March 9th, 2006, 06:55 AM
Is the thread about food labeling closed in fact, or is it merely closed to citations of fact?
Assuming that the Califonia bill is like the other bills about which Jere and others have been complaining since they would prevent locals from putting small business out of business, then the author of the article just as with Ronnie before him, has clearly misrepresented the facts.
The bill which started the thread DOES NOT APPLY TO HEALTH LABELING OR SAFETY no matter how much some would like to pretend that it does. Recall that it took merely second to read enough of the bill to find this clear statement. Unfortunately those who are working against the small farmer, the independent producer of organic and heirloom produce could not be bothered to read the bill apparently, choosing instead to simply be dishonest as to its content.
In the case of that thread even going so far as to try to silence citing of facts by employing personal attacks, deliberate dishonesty, blatant misrepresentation, and now "closing" the thread to refutations and citation of simple fact.
When reality does not match your belief, it is never reality which is mistaken.. This might be good to remember Jere...
March 9th, 2006, 06:56 AM
For those interested in fact, rather than dishonest spin:
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
"Nothing in this section shall be construed to modify or
12 otherwise affect the product liability law of any State."
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:
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
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:
March 9th, 2006, 07:15 AM
Having just reviewed several different "reports" by several opponent, including one by the attorney general of California (who merely engaged in insults, such as deriding the intelligence of the Michigan representative), and none of these contained even a single quote, excerpt, or citation from the bill itself.. unsurpisingly those who want to shut down small businesses, hinder the growth of the organic and heirloom market by opposing this bill, are woefully short on facts so they just make up whatever they want to scare people into taking the side that they want..
Truly sad as well as clearly dishonest.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.