Vanilla Forums has been nominated for a second time in the CMS Critic "Critic's Choice" awards, and we need your vote! Read more here, and then do the thing (please).
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The end of Farmers Markets?

13

Posts

  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2009
    Duffel wrote: »
    How would this play out among people who just grew gardens for their own personal use? My parents grow some pretty big gardens, but they never sell any of it. Would they now be required to prove they weren't selling their vegetables somehow? Would farmers only be able to set up shop at certain areas which they need a license to apply for? And what's stopping people from selling stuff off the back of a truck like half the farmers around here do every summer?

    You only need to register if you're selling from a location outside of your property.

    Thanatos, you really need to work on that reading comprehension problem of yours. I listed just how little you'd have to do if they did show up, and then pointed out to the assertion that the law would go unenforced AND make farmers do, well, anything. I never said anything about the effectiveness of the law if it was enforced.

    And why would the agency have an incentive to drive the producers out of business? Are they required to take bribes from Israeli farming conglomerates?

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS
    edited March 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    And hey, Than - I hear the organization will be run entirely by cops and hippies.

    dirty ones

  • bluefoxicybluefoxicy Registered User
    edited March 2009
    Weren't there onions, lettuce and spinach recently tainted by salmonella? And the numbers aren't that ridiculous. In a system designed to track food and prevent outbreaks, it takes a month to identify the product, and locate the producer. How long do you think it would take to track distribution of something not in that system? Not to mention that the producers at the market we go to don't only sell at that market, most go to 2-3 others in the region each week.

    It'd be hard to track it down to a single point, though the region would be identified quick enough. It'd take manual lab testing of the markets to find the source.

    More interesting, if it's a one-off handling mistake you'll never find it, because it'll occur once: If I have a cow that's infested with e. coli, I butcher it, and feed it to people, and they get sick; The next cow is fine, and nobody knows what the hell happened.

    Now more fun: If I have a cow infested with e. coli, I butcher it, and send it to a processing factory to make ground beef; the next 50,000 pounds of cow get ground through the same meat grinding equipment, mixed with e. coli infested juices, until the mid-day scheduled once-per-6-hours cleaning. What the fuck? Beef all over the country is now contaminated and we don't know why! It's from one farmer, but it's contaminated food from hundreds of farmers!

    Repeat with automated spinich harvesters and the like. Anything that's "equipment" that touches your food in any way and doesn't wash its hands between every single piece of food that passes by. (And okay, maybe that first cow example would be 2-3 cows and then we wipe down the table and sanitize it and the knives again, who knows?)

    People call me Wood Man, 'cause I always got wood.
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Duffel wrote: »
    How would this play out among people who just grew gardens for their own personal use? My parents grow some pretty big gardens, but they never sell any of it. Would they now be required to prove they weren't selling their vegetables somehow? Would farmers only be able to set up shop at certain areas which they need a license to apply for? And what's stopping people from selling stuff off the back of a truck like half the farmers around here do every summer?

    You only need to register if you're selling from a location outside of your property.

    Then how is this bill going to accomplish its stated goal?

    tea-1.jpg
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Duffel wrote: »
    How would this play out among people who just grew gardens for their own personal use? My parents grow some pretty big gardens, but they never sell any of it. Would they now be required to prove they weren't selling their vegetables somehow? Would farmers only be able to set up shop at certain areas which they need a license to apply for? And what's stopping people from selling stuff off the back of a truck like half the farmers around here do every summer?

    You only need to register if you're selling from a location outside of your property.

    Then how is this bill going to accomplish its stated goal?

    Because most farmer's markets have to have some sort of advertising so customers can find it.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • EggyToastEggyToast Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    And hell, I don't want to buy your food if I can't be reasonably assured that it's not gonna make me sick. I think this is less "salmonella is bad" and more "we have a very large, very popular market in many cities that people THINK is safe, but we have no way of even knowing who these people are."

    And who would this drive away from farmer's markets? Sellers who think it's too onerous to keep a log of their safety routine? There's only so many booths and I'm sure another farmer would love to have a double-wide or a new farmer would love to sell their stuff.

    It's not like farmers markets are going to be suddenly flooded by big food companies -- the farmer's market association wouldn't allow them anyway.

    || Flickr — || PSN: EggyToast
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Scalfin wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Duffel wrote: »
    How would this play out among people who just grew gardens for their own personal use? My parents grow some pretty big gardens, but they never sell any of it. Would they now be required to prove they weren't selling their vegetables somehow? Would farmers only be able to set up shop at certain areas which they need a license to apply for? And what's stopping people from selling stuff off the back of a truck like half the farmers around here do every summer?

    You only need to register if you're selling from a location outside of your property.

    Then how is this bill going to accomplish its stated goal?

    Because most farmer's markets have to have some sort of advertising so customers can find it.

    Right, but what about farmer's markets that are actually, you know, at the farm? Which is the case for more than a few out here in suburbia, let alone rural locales.

    tea-1.jpg
  • bluefoxicybluefoxicy Registered User
    edited March 2009
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Your question is actually a pretty fucking stupid one. It's like asking "how do $10,000 liquor licenses create incentives for large bars over home brewers?" Econ 101: it creates barriers to entry/continued participation in the market.

    Actually, a beer/wine license and a distributor's license are two separate things. You'd need a beer/wine license to produce/sell beer/wine, and a distributor's license to actually distribute it for sale. To have a brewpub (a bar with a brewery in the back), you need a beer/wine license and a distributor's license; these are cheap ($800 a year for beer/wine and a distributor's license is similarly cheap as hell).

    But you are, of course, correct. In order to open up a restaurant I need all kinds of FDA registrations and such. Why doesn't every restaurant serve beer if it's just an $800 license? Why don't we see more brewpubs if it's just a couple thousand dollar expense per year? It's nothing on top of actually opening any business...

    ... well, not quite nothing. I homebrew beer in 5 gallon PET containers. The only material considered "sanitary" is stainless steel, and I need an expensive bioreactor (with fancy electronic controls and sensors!) to legally brew saleable beer. That $800 beer/wine license? That just became a $30,000 bioreactor (or a fully loaded Ford Mustang GT, in cash). Not to mention all the other BS I'd have to comply with.

    However this is all strawman argument until somebody actually lays down the process and proceedures you'd have to follow to comply, and I can say, "These things require extra, expensive equipment and professional, certified employees that nobody's going to just have on hand." It's something people are subconsciously thinking of though: I have to go downtown, apply for a permit, and THEY are going to slap me with tons of impossible regulations THE MAN wants me to follow!

    People call me Wood Man, 'cause I always got wood.
  • EggyToastEggyToast Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    Right, but what about farmer's markets that are actually, you know, at the farm? Which is the case for more than a few out here in suburbia, let alone rural locales.

    The bill is explicitly "food that is moved to another location." If it's sold where it's grown, this bill doesn't care about them.

    || Flickr — || PSN: EggyToast
  • dlinfinitidlinfiniti Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Medopine wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    And hey, Than - I hear the organization will be run entirely by cops and hippies.

    dirty ones

    silly medo
    all cops and hippies are dirty

    AAAAA!!! PLAAAYGUUU!!!!
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    EggyToast wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Right, but what about farmer's markets that are actually, you know, at the farm? Which is the case for more than a few out here in suburbia, let alone rural locales.

    The bill is explicitly "food that is moved to another location." If it's sold where it's grown, this bill doesn't care about them.

    Right. So how does this make the food supply safer? That is the goal of this bill, yes?

    tea-1.jpg
  • matt has a problemmatt has a problem Six pack on a dick Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Duffel wrote: »
    How would this play out among people who just grew gardens for their own personal use? My parents grow some pretty big gardens, but they never sell any of it. Would they now be required to prove they weren't selling their vegetables somehow? Would farmers only be able to set up shop at certain areas which they need a license to apply for? And what's stopping people from selling stuff off the back of a truck like half the farmers around here do every summer?

    You only need to register if you're selling from a location outside of your property.

    Then how is this bill going to accomplish its stated goal?

    Because most farmer's markets have to have some sort of advertising so customers can find it.

    Right, but what about farmer's markets that are actually, you know, at the farm? Which is the case for more than a few out here in suburbia, let alone rural locales.
    If it's a farmer selling directly from his farm, wouldn't he be regulated under usual "stores that sell food" regulations?

    h1DI1.jpg
    All my fuckin life I lived a normal fuckin life
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Duffel wrote: »
    How would this play out among people who just grew gardens for their own personal use? My parents grow some pretty big gardens, but they never sell any of it. Would they now be required to prove they weren't selling their vegetables somehow? Would farmers only be able to set up shop at certain areas which they need a license to apply for? And what's stopping people from selling stuff off the back of a truck like half the farmers around here do every summer?

    You only need to register if you're selling from a location outside of your property.

    Then how is this bill going to accomplish its stated goal?

    Because most farmer's markets have to have some sort of advertising so customers can find it.

    Right, but what about farmer's markets that are actually, you know, at the farm? Which is the case for more than a few out here in suburbia, let alone rural locales.
    If it's a farmer selling directly from his farm, wouldn't he be regulated under usual "stores that sell food" regulations?

    Wouldn't those regulations also apply to 'stores that sell food' at a farmer's market?

    tea-1.jpg
  • FyreWulffFyreWulff Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited March 2009
    What's to stop farmers from just collectively buying a lot downtown and selling the food there, since it is their property they're selling from the property.

    Unless you want to barcode and tag every single bit of food.

    The thing is, food is always going to be dirty. No matter where you get it from, it's going to be dirty. The bag of salad at the store has probably had someone or something pee or shit on it during it's growth at one point. We should be telling people that food is inherently unclean and should follow proper prep rules rather than going "AS LONG AS ITS SOLD IN PUBLIC ITS OKAY".

  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Put me down into the "We already have the FDA and FSIS* so...why ANOTHER?" catagory.

    *Food Safety Inspection Service. Run by the USDA.

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Medopine wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    By the way, I'm wondering if such a federal agency would actually cover farmer's markets anyway since it's not, you know, interstate commerce.

    Then again, Raich v. [strike]Ashcroft[/strike] Gonzales probably says it does. Fuck Raich v. [strike]Ashcroft[/strike] Gonzales.

    they probably buy stuff needed for their farm from out of state at some point

    alternatively: zing commerce clause magic touch!

    Man, the standards for justifying regulation under the ISC clause are ridiculously low.

    "You're breathing air from a westerly wind that wafted in from another state! Your life belongs to Congress!"

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    FyreWulff wrote: »
    What's to stop farmers from just collectively buying a lot downtown and selling the food there, since it is their property they're selling from the property.

    Unless you want to barcode and tag every single bit of food.

    The thing is, food is always going to be dirty. No matter where you get it from, it's going to be dirty. The bag of salad at the store has probably had someone or something pee or shit on it during it's growth at one point. We should be telling people that food is inherently unclean and should follow proper prep rules rather than going "AS LONG AS ITS SOLD IN PUBLIC ITS OKAY".

    Except that doesn't always protect you. Who the fuck preps peanut crackers?

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    And hey, Than - I hear the organization will be run entirely by cops and hippies.

    Cops and hippies working together? Inconceivable! That's like trying to keep Raisants and Buzzlegums in the same pinata garden!

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    FyreWulff wrote: »
    The thing is, food is always going to be dirty. No matter where you get it from, it's going to be dirty. The bag of salad at the store has probably had someone or something pee or shit on it during it's growth at one point. We should be telling people that food is inherently unclean and should follow proper prep rules rather than going "AS LONG AS ITS SOLD IN PUBLIC ITS OKAY".

    Hydroponics.

    tea-1.jpg
  • matt has a problemmatt has a problem Six pack on a dick Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Duffel wrote: »
    How would this play out among people who just grew gardens for their own personal use? My parents grow some pretty big gardens, but they never sell any of it. Would they now be required to prove they weren't selling their vegetables somehow? Would farmers only be able to set up shop at certain areas which they need a license to apply for? And what's stopping people from selling stuff off the back of a truck like half the farmers around here do every summer?

    You only need to register if you're selling from a location outside of your property.

    Then how is this bill going to accomplish its stated goal?

    Because most farmer's markets have to have some sort of advertising so customers can find it.

    Right, but what about farmer's markets that are actually, you know, at the farm? Which is the case for more than a few out here in suburbia, let alone rural locales.
    If it's a farmer selling directly from his farm, wouldn't he be regulated under usual "stores that sell food" regulations?

    Wouldn't those regulations also apply to 'stores that sell food' at a farmer's market?
    A farmer's market isn't a store though. Most have no physical presence, aside from the parking lot or park they take place in. You can't really send the FDA to inspect a tent. If the farms were selling to stores, they'd be required to be inspected. If they were selling directly from the farm, they'd be inspected too. It's kind of a loophole I suppose, one that's become more prominent with the homegrown/organic influx recently, that they don't really fall under any existing legislation.

    h1DI1.jpg
    All my fuckin life I lived a normal fuckin life
  • giltanisgiltanis Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    bluefoxicy wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Your question is actually a pretty fucking stupid one. It's like asking "how do $10,000 liquor licenses create incentives for large bars over home brewers?" Econ 101: it creates barriers to entry/continued participation in the market.

    Actually, a beer/wine license and a distributor's license are two separate things. You'd need a beer/wine license to produce/sell beer/wine, and a distributor's license to actually distribute it for sale. To have a brewpub (a bar with a brewery in the back), you need a beer/wine license and a distributor's license; these are cheap ($800 a year for beer/wine and a distributor's license is similarly cheap as hell).

    But you are, of course, correct. In order to open up a restaurant I need all kinds of FDA registrations and such. Why doesn't every restaurant serve beer if it's just an $800 license? Why don't we see more brewpubs if it's just a couple thousand dollar expense per year? It's nothing on top of actually opening any business...

    ... well, not quite nothing. I homebrew beer in 5 gallon PET containers. The only material considered "sanitary" is stainless steel, and I need an expensive bioreactor (with fancy electronic controls and sensors!) to legally brew saleable beer. That $800 beer/wine license? That just became a $30,000 bioreactor (or a fully loaded Ford Mustang GT, in cash). Not to mention all the other BS I'd have to comply with.

    However this is all strawman argument until somebody actually lays down the process and proceedures you'd have to follow to comply, and I can say, "These things require extra, expensive equipment and professional, certified employees that nobody's going to just have on hand." It's something people are subconsciously thinking of though: I have to go downtown, apply for a permit, and THEY are going to slap me with tons of impossible regulations THE MAN wants me to follow!

    This cost of a liquor license is not entirely accurate. For instance in PA no new liqour liscenses are created so you must buy an existing one and these typically retail from 5000-400000 dollars depending on the area. http://www.pallx.com/faq.html.

    sig.gif
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Medopine wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    By the way, I'm wondering if such a federal agency would actually cover farmer's markets anyway since it's not, you know, interstate commerce.

    Then again, Raich v. [strike]Ashcroft[/strike] Gonzales probably says it does. Fuck Raich v. [strike]Ashcroft[/strike] Gonzales.

    they probably buy stuff needed for their farm from out of state at some point

    alternatively: zing commerce clause magic touch!

    I'm pretty sure the actual precedent regarding the commerce clause is that all commerce is potentially interstate commerce, because if you buy a tomato from a local farmer that's a tomato you're not buying from a farmer across state lines, or an international farmer. Thus because local farms have the potential to displace sales from interstate farms, they affect interstate commerce and thus Congress can regulate them.

    No, really.

    There is no such thing as in-state commerce, as far as I can tell.


    Also, for some reason I find myself falling pretty firmly in the "take responsibility for the preparation of your own food" camp here, despite my general disdain for most forms of quasi-libertarianism. Seriously, wash and cook your vegetables and you don't have a problem. If a restaurant buys from a farmer's market (and many do) then they can take on the liability that would come from not properly washing and cooking the vegetables. It just seems like it makes sense to place more of the responsibility on those at the endpoint, who have the ability to do what's necessary to protect themselves.

  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2009
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    By the way, I'm wondering if such a federal agency would actually cover farmer's markets anyway since it's not, you know, interstate commerce.

    Then again, Raich v. [strike]Ashcroft[/strike] Gonzales probably says it does. Fuck Raich v. [strike]Ashcroft[/strike] Gonzales.

    they probably buy stuff needed for their farm from out of state at some point

    alternatively: zing commerce clause magic touch!

    I'm pretty sure the actual precedent regarding the commerce clause is that all commerce is potentially interstate commerce, because if you buy a tomato from a local farmer that's a tomato you're not buying from a farmer across state lines, or an international farmer. Thus because local farms have the potential to displace sales from interstate farms, they affect interstate commerce and thus Congress can regulate them.

    No, really.

    There is no such thing as in-state commerce, as far as I can tell.


    Also, for some reason I find myself falling pretty firmly in the "take responsibility for the preparation of your own food" camp here, despite my general disdain for most forms of quasi-libertarianism. Seriously, wash and cook your vegetables and you don't have a problem. If a restaurant buys from a farmer's market (and many do) then they can take on the liability that would come from not properly washing and cooking the vegetables. It just seems like it makes sense to place more of the responsibility on those at the endpoint, who have the ability to do what's necessary to protect themselves.

    Yes, but how the fuck do you wash a peanut-butter cracker.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • bluefoxicybluefoxicy Registered User
    edited March 2009
    giltanis wrote: »
    This cost of a liquor license is not entirely accurate. For instance in PA no new liqour liscenses are created so you must buy an existing one and these typically retail from 5000-400000 dollars depending on the area. http://www.pallx.com/faq.html.

    I should have been clearer: a beer/wine license is not a liquor license, and they're not limited. Liquor license lets you sell "liquor" which may be "distilled" or "over X% alcohol" depending on local laws.

    I was more aiming on why homebrewers don't take their small homebrew operations into, say, opening a brewpub. They wouldn't be able to distill things without the huge investment in a distillery anyway. More generally, why don't all restaurants serve beer, as a beer/wine license is a cheap thing to have....

    Simple barrier to entry, regulations that get dumped on you cost you more than $800/year in administrative costs.

    People call me Wood Man, 'cause I always got wood.
  • bluefoxicybluefoxicy Registered User
    edited March 2009
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Yes, but how the fuck do you wash a peanut-butter cracker.

    The people manufacturing the peanut butter should wash the peanuts in a strong citric acid solution before mashing them into paste. *shrug*

    People call me Wood Man, 'cause I always got wood.
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Scalfin wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    By the way, I'm wondering if such a federal agency would actually cover farmer's markets anyway since it's not, you know, interstate commerce.

    Then again, Raich v. [strike]Ashcroft[/strike] Gonzales probably says it does. Fuck Raich v. [strike]Ashcroft[/strike] Gonzales.

    they probably buy stuff needed for their farm from out of state at some point

    alternatively: zing commerce clause magic touch!

    I'm pretty sure the actual precedent regarding the commerce clause is that all commerce is potentially interstate commerce, because if you buy a tomato from a local farmer that's a tomato you're not buying from a farmer across state lines, or an international farmer. Thus because local farms have the potential to displace sales from interstate farms, they affect interstate commerce and thus Congress can regulate them.

    No, really.

    There is no such thing as in-state commerce, as far as I can tell.


    Also, for some reason I find myself falling pretty firmly in the "take responsibility for the preparation of your own food" camp here, despite my general disdain for most forms of quasi-libertarianism. Seriously, wash and cook your vegetables and you don't have a problem. If a restaurant buys from a farmer's market (and many do) then they can take on the liability that would come from not properly washing and cooking the vegetables. It just seems like it makes sense to place more of the responsibility on those at the endpoint, who have the ability to do what's necessary to protect themselves.

    Yes, but how the fuck do you wash a peanut-butter cracker.

    Your farmer's markets have home grown peanut butter crackers?

    I need to be there.

    tea-1.jpg
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    Your farmer's markets have home grown peanut butter crackers?

    I need to be there.

    Yeah, I'd say selling prepared foods is a whole different animal. Up here farmer's markets have nothing but raw vegetables and shit.

    Anybody selling prepared foods should expect to fall under some sort of regulation.

  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Can someone actually post evidence that farmer's markets are some wretched hive of scum and ecoli needing a federal body to watch over it?

    Like incident rates of outbreaks or deaths from farmer's market purchases for instance.

    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • giltanisgiltanis Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    bluefoxicy wrote: »
    giltanis wrote: »
    This cost of a liquor license is not entirely accurate. For instance in PA no new liqour liscenses are created so you must buy an existing one and these typically retail from 5000-400000 dollars depending on the area. http://www.pallx.com/faq.html.

    I should have been clearer: a beer/wine license is not a liquor license, and they're not limited. Liquor license lets you sell "liquor" which may be "distilled" or "over X% alcohol" depending on local laws.

    I was more aiming on why homebrewers don't take their small homebrew operations into, say, opening a brewpub. They wouldn't be able to distill things without the huge investment in a distillery anyway. More generally, why don't all restaurants serve beer, as a beer/wine license is a cheap thing to have....

    Simple barrier to entry, regulations that get dumped on you cost you more than $800/year in administrative costs.
    All licenses for alcohol sale are restricted by quota in PA including there closest analog to the beer/wine liscense. But that's besides the point. You are right that going from home brew to micro brew or brew pub is not cheap regardless of the cost of any applicable license. My real point was a reminder that these things vary widely from state to state and in some states are defiantly a significant expense and requirement of upfront capital.

    sig.gif
  • EggyToastEggyToast Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Kagera wrote: »
    Can someone actually post evidence that farmer's markets are some wretched hive of scum and ecoli needing a federal body to watch over it?

    Like incident rates of outbreaks or deaths from farmer's market purchases for instance.

    You're making a slippery slope -- just because there's regulation doesn't mean there's any problem, or that any problems that do exist are major. Furthermore, there can't be stats because it's currently not tracked as to who sells at farmers markets, let alone who buys -- you kind of just walk up to one, right? You could probably pool the farmers market associations to see who has rented a booth at one point, but I'm not sure what sort of laws are involved with setting up farmers markets. Probably at the county level, and they only care about revenue and zoning and traffic, most likely.

    I'm not saying this from the point of view of "well if you're not doing anything wrong, what have you got to hide?" perspective, but rather from the point that I would imagine most sellers at farmers markets are also consumers at farmers markets and are doing due diligence at their own farms regarding cleanliness. That's why I don't see any text in the bill about charging a fee, or having food be checked prior to sale, or any of that -- just a registration and an occasional check. Perhaps if you're selling to other shops, like a larger industry, those checks/audits could probably even count.

    But I agree with the guy above who states that this sounds more like closing a loophole. There's a shop here that roasts their own coffee, and they started at the farmers market -- only place you could buy it. So they'd roast it up, bag it, and sell it all on Sat & Sun here. Took them a few years before they opened their own shop, but they *could* have been doing it with dirty equipment, unsafe practices, and so on. Now, again, because they're selling to the whole "organic" crowd, I doubt that was the case -- they probably had a good system. Still, that's a pretty big loophole -- that you can produce food and then sell it at a farmers market and there's no check in place, beyond the people who control the booths.


    And for the guy above saying you should just cook all your veggies, how the heck do you cook a salad?

    || Flickr — || PSN: EggyToast
  • AntithesisAntithesis Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Well, I've sent a letter to my congressman. Done most of what I can do.


    Somehow I doubt the end of Farmers Markets in rural Vermont, given how most people around here are and their feelings towards federal regulation of... well, anything.

  • FencingsaxFencingsax Bondage Discipline Spider-Man Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    It is kind of a good idea to ensure that the farmer is selling food that's up to standard.

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
  • bluefoxicybluefoxicy Registered User
    edited March 2009
    EggyToast wrote: »
    Kagera wrote: »
    Can someone actually post evidence that farmer's markets are some wretched hive of scum and ecoli needing a federal body to watch over it?

    Like incident rates of outbreaks or deaths from farmer's market purchases for instance.

    You're making a slippery slope -- just because there's regulation doesn't mean there's any problem, or that any problems that do exist are major.

    That's not a slippery slope, that's an assumption. A slippery slope would be like saying the farmer's markets are already regulated, but they don't need such care, we can back off on them ever needing inspection. Then we can back off on them needing certain equipment. Then they'll start using unsanitary means, etc etc etc.

    Has to have a runaway potential.

    Slippery slopes aren't logical fallacies anyway, unless they're exaggerated. For example, ... nah. I'll put it in another thread. And nobody cares so I won't post it anyway.

    People call me Wood Man, 'cause I always got wood.
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    It is kind of a good idea to ensure that the farmer is selling food that's up to standard.

    How does this bill do that?

    tea-1.jpg
  • FencingsaxFencingsax Bondage Discipline Spider-Man Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    It is kind of a good idea to ensure that the farmer is selling food that's up to standard.

    How does this bill do that?
    ...Because it ensures that food vendors are up to standard on their safety inspections and whatnot?

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    It is kind of a good idea to ensure that the farmer is selling food that's up to standard.

    How does this bill do that?
    ...Because it ensures that food vendors are up to standard on their safety inspections and whatnot?

    I'm not seeing how that's the case. Half of the arguments for this seem to imply that the redundancy with the FDA and USDA shouldn't be a problem even though both of those agencies have fallen down on safety inspections, whatnot, and other things. The other half seem to imply that this will be just as/more useless as an underfunded FDA and USDA, and with enough loopholes to drive a truck carrying vegetables through.

    So how does this bill ensure that people selling their food are up to snuff, rather than simply creating another underfunded agency instead of sending more funds to Ag?

    tea-1.jpg
  • bluefoxicybluefoxicy Registered User
    edited March 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    I'm not seeing how that's the case. Half of the arguments for this seem to imply that the redundancy with the FDA and USDA shouldn't be a problem even though both of those agencies have fallen down on safety inspections, whatnot, and other things. The other half seem to imply that this will be just as/more useless as an underfunded FDA and USDA, and with enough loopholes to drive a truck carrying vegetables through.

    So how does this bill ensure that people selling their food are up to snuff, rather than simply creating another underfunded agency instead of sending more funds to Ag?

    You sir, you don't belong in politics. Politics is for money-grubbing corrupt pigs that accept bribes and pretend they're stopping pedophiles during an election year. Vote for me and I'll make sure nobody's uncle touches your children!

    In politics, as with anything done entirely in the light of public opinion, the "What" is more important than the "How."

    People call me Wood Man, 'cause I always got wood.
  • ZombiemamboZombiemambo Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    It's funny, because I trusy farmer's market food a lot more than store bought.

    JKKaAGp.png
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    bluefoxicy wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    I'm not seeing how that's the case. Half of the arguments for this seem to imply that the redundancy with the FDA and USDA shouldn't be a problem even though both of those agencies have fallen down on safety inspections, whatnot, and other things. The other half seem to imply that this will be just as/more useless as an underfunded FDA and USDA, and with enough loopholes to drive a truck carrying vegetables through.

    So how does this bill ensure that people selling their food are up to snuff, rather than simply creating another underfunded agency instead of sending more funds to Ag?

    You sir, you don't belong in politics. Politics is for money-grubbing corrupt pigs that accept bribes and pretend they're stopping pedophiles during an election year. Vote for me and I'll make sure nobody's uncle touches your children!

    In politics, as with anything done entirely in the light of public opinion, the "What" is more important than the "How."

    Cynicism towards politics. How original and enlightening.

    tea-1.jpg
  • bluefoxicybluefoxicy Registered User
    edited March 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    Cynicism towards politics. How original and enlightening.

    It's mostly observation. During an election year, politicians become more active. During an election year, politicians back more thinly-veiled bullshit. Hell, during an election year the news media tries to find dirt on politicians.

    In lower social circles, I've had it explained to me several times that the best way to get a girl in bed is to tell her what she wants to hear-- i.e. lie, cheat, and steal. I've watched people do this again and again. I don't think politicians are any different; besides, you're going to hire the one that tells you lies you want to hear, not the one that tells only the truth and is definitely not going to do what you want him to do. I think it's a reasonable assumption to assume this behavior occurs at all levels.

    Given that, why wouldn't you be cynical towards politics?

    People call me Wood Man, 'cause I always got wood.
Sign In or Register to comment.