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?
I wouldn't call that entirely fair. Politics is full of corruption because many of the people drawn toward it want control and power. But at the same time, people who really want to make things change have to say what people want to hear because, if they don't, they don't get elected.
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?
I wouldn't call that entirely fair. Politics is full of corruption because many of the people drawn toward it want control and power. But at the same time, people who really want to make things change have to say what people want to hear because, if they don't, they don't get elected.
Yes, exactly. If you don't lie, cheat, and steal, you don't get elected.
Politics == Marketing?
bluefoxicy on
People call me Wood Man, 'cause I always got wood.
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?
I wouldn't call that entirely fair. Politics is full of corruption because many of the people drawn toward it want control and power. But at the same time, people who really want to make things change have to say what people want to hear because, if they don't, they don't get elected.
Yes, exactly. If you don't lie, cheat, and steal, you don't get elected.
Politics == Marketing?
No, I mean if you don't make some pretty big promises, promises that anyone would have a hard time keeping, the people aren't going to be interested in you as much. Corrupt people use speech to coax people into voting for them, and in order for honest, good men to get elected, they have to play a little hard ball, too.
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?
Except it isn't an election year.
And I'm an optimist for a variety of reasons.
moniker on
0
Options
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
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.
Yea, those of us in rural Vermont will pretty much tell the feds "hey, we like our farmers market/guns/wood boilers/whatever else you don't like, so go fuck yourselves."
Also, any chance this will end up like the toy testing, where if you make less than a certain number of toys, you're immune to the testing? (Made for obviously the same reason... so small businesses aren't killed)
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?
Except the peanut paste/whatever was prepared in a facility that already had government oversight. Random batch testing should be enough to catch any ecoli strains and whatever other scary things.
Oh wait, since the people in charge of inspections worked for the industry, they just ignored problems so that they wouldn't be out of a job. If this were created, they wouldn't ship in people from out of state. Who's going to inspect the food? Either a) local farmers or b) local workers for the big food corps.
But all of this should be irrelevant because the feds should not be regulating in-state commerce, the state should. Like I've said before, the city or state can handle this themselves.
As someone who lives in Nebraska, we do NOT need to give ConAgra even more of the food market than they already have on a silver platter.
And Jeffe, I would think it would be more about not wanting someone to get horrendously ill because they forgot to wash off a tomato.
How does this bill do that?
Seriously, how? My dad has a small garden in the backyard because he likes to fiddle with it. It yields delicious zucchini bread like you wouldn't believe. Since getting tomatoes and peppers and such to plant are cheap he almost always has extras left over that he takes to work in order to give to a few cubicle mates. If he had to fill out paper work in order to do this he'd just not and let them rot in order to be fertilizer for next year. Hardly a great loss, but I don't see the benefit here either. Particularly since he doesn't do anything to the plants aside from water them, meaning yay more healthy than the supermarket. I also do not see how this bill is going to make the pears and apples I buy for a snack when I'm dicking around downtown more safe. How is it going to do that?
This doesn't effect your dad since, um lets see, he doesn't farm. I assume this is only for farmers whouse their fields for crops and not some dude in his backyard.
Does he sell the crop? Does he report his profits to the government via his tax forms? Does he even have a permit to grow vegetables for sale in his backyard because that would require it to be zoned as a farm land and not residential.
If he doesn't do this, then he isn't affected.
Unless if he sells and doesn't report it. Then thats just plain stealing.
There is nothing in this proposed regulation that says, "fuck you small farmers, we're gonna fuck you in the ass until you convert yourselves into Hormel SPAM factories", and before anyone starts claming otherwise again, I want reasons and not a blind exercise in Limbaughing.
This has already been explained. They will incur costs (either direct monetary costs or just labor costs) that can push them out of the market. Or they might just follow their cultural leanings and pull out on idealogical grounds. Either way it is reducing the number of entrants in the market. I don't see how that is controversial or Limbaughing in any way (no one has even made an argument that remotely resembles something Limbaugh would say for one).
A push towards more regulatory apparatus is likely to hurt small producers. They don't have the apparatus in play already like institutional farms, and any fixed cost of compliance will be borne unduly by them since their output levels are so small.
I've highlighted what I call Limbaughing. I've quoted other statements in the post you quoted and I'm not quoting them again. You're making an appeal to supposition rather than an appeal to substantiation, and I don't think that it's a valid tactic. Now, if you don't like the regulation and feel regulation isn't warranted, then say what you did in the last paragraph of your post. If you feel it's not going to do any good and is a case of government growth just to grow it to be shown to be doing something (which is honestly where I fall out on this argument), then say that. But, don't invent consequences to build up the argument just to pad the argument. Which is exactly what Limbaugh and his talk radio cronies do. Which is why I called it Limbaughing. If someone else has coined the term, then bad on me. As far as I know, I invented it yesterday.
This doesn't effect your dad since, um lets see, he doesn't farm. I assume this is only for farmers whouse their fields for crops and not some dude in his backyard.
Well, it is a good thing that as reported in that link, it doesn't specify that it only applies to farmers who use their fields for crops. It applies to anyone selling agricultural products. There are different categories based on the scope of what you are doing, but none of them exclude hobbyists that I can see, and the contentious material applies to everyone.
Does he sell the crop? Does he report his profits to the government via his tax forms? Does he even have a permit to grow vegetables for sale in his backyard because that would require it to be zoned as a farm land and not residential.
If he doesn't do this, then he isn't affected.
Well it is a good thing that what they are proposing is your bill and not the bill actually being written.
Individual, small scale food sellers would almost certainly fall under a Category 5 Food Establishment under the wording of the current bill if they weren't zoned as farms, in which case they would be a Food Production Facility. There isn't any provisions in the bill I can see that would actually shield anything but a non-profit food serving organization.
And actually the bill is far more retarded than that. Rather than reforming the purview of the FDA to cover the ~20% of food products it isn't responsible for, it creates a new agency under HHS. Why? What a waste of money, did we learn nothing from the debacle that is the DHS?
Oh and these are the sweet things a hobbyist squash grower gets to contend with;
"(1) consider all relevant hazards, including those occurring naturally, and those that may be unintentionally or intentionally introduced;
(2) require each food production facility to have a written food safety plan that describes the likely hazards and preventive controls implemented to address those hazards;
(3) include, with respect to growing, harvesting, sorting, and storage operations, minimum standards related to fertilizer use, nutrients, hygiene, packaging, temperature controls, animal encroachment, and water;"
Thank god the government is here to save me from inappropriate fertilizer usage on tomatos I buy from a Farmer's Market. And if you honestly think the above won't impose costs on small scale operations, I don't even know what to say to you.
Unless if he sells and doesn't report it. Then thats just plain stealing.
First off, tax evasion isn't theft. Second of all, I don't understand why you wouldn't include his dad. I can at least understand the argument that all food must be safe and the government is the arbiter of said safety, even if I don't agree with that reading. But if you are taking that stance, why should Joe Gardener be immune? Surely the food he is growing has the potential to cause illness. If so, why wouldn't the government regulate him as well if he is putting said food up for sale or trade?
We already have a federal agency whose chartered mission includes ensuring food safety. That agency is underfunded and broken. So why create a second agency to do the same job instead of fixing the first agency?
There is nothing in this proposed regulation that says, "fuck you small farmers, we're gonna fuck you in the ass until you convert yourselves into Hormel SPAM factories", and before anyone starts claming otherwise again, I want reasons and not a blind exercise in Limbaughing.
This has already been explained. They will incur costs (either direct monetary costs or just labor costs) that can push them out of the market. Or they might just follow their cultural leanings and pull out on idealogical grounds. Either way it is reducing the number of entrants in the market. I don't see how that is controversial or Limbaughing in any way (no one has even made an argument that remotely resembles something Limbaugh would say for one).
A push towards more regulatory apparatus is likely to hurt small producers. They don't have the apparatus in play already like institutional farms, and any fixed cost of compliance will be borne unduly by them since their output levels are so small.
I've highlighted what I call Limbaughing. I've quoted other statements in the post you quoted and I'm not quoting them again. You're making an appeal to supposition rather than an appeal to substantiation, and I don't think that it's a valid tactic. Now, if you don't like the regulation and feel regulation isn't warranted, then say what you did in the last paragraph of your post. If you feel it's not going to do any good and is a case of government growth just to grow it to be shown to be doing something (which is honestly where I fall out on this argument), then say that. But, don't invent consequences to build up the argument just to pad the argument. Which is exactly what Limbaugh and his talk radio cronies do. Which is why I called it Limbaughing. If someone else has coined the term, then bad on me. As far as I know, I invented it yesterday.
I never said I agreed with their strident anti-government rhetoric, but not including sociological considerations in an analysis of potential effects is just short sighted. It isn't far fetched that some of these predominantly rural people will view the intrusion of government into their affairs with disdain and will simply pull out of the market to avoid said intrusion. That isn't inventing some consequences. And its laughable that you are calling me out on substantiation considering that none of the defenders of this bill can substantiate any of its actual benefits or its costs.
The crux of the point is that there would be barriers to entry in this market, both economic and social. And the core of my argument (and I imagine others) is that the benefits aren't worth the cost, both explicit (someone gets to pay for these inspections) and implicit (higher prices/less availability of local produce).
And Jeffe, I would think it would be more about not wanting someone to get horrendously ill because they forgot to wash off a tomato.
How does this bill do that?
Seriously, how? My dad has a small garden in the backyard because he likes to fiddle with it. It yields delicious zucchini bread like you wouldn't believe. Since getting tomatoes and peppers and such to plant are cheap he almost always has extras left over that he takes to work in order to give to a few cubicle mates. If he had to fill out paper work in order to do this he'd just not and let them rot in order to be fertilizer for next year. Hardly a great loss, but I don't see the benefit here either. Particularly since he doesn't do anything to the plants aside from water them, meaning yay more healthy than the supermarket. I also do not see how this bill is going to make the pears and apples I buy for a snack when I'm dicking around downtown more safe. How is it going to do that?
This doesn't effect your dad since, um lets see, he doesn't farm. I assume this is only for farmers who use their fields for crops and not some dude in his backyard.
Does he sell the crop? Does he report his profits to the government via his tax forms? Does he even have a permit to grow vegetables for sale in his backyard because that would require it to be zoned as a farm land and not residential.
If he doesn't do this, then he isn't affected.
Unless if he sells and doesn't report it. Then thats just plain stealing.
He gives them away to friends and family. So how does this bill make the food supply safer if his bucket of tomatoes and peppers don't fall under its purview? His food might not be safe and yet it is being spread around the area in an uncontrolled manner without any regulation or oversight.
Especially the fact that the woman who introduced the bill is married to a Monsanto employee! WTF!
The basic gist of this theory is - yes, controlling outbreaks and ensuring food is not contaminated is a good thing. What has happened is that inspections and regulations have been a joke thus far due to big agribiz lobbying for deregulation. A crisis has hit (peanut butter) and now big agribiz sees an opportunity to lobby the gov to make it harder for their only competition (small farmers/non GMO producing entities) to stay in business. The people who will ultimately suffer will be the ones that did nothing wrong in the first place - small farmers and consumers of true organic products.
C'mon people - putting more of a burden on small farmers and criminalizing local seed banks? How will that help anyone but large agribiz? This is super-villlainy at its finest!
Also, gotta love this quote:
' The Socialist Revolution in the US cannot take place because there are too many small independent farmers there. Those people are the stability factor. We here in Russia must hurry while our government is stupid enough to not encourage and support the independent farmership.'
Also, gotta love this quote:
' The Socialist Revolution in the US cannot take place because there are too many small independent farmers there. Those people are the stability factor. We here in Russia must hurry while our government is stupid enough to not encourage and support the independent farmership.'
The actual bill, in its entirety, seems to be about taking the role of food labeling, food safety, and recall procedures out of the hands of the FDA and making a specific organization under Health and Human Services to handle it specifically.
It appears to simply move everything that the FDA is already doing to an organization that can currently act on it. It also seems to have much more focus on food processing and food sales, rather than an "end of farmers markets." Maybe it would be better to discuss what the bill's text says, rather than what an anti-government blog believes it to say.
Seems to be addressing the problems that the FDA is too big and "broken" to effectively handle food safety, so we should make an organization that focuses on it specifically and let the FDA worry about everything else on its plate. Not a lot in there about "gardener" or "farmers market" -- I couldn't find any text using those words at all.
Well, other than this text:
(12) provide technical assistance to farmers and food establishments that are small business concerns (meeting the requirements of section 3(a) of the Small Business Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder) to assist with compliance with the requirements of this Act.
So if you're small potatoes (no pun) and you end up falling under the requirements of this bill, the agency will help you out. Sounds like it helps the little guy, rather than raise a barrier.
The actual bill, in its entirety, seems to be about taking the role of food labeling, food safety, and recall procedures out of the hands of the FDA and making a specific organization under Health and Human Services to handle it specifically.
It appears to simply move everything that the FDA is already doing to an organization that can currently act on it. It also seems to have much more focus on food processing and food sales, rather than an "end of farmers markets." Maybe it would be better to discuss what the bill's text says, rather than what an anti-government blog believes it to say.
Seems to be addressing the problems that the FDA is too big and "broken" to effectively handle food safety, so we should make an organization that focuses on it specifically and let the FDA worry about everything else on its plate. Not a lot in there about "gardener" or "farmers market" -- I couldn't find any text using those words at all.
They don't need to be enumerated explicitly when the wording of the bill basically covers everyone, with specific exemptions for a few blessed cases (not a gardener or farmer's market).
And of course the fix for the FDA not being able to do their job is to strip half their mandate and create an entirely new department. I mean, that is brilliant. It worked so well when we last took a stab at it with the DHS. We managed to create a bloated entity at great cost that still can't do its job. Second time is a charm?
Well, other than this text:
(12) provide technical assistance to farmers and food establishments that are small business concerns (meeting the requirements of section 3(a) of the Small Business Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder) to assist with compliance with the requirements of this Act.
So if you're small potatoes (no pun) and you end up falling under the requirements of this bill, the agency will help you out. Sounds like it helps the little guy, rather than raise a barrier.
Great, so a government apparatus that currently cannot meet its obligations will instead be reformed in its entirety and then have the wherewithal to also be able to effectively help small businesses navigate their regulatory framework. Forgive me if I am skeptical.
Not gonna argue with you Eggytoast. I read through the bill and you have to between the lines. This bill opens the door for a new agency to squeeze the life out of small farmers and end local seed banks in the name of "food safety." These things don't just happen overnight. Seemingly innocuous legislation is passed first, then just wait for it. I believe the government tries its best to do whats right but gee, those big companies sure do have a lot of money......
Also, gotta love this quote:
' The Socialist Revolution in the US cannot take place because there are too many small independent farmers there. Those people are the stability factor. We here in Russia must hurry while our government is stupid enough to not encourage and support the independent farmership.'
V. Lenin, the founder of the Russian revolution
o_O
Hint: if the only source for a quote is a comment on Digg, you look stupid when you use it somewhere else.
Everyone needs to remember that there's corruption in them there walls, and if the new group is run by big farms, who are they going to monitor and make look bad if an outbreak happens? It sure as hell won't be their own asses.
Also it says they'll get "assistance" but there will be so many stipulations due to the regulation that it will just drive them out of business anyway, or they won't qualify for the help because they made 'too much' money, and now you're going to encourage farmers to destroy crops to stay under the income limit.
Posts
I wouldn't call that entirely fair. Politics is full of corruption because many of the people drawn toward it want control and power. But at the same time, people who really want to make things change have to say what people want to hear because, if they don't, they don't get elected.
Yes, exactly. If you don't lie, cheat, and steal, you don't get elected.
Politics == Marketing?
No, I mean if you don't make some pretty big promises, promises that anyone would have a hard time keeping, the people aren't going to be interested in you as much. Corrupt people use speech to coax people into voting for them, and in order for honest, good men to get elected, they have to play a little hard ball, too.
Except it isn't an election year.
And I'm an optimist for a variety of reasons.
Yea, those of us in rural Vermont will pretty much tell the feds "hey, we like our farmers market/guns/wood boilers/whatever else you don't like, so go fuck yourselves."
Also, any chance this will end up like the toy testing, where if you make less than a certain number of toys, you're immune to the testing? (Made for obviously the same reason... so small businesses aren't killed)
Except the peanut paste/whatever was prepared in a facility that already had government oversight. Random batch testing should be enough to catch any ecoli strains and whatever other scary things.
Oh wait, since the people in charge of inspections worked for the industry, they just ignored problems so that they wouldn't be out of a job. If this were created, they wouldn't ship in people from out of state. Who's going to inspect the food? Either a) local farmers or b) local workers for the big food corps.
But all of this should be irrelevant because the feds should not be regulating in-state commerce, the state should. Like I've said before, the city or state can handle this themselves.
As someone who lives in Nebraska, we do NOT need to give ConAgra even more of the food market than they already have on a silver platter.
This doesn't effect your dad since, um lets see, he doesn't farm. I assume this is only for farmers whouse their fields for crops and not some dude in his backyard.
Does he sell the crop? Does he report his profits to the government via his tax forms? Does he even have a permit to grow vegetables for sale in his backyard because that would require it to be zoned as a farm land and not residential.
If he doesn't do this, then he isn't affected.
Unless if he sells and doesn't report it. Then thats just plain stealing.
We don't sell raw shit in our farmer's markets. Y'all people are weird.
Well, it is a good thing that as reported in that link, it doesn't specify that it only applies to farmers who use their fields for crops. It applies to anyone selling agricultural products. There are different categories based on the scope of what you are doing, but none of them exclude hobbyists that I can see, and the contentious material applies to everyone.
Well it is a good thing that what they are proposing is your bill and not the bill actually being written.
Individual, small scale food sellers would almost certainly fall under a Category 5 Food Establishment under the wording of the current bill if they weren't zoned as farms, in which case they would be a Food Production Facility. There isn't any provisions in the bill I can see that would actually shield anything but a non-profit food serving organization.
And actually the bill is far more retarded than that. Rather than reforming the purview of the FDA to cover the ~20% of food products it isn't responsible for, it creates a new agency under HHS. Why? What a waste of money, did we learn nothing from the debacle that is the DHS?
Oh and these are the sweet things a hobbyist squash grower gets to contend with;
"(1) consider all relevant hazards, including those occurring naturally, and those that may be unintentionally or intentionally introduced;
(2) require each food production facility to have a written food safety plan that describes the likely hazards and preventive controls implemented to address those hazards;
(3) include, with respect to growing, harvesting, sorting, and storage operations, minimum standards related to fertilizer use, nutrients, hygiene, packaging, temperature controls, animal encroachment, and water;"
Thank god the government is here to save me from inappropriate fertilizer usage on tomatos I buy from a Farmer's Market. And if you honestly think the above won't impose costs on small scale operations, I don't even know what to say to you.
First off, tax evasion isn't theft. Second of all, I don't understand why you wouldn't include his dad. I can at least understand the argument that all food must be safe and the government is the arbiter of said safety, even if I don't agree with that reading. But if you are taking that stance, why should Joe Gardener be immune? Surely the food he is growing has the potential to cause illness. If so, why wouldn't the government regulate him as well if he is putting said food up for sale or trade?
I never said I agreed with their strident anti-government rhetoric, but not including sociological considerations in an analysis of potential effects is just short sighted. It isn't far fetched that some of these predominantly rural people will view the intrusion of government into their affairs with disdain and will simply pull out of the market to avoid said intrusion. That isn't inventing some consequences. And its laughable that you are calling me out on substantiation considering that none of the defenders of this bill can substantiate any of its actual benefits or its costs.
The crux of the point is that there would be barriers to entry in this market, both economic and social. And the core of my argument (and I imagine others) is that the benefits aren't worth the cost, both explicit (someone gets to pay for these inspections) and implicit (higher prices/less availability of local produce).
He gives them away to friends and family. So how does this bill make the food supply safer if his bucket of tomatoes and peppers don't fall under its purview? His food might not be safe and yet it is being spread around the area in an uncontrolled manner without any regulation or oversight.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Monsanto-and-the-Schoolmar-by-Linn-Cohen-Cole-090214-935.html
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Monsanto-s-dream-bill-HR-by-Linn-Cohen-Cole-090309-337.html
Especially the fact that the woman who introduced the bill is married to a Monsanto employee! WTF!
The basic gist of this theory is - yes, controlling outbreaks and ensuring food is not contaminated is a good thing. What has happened is that inspections and regulations have been a joke thus far due to big agribiz lobbying for deregulation. A crisis has hit (peanut butter) and now big agribiz sees an opportunity to lobby the gov to make it harder for their only competition (small farmers/non GMO producing entities) to stay in business. The people who will ultimately suffer will be the ones that did nothing wrong in the first place - small farmers and consumers of true organic products.
C'mon people - putting more of a burden on small farmers and criminalizing local seed banks? How will that help anyone but large agribiz? This is super-villlainy at its finest!
Also, gotta love this quote:
' The Socialist Revolution in the US cannot take place because there are too many small independent farmers there. Those people are the stability factor. We here in Russia must hurry while our government is stupid enough to not encourage and support the independent farmership.'
V. Lenin, the founder of the Russian revolution
o_O
The actual bill, in its entirety, seems to be about taking the role of food labeling, food safety, and recall procedures out of the hands of the FDA and making a specific organization under Health and Human Services to handle it specifically.
It appears to simply move everything that the FDA is already doing to an organization that can currently act on it. It also seems to have much more focus on food processing and food sales, rather than an "end of farmers markets." Maybe it would be better to discuss what the bill's text says, rather than what an anti-government blog believes it to say.
Seems to be addressing the problems that the FDA is too big and "broken" to effectively handle food safety, so we should make an organization that focuses on it specifically and let the FDA worry about everything else on its plate. Not a lot in there about "gardener" or "farmers market" -- I couldn't find any text using those words at all.
Well, other than this text:
So if you're small potatoes (no pun) and you end up falling under the requirements of this bill, the agency will help you out. Sounds like it helps the little guy, rather than raise a barrier.
They don't need to be enumerated explicitly when the wording of the bill basically covers everyone, with specific exemptions for a few blessed cases (not a gardener or farmer's market).
And of course the fix for the FDA not being able to do their job is to strip half their mandate and create an entirely new department. I mean, that is brilliant. It worked so well when we last took a stab at it with the DHS. We managed to create a bloated entity at great cost that still can't do its job. Second time is a charm?
Great, so a government apparatus that currently cannot meet its obligations will instead be reformed in its entirety and then have the wherewithal to also be able to effectively help small businesses navigate their regulatory framework. Forgive me if I am skeptical.
Handmade Jewelry by me on EtsyGames for sale
Me on Twitch!