write and has nothing better to do with his time than fill a box with endless words. There is no meaning to any of these posts, its just a sad ego trying to scream its existance.
Walk away is very good advice.

[GreenCap]

Debate or argue I do enjoy your opinions, all of them. You get me all fired up in the morning :)

[PhilosopherStorm]

It is truly sad that someone would go out of their way to offer insult to those who are willing and able to stand up for others, especially for those least able to defend themselves. Why adopt such a position goldpearl? Why make the personal attack which has no basis nor merit, a desirable tactic?

Dirtundernails: I cannot say that I have any idea about what you are speaking. No I do not debate, as that is a formal activity which focuses on winners and losers rather than upon truth. It is also true that I will argue points in the effort to get to the truth, or sadly in the case of this thread to defend not only the small producers, and the consumers who wish to have the option to buy organic and heirloom vegetables, but also myself since Jere, LoreD, Andrew, etc saw fit to aim their pointed remarks at me because I did not blindly and mindlessly agree with them that helping the government and major producers put the smaller producers out of business is a good thing. As for apologies, yes Jere, LoreD, and Andrew all clearly owe the entire forum apologies for their choices to be incivil and dishonest. But I never so much as hinted that there was any cause for apology for the use of "debate." Why assume otherwise? Now I have I admit asked for the basic respect granted to others in honest discussions, this entails refraining from the uncivil and dishonest behaviors which Jere, LoreD, and Andrew adopted (which would negate any perception by any that apologies are necessitated). I do find it interesting that others have on their own seen that apologies under normal ideas of civility would be called for.. :) But I've not asked for them.

I'd simply note that in each case I have simply corrected false claims, including personal attacks. Everything I have said is easily verifiable. Why continue the demonization of clear truth?

I hated to get caught up in this nonsense, but you can hardly blame me for responding to personal attacks, false accusations, and direct intentional efforts to cause harm, can you? I'd much rather focus on growing wonderful and delightful produce for the table, but can these be enjoyed when others are actively seeking and successfully causing harm, as well as to hinder the availability of that wonderful and delightful food?

If we simply ignore such attacks, false accusations, and general incivility, we encourage it. By doing nothing, by not calling it out for what it is, we contribute to the lessening of the value of our own lives as well as those of others.

I am as curious as everyone else as to Jere and Andrew's explanations (if they chose to give them) because this is their forum and because this is connected to Baker Seeds, and I would like to know if by purchasing from them, is this the sort of thing I am supporting (the incivility and dishonestly as well as the attempts to harm the organic and heirloom movement). For instance Jere says one thing, but then takes a position which necessarily reduces the availability of organic and heirloom vegetables. In trying to cover for this, he then implies that I must work for major chemical companies. Since this was his first thought, and since he admitted in another thread that they buy many of their seeds from other growers. who supplies are either unknown or uncertified, this makes me wonder if in fact this is a ruse to undermine the efforts of those of us who want pure, healthy, good food.

[zebraman]

Hey Guys;This Site is really fun.Jere's Co. is AB/FAB.and so what if he doesn't grow everything he sells,neither does Kent Whealy.Also Check (no pun intended)Out Jere's Photo.He is to young to be a Real Hippie and he is young enough to be an Idealist.His heart is in the right place and that is good enough for me.Most humans on the planet have contradictory veiws and opinions.Keeps the place exciting.Your first point was really great and refreshing,but every post afterwards has been exactly the same.You only seem to want everyone else to only post from your standpoint.This is an open forum and it would be profoundly Boring if all posts were like your's.

[PhilosopherStorm]

Zebraman,

To whom is your post addressed? Clearly it cannot be to me, as the claim of identity of posts fails to match what is actually the case, as is the assumption that I would want everyone to post from my viewpoint. Maybe you were directing this to Jere and Andrew? After all only Andrew implied that posting out of the party line falls under the "hate speech" label while at the same time implicitly condoning uncivil behavior as long as it comes from the loyalists.. :confused:

As for contradictory opinion, that is one thing, direct intentional insult is another. Let's not confuse the two.

[rjzatyko@yahoo.com]

Do you check what you buy at the store to see if it is made here or in china? If it ain't made here don't buy it. People like you make me mad,you complain about the goverment,but you still buy stuff that is made overseas and you put people out of work that live here. Don't blame it on the goverment,blame it on you. You have a free will to buy what you want. richard from ky

[rjzatyko@yahoo.com]

I agree with PhilosopherStorm 100percent on what he has said, richard from ky

[JereGettle]

Richard, If you don't like labeling you should not know if it is from here or China or the US...

PhilosopherStorm does not believe in Labeling, so if you agree, you will be buying things from China, with out labels.

[zebraman]

Hey;Did I Miss Something? How did we go from this Bill to Bad Divers?

[JereGettle]

Thanks Zebra

-------------------------------------------------------------

Please folks read these posts as entertainment, if you don't argee with everything...

LOL

[PhilosopherStorm]

Jere,

Out of curiosity, how entertaining are insults supposed to be to the one insulted? Would you make the same statements if our roles were reversed?

If you are going to misrepresent my positions, could you at least put up a warning first? :) Rather than continuing to employ this intellectually dishonest tactic, why not simply address what I have actually said, read the actual bill, and respond to the arguments in fact made? Are these strawmen that much preferable? Is this the way you believe that one should treat others as a rule?

I am all for labeling. I am opposed to regulation, which necessarily harms us all, but the small producers and the consumers the most. By imposing more restrictions and taxation upon the small producers you cut severely into their already meager income without harming the big guys at all. By standing up for freedom and responsibility I am pointing out that we control our actions, and that we only harm ourselves when we simply blindly trust bureaucrats and politicians who have other agendas (and are often funded by the very big corporations which you complain about, yet support wholeheartedly in your actions as stated here in the forum) than protecting the privacy, freedom, and choice of the individual. All peaceful action, including exchanges of all sorts, ought to be allowed without having to check with these bureaucrats first, or worse yet simply outlawed all together.

Also, it certainly does not follow that even if labeling did not exist, that you are only left with the option to buy from China. Buy locally and you have no worries about the big bad China scare.. This nonsense that in the absence of total government control the only option is to buy Chinese is more empty rhetoric intended to scare people away from actually thinking about the issues and accepting responsibility for their choices.

[JereGettle]

"blindly trust bureaucrats and politicians who have other agendas (and are often funded by the very big corporations which you complain about, yet support wholeheartedly in your actions as stated here in the forum)"

Storm, I am sorry if I can't understand you, but check who are supporting this bill again! IT IS THE SAID BIG CORPRATIONS AND POLITICIANS. Not me! and not all the said small farmers you mention, THIS BILL IS MAINLY SUPPORTED BY SAID BIG COROPRATIONS!

I am sorry this thread is now closed.
It has gotten to far off topic,
and I just don't have time to keep up with it!

Thanks to all who posted, I think your all a cool bunch, even if I do not agree with ya all! We need lots of ideas to keep America the place it is.

PLEASE TELL EVERY ONE TO SAY NO TO THIS BILL!

lol,

bEST,
jERE

[JereGettle]

House Moves to Strip Food Warning Labels By LIBBY QUAID, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 10 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - The House voted Wednesday to strip many warnings from food labels, potentially affecting alerts about arsenic in bottled water, lead in candy and allergy-causing sulfites, among others.


Pushed by food companies seeking uniform labels across state lines, the bill would prevent states from adding food warnings that go beyond federal law. States could petition the Food and Drug Administration to add extra warnings, under the bill.

Lawmakers approved the bill on a 283-139 vote. Supporters expect a Senate version of the bill to be introduced soon.

"This bill is going to overturn 200 state laws that protect our food supply," said Rep. Henry Waxman (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif. "Why are we doing that? What's wrong with our system of federalism?"

The bill's supporters argue that consumers deserve the same warnings on supermarket shelves across the country. The bill would allow a state to seek a nationwide warning from FDA.

"We ought to do it in all 50 states," said Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich. "Chicken grown in Louisiana is going to end up on a plate in Michigan."

Rogers mentioned a warning his own state about allergy-causing sulfites: "If they're bad for Michigan citizens, I think they're bad in all of the other 49 states," he said.

Nationwide, as many as 200 state laws or regulations could be affected, according to the Congressional Budget Office. They include warnings about lead and alcohol in candy, arsenic in bottled water and many others.

The government would spend at least $100 million to answer petitions for tougher state rules, according to CBO.

Opponents of the bill scored one victory Wednesday: State warnings about mercury in fish would remain. Lawmakers amended the bill to let states keep those warnings. That amendment, sponsored by Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., passed on a 253-168 vote.

About a dozen states have safety and labeling rules for fish. In California, white signs with "WARNING" in red letters tells grocery shoppers about high mercury levels in certain fish. Rep. Anna Eshoo (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., displayed the placard during debate Wednesday on the House floor.

Eshoo noted the bill's supporters have personal ties to food industry lobbyists.

"This is not about consumers. This is about special interests," she said.

California is a primary target of the legislation. There, the voter-passed Proposition 65 requires companies to warn the public of potentially dangerous toxins in food. California has filed lawsuits seeking an array of warnings, including the mercury content of canned tuna and the presence of lead in Mexican candy.

Of particular concern to the industry is acrylamide, a chemical linked to cancer that forms in starchy food cooked at high temperatures, such as french fries and potato chips.

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer has sued to force Burger King, Frito Lay, McDonald's, Wendy's and other companies to warn consumers that acrylamide is present.

There is widespread opposition among state officials. Attorneys general in 39 states are opposed, as are the National Conference of State Legislature and the associations of state food and drug officials and state agriculture departments.