Food Police - The Overbearing FDA

[Aplomb]

We'll get more info if we encounter such a situation again. It may have been an issue because my son had his own receipt and the few pennies owed couldn't be added to the tally of the next person, I'm not sure about the details or rules with debit/credit cards.

[vector7]

November 29, 2010
Federal Farming Power Grab Scheduled for Senate Vote Today

By Michael Geer

S.510, the Senate bill set to vastly expand federal power over agriculture, potentially choking off small local growers and hobby farmers, is set for a vote today.

Cloture, or a vote to end debate on S.150 took place on Wednesday November 17 with 74 votes for and 25 opposed. A final Manager's Amendment came into being after more than thirty hours of debate following Cloture.

A Manager's Amendment is, quoting C-SPAN Congressional Glossary, a package of numerous individual amendments agreed to by both sides in advance. The managers are the majority and the minority member who manage the debate on a bill for their side.

On Thursday November 18, Tom Coburn (R-OK) held up the Bill through design by asking for an Amendment meant to address the subject of Earmarks. A Motion to Proceed was voted on and passed.

Quoting Lee Bechtel, National Health Federation, "during the debate, Senator Harkin described some of the key points in the yet-to-be-voted-on Manager's Amendment. Among other changes, the final Manager's Amendment included an exemption for dietary supplements from Codex [1] food guidelines, exemption language for dietary supplement manufacturers and retailers from the conventional food company and distributor registration fees, reporting and product traceability requirements. The final Manager's Amendment also included the Tester-Hagan [2] amendment exempting small farmers and retailers; organic farmers were already exempted from FDA registration fee, reporting, and product traceability requirements, for farms with less than $500,000 in gross receipts. The compromise language was very close to the original Tester amendment, which is why Senators Tester and Hagan both voted in favor of moving the bill forward.

Friday, November 19th, Majority Leader Harry Reid announced agreement had been reached on the order of final amendments and votes on S.510, which are now scheduled for Monday, November 29, after the Thanksgiving recess. There will be a second cloture vote on the motion to proceed, followed by debate and votes on two amendments to be offered by Senator Coburn. These are to be followed by debate and a vote on the Manager's Amendment to the original S.510 bill. If successful, the vote on final bill passage follows.

As explained by Senator Harkin, he and Senators Reid and Durbin had worked out an agreement in advance of Senate passage with House Democratic leadership to accept the Senate-passed bill, hold it at the House desk, and then vote on passage of the Senate bill. This procedural maneuvering eliminates the usual joint Senate-House conference committee to work out differences with the Waxman and House passed Food Safety bill, H.R. 2749. If the House approves, the final version of the Senate Food Safety bill would then be sent to President Obama for signing into new law."

Here's the nut of it; S.510 as originally envisioned by Dick Durbin (D-IL) has been moderated but not eliminated in the sense of preventing more Big Government. While no one in his right mind would argue against food safety, valid arguments can and have been raised against more government layered on top of the Big Government we already have. Amendments have been offered and appear to be in the final Bill which seem to address the concerns of small businesses, small farmers, small ranchers, small food producers, farmers markets, hobbyists, home gardeners and seed enthusiasts and such.

The Bill, as it stands now, is going to be available to be voted on after reconciliation with the House version (HR 2749) with this proviso; no monies will be appropriated for this expanded authority in addition to the FDA's current $4 billion+ budget. The suggestion that new fees imposed by these changes by the FDA will not begin to cover expansive new bureaucracies that would be enacted into law are correct. To carry out all of the new rules and FDA authorities, new spending will have to be approved, or current spending levels for other FDA programs or regulatory activities will have to be reduced. The beast can be starved in the future even if not defeated outright the first time around.

Now, a multi-part discussion is necessary to even scratch the surface of our national food supply and the safeguarding of that food supply, including defining terms from the Bill, such as National Agriculture and Food Defense Strategy. Imported foods, overseas processed food plants, all sorts of possible breakdowns in food safety have to be discussed.

Let's look at arguments for S.510 and its cccopanion HR 2749. The two sides of debate concerning these proposed sweeping laws can be roughly divided up into traditional and big business practices on one side and natural and small operations on the other.

From the Florida Organic Growers website, we learn they've urged passage of S.510 - Florida Organic Growers Policy if, and I repeat if the Tester-Hagan Amendment is included in the final Bill. Quoting from their Statement,

"The bill takes important steps to improve corporate food safety rules but it is not appropriate for small farms and processors that sell to restaurants, food coops, groceries, schools, wholesalers and at farm stands and farmers markets.

"NSAC thinks that these farms should have food safety plans appropriate to their size and processing practices. But it is critical that as we ramp up food safety protections we don't inadvertently do harm to family farm value- added processing and the growing investments in local and regional food systems by imposing expensive, one-size-fits- all rules."

That's a provisional Yes from a substantial natural-market interest group.

From Growing Produce there's a valuable discussion titled Two Sides To Food Safety: "Despite the recent foodborne illness outbreak, legislators need to make sure food safety regulations take both large and small growers into consideration." Which is not in favor of S.510 but explains that there's two sides to the debate. The depth of market difficulties that have to be navigated by the men and women who just bring you leafy greens is hardly known to the average consumer, and it would be good if you read up on the Home - National Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement for start. Farming and ranching are tough businesses.

The industry trade group Food Marketing Institute urges swift passage of Food Safety Modernization Act - FMI NEWS RELEASE Marion Nestle of Food Politics urges passage of the Bill reasoning that whether you're large or small, if you produce food for sale, you need to be accountable to food safety laws, and accountable to your buyers. No argument there. Michael Pollan, author of The Omnivore's Dilemma argues that the Bill should be passed though it is not perfect, because we don't live in a perfect world (I don't think that puts words in his mouth) Read his interview with Ezra Klein of the Washington Post here

GRIST presents a well rounded version of Pros and Cons in their Food Fight debate and is worth your time.

And, from Bill Marler, an attorney specializing in food safety and food borne illneses at the MarlerBlog we read

"I am heading to DC early next week to attend with clients the House Energy and Commerce hearing on the latest in food safety theatre – the Egg Hearings (my bet is DeCoster “takes the 5th”). I also hope to be able to move forward the non-O157:H7 ball a bit more. However, I am still stunned that S. 510 will not move this session, and, given the likely results of the upcoming mid-term elections, will never see the light of day in my, or Linda's lifetime. As you might well recall, Linda Rivera is a Nevada woman who contracted E. coli from cookie dough and has been battling for her life for the past sixteen months, had been promised the Senate will move on the pending food safety bill, S. 510--the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act. A constituent of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Rivera and her family had also become key advocates for the bill that has languished in the Senate for months.

Obama Foodorama (yes, there actually is a website dedicated to Obama food initiatives) has an interesting take on the Bill by referring to Senators Tester and Coburn as throwing monkey wrenches into this legislation. Read it for yourself.

Here's the curious thing: I've spent weeks scouring the internet for published reasons to support S.510. I suggest you do the same for five minutes. You won't find much. And you'd think for such a massive bill there'd be arguments for supporting it, but internet search engines won't be any help. There's almost no voice out there in support. That makes my nose itch.

One of the sources supporting the Food Safety and Modernization Act (S.510) is the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition and their article National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition » Archive » Senate Food Safety Bill Includes Improvements That Support Farmers

What was all the shouting about in my first article, Wednesday November 17? With quotes from respected sources that with passage of S.510 we would lose our ability to grow our own gardens, save and trade seeds, make farmers markets into FDA police riots and food police with their noses in everything. What was that all about? Because, demonstrably, there's not a single thing in the Bill that says anything like that. Let us turn to an advocate of big government:

Do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered.
- Lyndon Johnson

Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK) authored a comprehensive description of what's wrong with S.510. I see no reason to add to his exposition and have his permission to use it in full, with my highest possible recommendation. He published Tuesday November 23 in USA Today.

Detailed Concerns with S.510, the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act of 2010


Growing an Already Disjointed and Duplicative Federal Government

In 2008, GAO testified before a House subcommittee that "FDA is one of 15 agencies that collectively administer at least 30 laws related to food safety. This fragmentation is the key reason GAO added the federal oversight of food safety to its High-Risk Series in January 2007 and called for a government wide reexamination of the food safety system. We have reported on problems with this system-including inconsistent oversight, ineffective coordination, and inefficient use of resources."

Specifically, GAO found that in 2003, FDA and USDA activities included overlapping and duplicative inspections of 1,451 domestic food-processing facilities that produce foods regulated by both agencies. This GAO testimony came on the heels of a 2005 GAO report that identified significant overlap in food safety activities conducted by USDA and the FDA, and to some extent the EPA and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), including "71 interagency agreements [to coordinate overlapping activities] that the agencies entered into... However, the agencies have weak mechanisms for tracking these agreements that...lead to ineffective implementation."

This overlap was evident in the egg salmonella scare. The Wall Street Journal reported (USDA Graders Saw Bugs and Trash at Egg Producer; Didn't Tell FDA) that U.S. Department of Agriculture experts knew about sanitary problems at one of the two Iowa farms at the center of a massive nationwide egg recall, but did not notify health authorities.) USDA inspects farms and gives eggs their "Grade A" label, while the FDA technically is tasked with the safety of the final egg product.

This discrepancy was the impetus behind an egg safety rule originally promulgated 10 years ago by the FDA. Unfortunately, three administrations sat on the proposed rule without finalizing and implementing it. FDA Commissioner Dr. Hamburg stated, "We believe that had these rules been in place at an earlier time, it would have very likely enabled us to identify the problems on this farm before this kind of outbreak occurred." A lack of regulatory bill isn't the problem.

Charging the Bill to our Children and Grandchildren

The legislation will cost $1.4 billion over 5 years. This cost does not include an additional $230 million in expenditures that are directly offset by fees collected for those activities (re-inspections, mandatory recalls, etc.). The total cost of the bill is over $1.6 billion over 5 years. Of these costs, $335 million are for non-FDA programs - the food allergy grant program, implementation grants to assist producers, assistance grants to states and Indian Tribes.

Many argue that this spending is just "discretionary." It is important to realize that the CBO score reflects the cost of the increase in FDA's scope. It is true that this bill only authorizes funding (though problematically, for the first time ever provides an authorization line for just food activities at FDA).

If future appropriations do not add up to the amount CBO is estimating, the likely result is that none of these provisions can be fully implemented, or worse, the FDA is forced to cut corners in other areas it regulates (drugs/devices/etc.) to fund this added regulatory burden on foods.

Without paying for this bill, at best we are just passing it for a press release, and at worst, we shackle the FDA with unfunded mandates.

New and Unnecessary Non-FDA Spending

CBO estimates that implementing other provisions of S. 510 would increase non-FDA discretionary spending by $335 million over the 2011-2015 period. The bill would authorize three grant programs outside the purview of the FDA:

• School-based allergy and anaphylaxis management grants. Authorized at $30 million annually, CBO estimates that this program would cost $107 million over the 2011-2015 period. This program creates new federal standards for how local schools deal with food allergies and ties the "voluntary" standards to eligibility for federal grant funds. This is not a federal role, the standards are overly prescriptive, and it duplicates existing efforts. The CDC has already published extensive best practices for how local schools can implement sounder strategies for dealing with food allergens. The word "food" is the only relationship between legislation to dictate the food allergy policies of local schools and legislation to modernize how the FDA regulates the food industry.
• Food safety training, education, extension, outreach and technical assistance grants. Enacting the bill would require the Secretary of HHS to enter into cooperative agreements with the Secretary of Agriculture to provide grants for food safety training, education, extension, outreach, and technical assistance to owners and operators of farms, small food processors, and small fruit and vegetable merchant wholesalers. Based on spending patterns of similar programs, CBO estimates that implementing this provision would cost $21 million over the next five years
• Food safety participation grants for states and Indian tribes. S. 510 would authorize the appropriation of $19.5 million for fiscal year 2010 and such sums in subsequent years to award grants to states and Indian tribes to expand participation in food safety efforts. CBO estimates that implementing this provision would cost $83 million over the 2011-2015 period.

Along with the grant programs, S. 510 also would require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to participate in food safety activities and would require the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to enhance its participation in food safety activities. CBO estimates that EPA will incur costs of about $2 million annually. CDC is required to significantly increase its surveillance activities, which CBO estimates will cost $100 million over 5 years. CDC is also required to set up "Centers of Excellence" at selected state health departments to prepare for food outbreaks at a cost of $4 million annually.

Burdensome New Regulations

There are 225 pages of new regulations, many of which are problematic. While some regulations are potentially onerous, but perhaps reasonable - such as requiring every facility to have a scientifically-based, but very flexible, food safety plan-others give FDA sweeping authority with potentially significant consequences.

While it is hard to pull out just 1 or 2 regulations in the bill that make the entire thing unpalatable, on the whole this bill represents a weighty new regulatory structure on the food industry that will be particularly difficult for small producers and farms to comply with (with little evidence it will make food safer). The following regulations are perhaps the most troubling:

• Performance standards. The bill gives the Secretary the authority to "issue contaminant-specific and science-based guidance documents, action levels, or regulations." The way the bill is written the authority is extremely broad and could be used by FDA to issue very specific and onerous regulations on food facilities, without even the normal rule-making and guidance process FDA food regulations normally go through.
• Traceability. FDA is required to establish a "product tracing system within the FDA" based and develop additional record keeping requirements for foods determined to be "high risk." The House legislation includes "full pedigree" trace-back which puts FDA in charge of tracing the entire supply chain. The final bill requires the FDA to do this for high-risk foods, and while there are some limitations on FDA, anything further than the "one-up-one-back" requirement in the bioterrorism law will be very onerous on industry.
• Standards for produce safety. For produce, this bill gives FDA the authority to create commodity-specific safety standards for produce. Instead of trusting industry and the free-market, this provision implies that complying with government standards is the best way to keep consumers safe. A lot of the produce industry lobbied for these standards to provide "consumer confidence" after the jalapeno and tomato scare, but federal regulations could particularly adversely impact small providers.

Other regulations in this bill are overly punitive and could set up an adverse relationship with industry. They include:

• Administrative Detention of Food. The bill lowers the threshold for detaining articles of food to "adulterated or misbranded." The threshold is currently higher for a reason-administrative detention is an authority that should only be used when there is clear, imminent danger.
• Suspension of Registration. Facility registration may be suspended if there is a reasonable probability that food from the responsible facility will cause serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals. "Reasonable probability" isn't a difficult enough burden for FDA to prove when the consequence is closing down a private business.
• Fees. Allows FDA to assess fees for compliance failures (recalls and re-inspections). These fees give FDA incentive to find reasons to re-inspect a facility or order a mandatory recall-the only ways they can collect money for their efforts. Furthermore, assessing industry to pay for a new regulatory structure will increase food costs for consumers during a recession.
• Mandatory Recall Authority. Provides FDA with the authority to force a recall (and collect fees to pay for it). It is unclear why this authority is necessary - even in the worst food safety outbreaks, there do not appear to be any instances in which tainted products were on the shelves or with distributors that the company at fault did not work with FDA to conduct a voluntary recall. Allowing FDA to collect fees for forcing a mandatory recall could also push FDA to pull the trigger early on a mandatory recall - putting them at odds with the company responsible.

Taking off from Lyndon Johnson's observation, quoted above, the ambiguity of language in S.510 provides a giant opportunity for empowered authorities to make up both the intent and meaning of these proposed regulations and interpret this law as they see fit when they should be constrained by specifics. Legislators can be amazingly specific when they want to be. But Law that is couched in terms and phrases that are ambiguously open to interpretation are exactly what leads to cascading unintended consequences. And many believe that's exactly why ambiguous language is used. Along the lines of better to ask forgiveness than permission. Or, more bluntly, we'll do as we please, see you in Court and we'll let a Judge sort it out.

This is exactly why so much distress and anger permeates the internet over S.510; the possibility of slowly eroding the natural rights of home gardeners and their valued seed stocks in the face of the sweeping changes genetically patented seed lines represent. Attorneys for multinational corporations making these GMO seeds are ruthless in pursuing lawsuits to enforce what they claim is patent infringement. Even when it is Nature spreading these seeds into fields and farms and not by consent or intent of farmers who find GMO patented seeds suddenly among their crops. The what if scenarios of ambiguous language coupled to a corporatist-Statist administration is frightening and the people raising an alarm about home gardens and seed stocks are probably not Chicken Littles. If recent history is any indication.

It's sophomorically easy and disingenuous to arm chair quarterback. The safety of our food supply and the responsibility for overseeing what that requires is a gargantuan undertaking. Hats off to every one in the chain of that command who is doing the job right, efficiently and without bureaucratic malice. But, arming that chain of command with both vastly enlarged responsibilities that are riddled with ambiguous, at best, powers of enforcement and guidelines is to ensure law that harms rather than protects. Man is a fickle animal capable of glory and honor but just as capable of chicanery and greed. Ambiguity invites disaster.

Lastly, S.510 is an inverted pyramid of power. Growing federal mandates on top of an already top heavy bureaucratic leviathan is neither efficient nor safe. Going to the well again, let's say it over and over Complexity Is The Enemy Of Security.

As sweeping a Bill as has ever been introduced regarding food safety, S.510 reaches too far, too wide, embraces too much with a one size fits all world-view and instead of the hard work of focusing on specific issues and making those work within the structure of Laws and Regulations and Departments already empowered the authors of S.510 chose to use the biggest brush on the biggest canvas.

Resulting in embodying the truism - Complexity Is The Enemy Of Security.

Dump S.510, go back to the drawing board, leverage the brilliance of the free market and reinstitute simplicity for the sake of security.

[vector7]

Passed Food Safety Bill Provides Government Control

Raven Clabough | The New American
30 November 2010

After more than one year of consideration, the United States Senate passed the Food Safety Modernization Act today by a vote of 73-25. The bill passed in the House of Representatives in July 2009, followed by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee in November 2009, but its progress was halted by Senate deliberations on healthcare and financial reform.

The food safety bill assigns greater authority to the Food and Drug Administration as it allows for more frequent inspections at food processing plants and assigns more governmental authority in recalling food. Likewise, it requires food processors to register with the FDA to detail food safety plans, and allows the FDA to create more food safety regulations. Moreover, it establishes stricter standards on food safety.

Additionally, Congressional Quarterly reports that the bill provides the FDA with “access to records of domestic food facilities in emergencies” and allows the agency to “bar importation of high-risk foods if the products lacked proper certification or if the U.S. inspectors were denied access to processing facilities.”

According to The Hill, the House version of the bill “is considered far more imposing on the food industry, such as implementing fees on food facilities to help finance the Food and Drug Administration’s food safety inspection efforts.”

However, those issues were addressed by the Senate, writes the Associated Press: “Senate sponsors further softened the bill’s impact on the food industry-including eliminating some fees processors would have to pay and reducing the number of required inspections-to gain votes in the Senate and to make the bill more palatable in the House.”

The Hill explains, “The two version of the bill would have been reconciled in conference talks, but time is running out. The lame-duck session has a full agenda…Because of that, there is talk the House may approve the Senate version.”

The $1.4 billion bill is touted by lawmakers as one that will target E. coli and salmonella outbreaks, which, according to the Associated Press, “exposed a lack of resources and authority at the FDA as the embattled agency struggled to contain and trace the contaminated products.”

However, the bill does not apply to meat, poultry, or processed eggs because those items are regulated by the Agriculture Department, which is responsible for significantly greater regulation than the Food and Drug Administration.

The Centers for Disease Control reports that tens of millions of Americans are made ill by food-borne illnesses, resulting in thousands of deaths every year. In an effort to prevent future outbreaks of such illnesses, the bill requires farmers and food processors to declare to the Food and Drug Administration how they are preparing the foods to keep them safe at various stages of production.

However, as noted by the PPJ Gazette, the very culprit responsible for the food-borne illnesses is the same one being assigned more power by the food safety bill: the FDA. PPJ Gazette writes that the FDA “has been the facilitator for hundreds of lethal and deadly pharmaceuticals allowed into the markets that cause physical damage and even death in thousands of cases.”

Despite the massive increase in government influence the bill allows, it managed to garner bipartisan support in Congress, and has the backing of President Obama as well. The bill had 20 co-sponsors, eight of whom were Republicans. The legislation also had the support of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, though the group did caution that the bill provides too much discretion to federal regulators.

Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd defended the bill’s massive regulatory oversight. “Every day we consume products with a sense of security that what we’re ingesting or using is not going to cause us any great harm or put our lives in jeopardy. So it’s important, particularly when you deal today with the processing of food that occurs, that that reassurance, that sense of security — that all Americans would like to have — is going to be guaranteed to the maximum extent possible.”

Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma did attempt to water down the legislation by proposing a substitute bill that would have provided significantly fewer regulatory provisions, asserting that the current bill creates too much bureaucracy, but Coburn faced opposition from Senator Tom Harkin, sponsor of the food safety bill, who asserted that Coburn’s version would have “gutted” the food safety bill.

Likewise, the Associated Press reports that the bill came under fire “from advocates of buying locally produced food and operators of small farms, who said it could bankrupt some small businesses.”

As a result of those concerns, however, Senators provided exemptions to smaller businesses, allowing them to gain the support of farm-state senators while irking bigger businesses.

The food safety bill has also gained the ire of constitutionalists, who view the bill as an assault on constitutional rights. PPJ Gazette asserts that the true focus of the bill, despite lawmakers’ assertions, is “to eradicate family and independent producers, to corner the agricultural markets, reducing competition, to force all food products produced in the US into exports markets, and to criminalize land and livestock ownership through the use of predatory licensing and regulation.”

The John Birch Society articulated similar sentiments as it encouraged Americans to contact their Senators and demand that the bill be rejected. The JBS wrote:

The Food Safety Modernization Act, S. 510, represents a massive expansion of government regulation of the food industry, even though there is no authorization in the Constitution for this. My right to produce, distribute, and consume the foods of my choice is part of my right to life and liberty under the Constitution.

Food safety is best achieved at the local level; small farmers and local food processors are part of the solution to the food supply, yet S. 510 would grant more power to an opaque and unaccountable agency, hyper-regulating small producers out of business, leaving the industrial food system with the highest ranking of problems of disease and illnesses, to commandeer the marketplace.

The salmonella egg outbreak is no excuse for a government takeover of the food industry, one that has traditionally belonged to the states and to the individual.

Washington elitists, however, contend that they know what is best for Americans.

Harkin celebrated his victory and declared, “We have taken momentous steps toward strengthening food safety in America. The Food Safety Modernization Act will help bring America’s food safety system into the 21st century.”

As usual, the bill was laden with amendments that had nothing to do with the legislation, including one that would place a moratorium on earmarks, another that would have repealed a provision of Obamacare, and others that dealt with lawmakers’ pet project. All the amendments were rejected.

[vector7]

Hold the Brownies! Obama Set to Sign Bill Limiting School Bake Sales

Posted on December 3, 2010 at 7:30pm by
Scott Baker

• Print »
• Email »

WASHINGTON (AP) — Don’t touch my brownies!

A child nutrition bill on its way to President Barack Obama — and championed by the first lady — gives the government power to limit school bake sales and other fundraisers that health advocates say sometimes replace wholesome meals in the lunchroom.

Republicans, notably Sarah Palin, and public school organizations decry the bill as an unnecessary intrusion on a common practice often used to raise money.

“This could be a real train wreck for school districts,” Lucy Gettman of the National School Boards Association said Friday, a day after the House cleared the bill. “The federal government should not be in the business of regulating this kind of activity at the local level.”

The legislation, part of first lady Michelle Obama’s campaign to stem childhood obesity, provides more meals at school for needy kids, including dinner, and directs the Agriculture Department to write guidelines to make those meals healthier. The legislation would apply to all foods sold in schools during regular class hours, including in the cafeteria line, vending machines and at fundraisers.

It wouldn’t apply to after-hours events or concession stands at sports events.

Public health groups pushed for the language on fundraisers, which encourages the secretary of Agriculture to allow them only if they are infrequent. The language is broad enough that a president’s administration could even ban bake sales, but Secretary Tom Vilsack signaled in a letter to House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-Calif., this week that he does not intend to do that. The USDA has a year to write rules that decide how frequent is infrequent.

[vector7]

House Passes School Nutrition Bill That Is No Treat

Written by Michael Tennant

Monday, 06 December 2010 10:15

Remember that clause in the Constitution that gives the federal government the authority to regulate school bake sales? Even if you don’t, Congress does. The House of Representatives just passed a $4.5 billion bill that, among other things, authorizes the U.S. Department of Agriculture to set nutrition guidelines for all foods sold in a school building during school hours — and that includes “bake sales and pizza fundraisers,” according to CalorieLab.com. (If pressed, elected officials would undoubtedly note that such sales can affect interstate commerce since students buying cupcakes at school would no longer be buying them from Hostess, thus providing an opening for Congress to regulate these activities.) On December 2 the House voted 264 to 157 to pass the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, a bill that had been approved unanimously by the Senate in August and that President Barack Obama has indicated he will sign. He’d better: His wife, Michelle, has been pushing the bill hard as part of her anti-childhood obesity campaign.

In addition to giving the USDA the power to determine the nutritive content of foods sold in schools, the bill also increases child-nutrition program funding, increases the federal reimbursement rate for subsidized meals, expands access to school lunch programs by automatically qualifying children on Medicaid (about 120,000 more kids, according to the Christian Science Monitor), and expands after-school meal programs.

The bill is being touted as a solution to both hunger and obesity, which would seem to call for opposing fixes. Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), however, explained: “Hunger and obesity are two sides of the same coin. Highly processed, empty-calorie foods are less expensive than fresh nutritious foods.” McGovern did not address the possibility that federal subsidies for certain crops, such as corn, might be part of the reason for the cost disparity.

Besides, the evidence that controlling what kids eat at school and otherwise hectoring them about good nutrition will have a measurable effect on their weight and overall health is scant indeed, as Harriet Brown wrote in a 2006 New York Times article:
Like other misguided public health campaigns…, putting children on de facto diets at school just doesn’t work. In a 2003 experiment involving 41 schools, more than 1,700 children — many of them American Indian — were served lower-calorie and lower-fat lunches and were taught about healthy eating and lifestyles.

While the children took in fewer calories from fat at school, they experienced no significant reduction in their percentage of body fat.

Another study, in rural Nebraska in the mid-1990s, put one group of elementary school students on lower-fat and lower-sodium lunches, increased their physical activity at school and offered more education about nutrition. Compared with students having no special program, the active, lower-fat group showed no differences in body weight or fat, or in levels of total cholesterol, insulin or glucose after two years.

Researchers concluded that pupils whose school lunches offered 25 percent fat (compared with 31 percent in the control group) were compensating for the reduction by eating higher-fat foods at home.
Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.), a physician, hit the nail on the head when he said: “This bill is not about child nutrition. It’s not about healthy kids. It’s about an expansion of the federal government, more and more control from Washington, borrowing more money and putting our children in greater debt. The federal government has no business setting nutritional standards and telling families what they should and should not eat.”

If anything, the bill is about bringing up a generation of kids who have received their food, medical care, and education from Uncle Sam, to whom they can be expected to remain loyal subjects. That, more than the alleged attempt to combat hunger and obesity, probably explains why so many Democrats and the left-wing Center for Science in the Public Interest are enthusiastic about the legislation.

It is also about money for unionized school cafeteria workers. The Service Employees International Union, which represents many food-service workers employed in schools, lobbied heavily for the bill. Last January SEIU Executive Vice President Mitch Ackerman gave away the real reason for the union’s support for the legislation, saying, “A more robust expansion of school lunch, breakfast, summer feeding, child care and WIC is critical to reducing hunger, ending childhood obesity, and providing fair wages and healthcare for front line food service workers.” (Emphasis added.) That same press release noted that “cafeteria workers hoping to improve their wages” would be “lobbying in-district and in Washington for a robust reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act.”

Let it also be noted that the same politicians who voted for this bill supposedly to alleviate hunger chose to fund its outlays by cutting future allocations for food stamps with a promise from President Obama to restore the cuts in later legislation. Let it further be noted that this is at least the second time this year that Democrats, members of the party that claims a monopoly on compassion for the poor, have voted to cut food stamps in order to benefit their political allies. In August Congress passed and Obama signed a bill to spend $26 billion on teachers, cops, and other government employees, also reducing food-stamp benefits to cover the cost but promising to undo the cuts in the future.

There is, indeed, no such thing as a free lunch. A people that expects to be given bread and circuses from their government without being controlled by that same government expects what never has been and never will be. After all, slaves in the antebellum South got free meals, too.

[vector7]

It passed: Senate passes Sunday-evening surpise Food Safety Bill!

The Food Safety Bill: A Point-By-Point Guide

Published December 20, 2010
| FoxNews.com


AP
In this Dec. 6 photo, a shopper picks up a box of brown eggs at a grocery store in Urbana, Ill.

Congress is on the verge of passing a landmark bill aimed at improving saftey, after the Senate passed the proposal for the second time Sunday and sent it over to the House.

The following is a point-by-point overview of what's in the billand how it would authorize new regulatory checks on food production and distribution:

-- The Department of Health and Human Services secretary would have the authority to inspect the records for food deemed to be susceptible to contamination.

-- The HHS secretary would have the authority to suspend the registration of any food facility deemed to be a health risk.

-- The bill would require food facilities to evaluate potential hazards to their food and keep records on how they are monitoring and correcting these potential problems.

-- The bill would require the HHS secretary to establish new standards for the harvesting of some fruits and vegetables and publish updated guidance.

-- The secretary would be able to collect fees for food recalls and food facility re-inspections.

-- The secretary would be required to draft new regulations for the sanitary transportation of food.

-- The secretary would be required to provide schools and other educational institutions with plans for managing the risk from food allergies and anaphylaxis in schools. Implementation would be voluntary.

-- The secretary would be required to increase inspection at food facilities and report to Congress annually.

-- The secretary would be authorized to shut down distribution at any facility regarding a contaminated or misbranded food if the facility does not do so voluntarily. The secretary would also be able to order a recall -- after a hearing is held.

-- The bill would encourage the secretary to investigate compliance with the act through officials at the state and local level.

-- The bill would require importers of food to verify that the products they are importing meet safety standards and are not contaminated.

-- The bill would block imported food that does not meet certain safety requirements from entering the country.

-- The bill would set up Food and Drug Administration offices in foreign countries to offer assistance with keeping food exported to the United States up to FDA standards.

[vector7]

Burning the weekend candle, the Senate passes Food Safety and Modernization Act

• December 20th, 2010 11:43 am ET

Working well into Sunday evening, the Senate again passed the Food Safety and Modernization Act after it had been stopped for a technical loophole a few weeks ago.

The bill went through the Senate without much fanfare, and both Democrats and Republicans agreed to allow a simple 'voice vote' to determine its passage.

In an article late yesterday by The Hill's Healthwatch Blog, the passage of this bill before the new Congress takes over was important to Majority leader Harry Reid, and farm state Democrats.

“Our food safety system has not been updated in almost a century. Families in Nevada and across America should never have to worry about whether the food they put on their table is safe," Reid said in a statement. "This is a common-sense issue with broad bipartisan support.
"Tonight we unanimously passed a measure to improve on our current food safety system by giving the FDA the resources it needs to keep up with advances in food production and marketing, without unduly burdening farmers and food producers,” he said.
The legislation is a high priority for Reid and Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (D-Iowa).

What this bill means for you as a consumer.

A month or so back, we took a look at the about face change Big Agriculture took regarding this bill, primarily due to the Tester-Hagen amendment which would protect small farms and coops from the huge costs the bill would bring.

Originally, the bill without the amendment would have been a death blow to family farms and small retailers, as costs involved in modernization would have driven them out of business.

Yet, we will not know the full extent of how this will affect food prices for consumers until well into 2011.

Already food staples are rising on growing inflation, and throughout the world there has been a number of famines and poor harvests which will drive up prices on simple supply and demand.

[vector7]

Food Safety Modernization Act Passes; Unconstitutional Provision Supposedly Removed

by Hans Bader
December 20, 2010 @ 10:00 am

ShareThis PrintThis EmailThis
Tags: commerce clause, food safety bill, food safety law, Food Safety Modernization Act, Greg Conko, Gregory Conko, Jonathan Adler, origination clause



The Food Safety Modernization Act was passed again by Congress on Sunday, apparently without a provision that earlier drew criticism for violating the Constitution by having a tax increase contained in it originate in the Senate rather than the House (something forbidden by the Constitution’s Origination Clause). The Washington Post story about this cites only the alleged benefits of the bill, not its potential costs to innovation, small business, and the availability of unconventional foods, which we previously discussed at this link.

Greg Conko, an expert on food safety regulation, has explained how the bill’s expensive and cumbersome red tape might thwart “firms from developing innovative new processes and practices that could deliver real food safety improvements.”

From the Post story, it sounds like the Senate version of the bill, not the House version, became law, although it’s not clear. The House version of the bill would have driven “out of business local farmers and artisanal, small-scale producers of berries, herbs, cheese, and countless other wares, even when there is in fact nothing unsafe in their methods of production,” warned legal commentator Walter Olson at Overlawyered.

The Senate version of the bill is less extreme, but even it “would leave tens of thousands of small and mid-sized farms and food stands to be crushed under the weight of rules designed for some of the world’s largest food processors,” Conko says.

The tax increases contained in an earlier Senate version of the bill violated the Constitution, argued Conko (who is a lawyer) and law professor Jonathan Adler.

I earlier discussed false claims made by the law’s sponsors about its reach over farms and activity that doesn’t cross state lines.

[vector7]

The Dept. of Homeland Security Uncovered a Plot to Attack Hotels and Restaurants Over a Single Weekend

By Armen Keteyian

CBS) In this exclusive story, CBS News chief investigative correspondent Armen Keteyian reports the latest terror attack to America involves the possible use of poisons - simultaneous attacks targeting hotels and restaurants at many locations over a single weekend.

A key Intelligence source has confirmed the threat as "credible." Department of Homeland Security officials, along with members of the Department of Agriculture and the FDA, have briefed a small group of corporate security officers from the hotel and restaurant industries about it.

CBSNews.com Report: Terror in the U.S.

"We operate under the premise that individuals prepared to carry out terrorist acts are in this country," said Dec. of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano on Dec. 6, 2010.

The plot uncovered earlier this year is said to involve the use of two poisons - ricin and cyanide - slipped into salad bars and buffets.

Of particular concern: The plotters are believed to be tied to the same terror group that attempted to blow up cargo planes over the east coast in October, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

In online propaganda al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has praised the cargo attack, part of what it called "Operation Hemorrhage."

The propaganda says in part, "...attacking the enemy with smaller but more frequent operations" to "add a heavy economic burden to an already faltering economy."

Manuals and videos on jihadist websites explain how to easy it is to make both poisons.

"Initially it would look very much like food poisoning," said St. John's University professor of pharmaceutical sciences Dr. Susan Ford.

She showed how little of each poison could be fatal by putting a small amount of poison in cups.

Armen Keteyian: Are these dosages enough to really harm someone or kill someone?

Susan Ford: Yes, these are 250 milligrams and that is the fatal dose.

Keteyian: So just that much sodium cyanide is enough to kill me?

Ford: Yes, it is.

That leads to a difficult debate: The need to inform the public without alarming it.

Former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said, "A threat you might feel is sufficiently specific and credible to tell the people who are professionally involved might not be specific or credible enough to tell the general public."

Chertoff says it's important to let public health officials know that what looks like food poisoning could be a terrorist attack.

On Monday Dept. of Homeland Security spokesman Sean Smith said, "We are not going to comment on reports of specific terrorist planning. However, the counterterrorism and homeland security communities have engaged in extensive efforts for many years to guard against all types of terrorist attacks, including unconventional attacks using chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear materials. Indeed, Al-Qa'ida has publicly stated its intention to try to carry out unconventional attacks for well over a decade, and AQAP propaganda in the past year has made similar reference.

"Finally, we get reports about the different kinds of attacks terrorists would like to carry out that frequently are beyond their assessed capability."

The fact remains the government and hospitality industries are on alert.

[vector7]

Al Qaeda Looking To Attack U.S. Food Supply?

December 21, 2010 - 12:41 AM | by: Mike Levine



John Brennan speaks in Washington, Dec. 17

The group behind last year’s failed Christmas Day bombing and the recent attempt to send two explosives-laden packages to the United States wants to attack U.S. food supplies, but U.S. authorities don't believe the group has the capability to do so, Fox News has learned.

A source with knowledge of the situation said authorities obtained information “a while ago” indicating a possible plot by associates of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula to target food at hotels and restaurants inside the United States, perhaps slipping harmful agents into salad bars or buffets.

“We don’t have a specific target or time frame, just the intent,” the source said.

Nevertheless, the source said, authorities are not convinced that Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula – or AQAP – has the capability to actually carry out such an attack.

An administration official agreed, and a Department of Homeland Security official, who declined to discuss the specific threat information, echoed that in a statement to Fox News.

"We get reports about the different kinds of attacks terrorists would like to carry out that frequently are beyond their assessed capability," DHS spokesman Sean Smith said, noting that Al Qaeda "has publicly stated its intention to try to carry out unconventional attacks for well over a decade" and recent AQAP "propaganda" has followed suit.

CBS News was the first to report the threat information, saying that the plot may involve the use of ricin or cyanide. However, the source with knowledge of the situation told Fox News authorities determined AQAP’s capability to use those bio-agents in such a manner was “low.”

Still, the U.S. counterterrorism and homeland security communities "have engaged in extensive efforts for many years to guard against all types of terrorist attacks, including unconventional attacks using chemical, biological, radiologican, and nuclear materials," Smith said in his statement.

Officials from DHS, the Department of Agriculture, and the Food and Drug Administration have briefed a small group of corporate security officers within the hotel and restaurant industries about the food-borne threat, according to the CBS News report.

The White House’s chief counterterrorism adviser, John Brennan, recently described AQAP as “now the most operationally active node of the Al Qaeda network.”

“The group’s leadership clearly seeks to apply lessons learned from past attacks, including those of other groups,” Brennan said Friday during a forum on Yemen at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. “And their definition of success – stoking fear, even if their attacks fail – portends more such attacks.”

In addition, Brennan said he and his colleagues in the counterterrorism community are “feeling good” that they have put “the appropriate resources in place” to protect against attacks during the current holiday season.

On Christmas Day last year, Umar F. Abdulmutallab of Nigeria tried to detonate his explosives-laden underwear over Detroit. He was allegedly trained and equipped by AQAP. Ten months later, in October, two explosives-laden packages were sent from Yemen to the United States, but the explosives were intercepted overseas after Saudi intelligence officials shared information about the plot.

[vector7]

Family Facing $4 Million in Fines for Selling Bunnies

by Bob McCarty

Almost nine months after a Missouri dairy was ordered to stop selling cheese made from raw milk, I share details of another hare-raising story from the Show-Me State: John Dollarhite and his wife Judy of tiny Nixa, Mo., have been told by the USDA that, by Monday, they must pay a fine exceeding $90,000. If they don’t pay that fine, they could face additional fines of almost $4 million. Why? Because they sold more than $500 worth of bunnies — $4,600 worth to be exact — in a single calendar year.



About six years ago, the Dollarhites wanted to teach their young teenage son responsibility and the value of the dollar. So they rescued a pair of rabbits — one male and one female — and those rabbits did what rabbits do; they reproduced. Before long, things were literally hopping on the three-acre homestead 30 miles south of Springfield, and Dollarvalue Rabbitry was launched as more of a hobby than a business.

“We’d sell ‘em for 10 or 15 dollars a piece,” John said during a phone interview Tuesday afternoon, comparing the venture to a kid running a lemonade stand. In addition, they set up a web site and posted a “Rabbits for Sale” sign in their front yard. Most customers, however, came via word of mouth.

In the early stages, some of the bunnies were raised and sold for their meat. Much further down the road, John said, they determined it more profitable to sell live bunnies at four weeks old than to feed bunnies for 12 weeks and then sell them as meat.

“We started becoming the go-to people” for rabbits in the Springfield area, John said. “If you wanted a rabbit, you’d go to Dollarvalue Rabbitry.” He added that the family even made the local television news just before Easter in 2008 for a report about the care and feeding of “Easter bunnies.”

Initially, the Dollarhites sold the large, white, pink-eyed variety of rabbits. Eventually, however, they switched to selling a couple of different varieties of miniature rabbits, the mating pairs of which were purchased from breeders across the state. Not only did their “show-quality” miniatures reproduce well, but they ate less and seemed to be more popular with theme park visitors and retail buyers.

During the summer of 2009, the Dollarhites bought the rabbitry from their son who had grown tired of managing it. They paid him what he asked for it, $200. Things kept growing, however, and the Dollarhite’s landed a pair of big accounts in 2009.

A well-known Branson theme park, Silver Dollar City, asked the Dollarhites to have them provide four-week-old bunnies per week to their petting zoo May through September. When the bunnies turned six weeks old, they were sold to park visitors. The Springfield location of a national pet store chain, Petland, purchased rabbits from the Dollarhites as well.

In the fall of 2009, the theme park deliveries ended for the year and the Dollarhites scaled back their operation. At about the same time, the folks at Petland asked the Dollarhites to raise guinea pigs that the store would purchase from them. No big deal.

By the year’s end, the Dollarhites had moved approximately 440 rabbits and grossed about $4,600 for a profit of approximately $200 — enough, John said, to provide the family “pocket money” to do things such as eat out at Red Lobster once in a while. That was better than the loss they experienced in 2008.

Then some unexpected matters began demanding their attention.

It’s an understatement to describe the Dollarhites as being “beyond surprised” when, in the fall of 2009, a female inspector from the U.S. Department of Agriculture showed up at the front door of the family home, wanting to do a “spot inspection” of their rabbitry. She said she had come across Dollarhite Rabbitry invoices while inspecting the petting zoo at Silver Dollar City.

“She did not tell us that we were in violation of any laws, rules, anything whatsoever,” John said, explaining that the inspector said she just wanted to see what type of operation they had. Having nothing to hide or any reason to fear they were doing anything wrong, the Dollarhites allowed the inspection to proceed.

John said he had to go to work at the family’s computer store, so Judy took the inspector to the back of their property where the rabbits were raised. There, the inspector began running the width of her finger across the cage and told the Dollarhites they would need to replace the cage, because it was a quarter-inch too small and, therefore, did not meet federal regulations.

Such a requirement came as a shock to the Dollarhites, because they had just invested in new cages to ensure the bunnies had a healthy amount of space to develop, John explained. Though raising dwarf breed varieties of rabbits which require less space, they had opted to purchase cages designed for “large breed rabbits” so the dwarfs would have plenty of room. All for naught.

Not only was the cage too small, according to the inspector, but she noted a small rust spot on a feeder and cited it as being out of compliance. When the Dollarhites told the inspector that rabbit urine causes the cages to rust and that they worked hard to keep the rabbits cages in top shape, she told them it didn’t matter. The rust spot would count as an infraction.

The inspector then asked how the cages were sanitized, John said, and Judy explained how she moved the bunnies to travel carriers and powerwashed the cages, using bleach when necessary. Afterward, she allowed the cages to dry in the sun before putting the bunnies back inside them.

The Dollarhites’ practice was much safer than that used by some breeders who used blow torches to burn hair and manure from the cages — a practice that can lead to rusting metal and produce toxic fumes from burning metal.

During the course of the spot inspection, John said, the inspector asked his wife if she and John would like to have their operation certified by USDA. Judy said she wasn’t sure and asked what certification would entail and if it would help them sell more rabbits. The inspector responded, telling her it would involve monthly inspections and was completely voluntary. The inspection ended with the inspector telling Judy that the Dollarhites rabbits looked healthy and well-cared for.

After the inspection, the Dollarhites didn’t hear from the USDA again until January 2010, John said, when he received a phone call from a Kansas City-based investigator from the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

“He called us and said, ‘I need to have a meeting with you and your wife,’” John recalled.

After explaining that he asked the investigator to come after the workday at the computer store had ended, John said he asked the investigator about the purpose of the meeting, “He said, ‘Well, it’s because you’re selling rabbits and you’ve exceeded more than $500 dollars in a year,’” John said, “and I went, ‘Okay, what does that have to do with anything?’”

John said the investigator refused to discuss details over the phone and made it clear that rejecting his request for a meeting would be a costly error in judgment.

When Judy asked if they should have an attorney present, the investigator responded, saying, “Well, that might be a good thing.”

“At that point, we kind of set back, (wondering) what in the world is going on,” John said. Then he found an attorney who is also a farmer.

“I didn’t want a ‘city slicker,’” said John, a farmer himself until 1996 when he sold his farm to build a home in Nixa. “I wanted someone that had been around the agriculture and farm business.”

John found a guy and they met for the first time a couple of days later — at the same time both met the APHIS investigator in person at John’s home.

“The first thing (the investigator) said was ‘My name is so and so, I’ve been in the USDA for 30-plus years, and I’ve never lost a case,’” John recalled, continuing. “He said, ‘I’m not here to debate the law, interpret the law or discuss the law, I’m here just to do an investigation.’”

John said the investigator went on to explain that he would ask questions, write a report based on the answers and send that report to his superiors at the USDA regional office in Colorado Springs, Colo. The entire process was suppose to take about a month, and John was told to contact the regional office if he had not heard anything in six weeks.

“At this point in time, we were still not knowing anything about the law he was talking about,” John explained, adding that his rabbitry had never had any issues with any animal welfare agencies.

Eight weeks passed, and John decided to call Colorado Springs. Immediately, he was given the number to a USDA office in the nation’s capitol. He called the new number, and the lady he reached there was blunt, John said.

“She said, ‘Well, Mr. Dollarhite, I’ve got the report on my desk, and I’m just gonna tell you that, once I review it, it’s our intent to prosecute you to the maximum that we can’ and that ‘we will make an example out of you.”

When John once again tried to determine which law he and his wife had violated, he said the USDA lady replied, “We’ll forward you everything.”
“Ma’am, what law have we broken,” John said.

“Well, you sold more than $500 worth of rabbits in one calendar year,” she replied, according to John.

“Okay, what does that have to do with anything?” John countered.
The lady replied by saying there is a guideline which prohibits anyone from selling more than $500 worth of rabbits per year, John recalled, but she refused to cite any specific law and, instead, promised to send him the report containing details.

At that point, John said he called his attorney and was told not to worry about it, because he couldn’t find evidence of any law or regulation the Dollarhites had violated.

Soon after the meeting with the APHIS investigator and with the stress of the investigation hanging over their heads, John said he and his wife traded everything associated with the rabbit operation for other agricultural equipment.

At this point, some important facts about the manner in which the Dollarhites conducted their operation are worth reviewing:

The business was carefully conducted on the property of their
Missouri home;

The business complied with all applicable state laws;

The bunnies were kept in large, clean and well-maintained cages; and

Not a single bunny was sold across state lines.

Recently, the Dollarhites received a “Certified Mail Return Receipt” letter (dated April 19, 2011) from the USDA informing them that they had broken the law and must pay USDA a fine of $90,643.

Their crime? Violating violating 9 C.F.R. § 2.1 (a) (1): Selling more than $500 worth of rabbits in a calendar year.

At this point, Dollarvalue Rabbitry is expected to produced a $90,643 certified check to cover the fine issued by the Department of Agriculture. The USDA was, however, kind enough to provide in the letter the web address for a website — www.pay.gov — where they could go to pay their fine by credit card by May 23, 2011. Now, that’s convenient!

Based on an average price per rabbit sold being $10.45, the fine comes out to more than $206 per rabbit. In addition, the letter contains the following statement:

APHIS laws and regulations provide for administrative and criminal penalties to enforce these regulatory requirements, including civil penalties of up to $10,000 for each of the violations documented in our investigation.

If the threat contained in the letter is to be believed, the family could be fined as much as $10,000 per rabbit beyond the first 50 bunnies that netted the family its first $500. Do the math (390 rabbits x $10,000 each) and, if they don’t pay the initial fine, they could face additional fines totaling $3.9 million.

Needless to say, the Dollarhites stopped selling rabbits in January 2010 and are considering setting up a legal defense fund.

To see what the USDA has to say about the matter, read my follow-up post, USDA Stands Behind Hare-Raising Fine.

[American Patriot]

This is the biggest load of bullshit I ever saw.

THIS is why we need to shut down these agencies and eventually the damned government for doing this crap to people.

[catfish]

Amerika.

[Ryan Ruck]

Amerika.

Land of the fee and home of the slave...

[American Patriot]

/chuckles

You guys should do some re-writes so we can all be "prepared" for the future

[Ryan Ruck]

FDA Sends US Marshals To Seize Elderberry Juice Concentrate, Deems It 'Unapproved Drug'

June 7, 2011

Wyldewood Cellars, a Kansas-based producer and distributor of elderberry juice, is the latest raid target of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which recently sent US marshals to the company's winery in Mulvane to confiscate the "unapproved drug." According to the rogue agency, Wyldewood had violated provisions in the US Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) that restrict health claims for food items, warranting the sudden invasion.

According to Barry Grissom, US Attorney for Kansas, the FDA sent a warning letter to Wyldewood in 2006 to remove or modify certain health claims that it said were in violation of federal law, but the company did not comply. FDA officials claim that Wyldewood continued to make unapproved claims, and that seizing the product was the next step.

However, John Brewer, co-founder of Wyldewood, says that after receiving the initial FDA warning letter, his company hired a consultant familiar with FDA regulations to help his company reword their product descriptions. After making the appropriate changes, and clarifying that the elderberry products in question were supplements, Brewer says his company had done what it needed to in order to be in compliance.

"We haven't heard anything from (the FDA) since," he told reporters, noting that following the changes up until the raid, the FDA had ceased communicating with Wyldewood. "They've been in our facility multiple times. It's like, 'C'mon guys, we changed our label, we changed everything we thought we were supposed to do.' And then they show up and do this. (Supplements) seems to be one of their hot buttons these days."

This tactic, of course, has become all too common in recent years. A company receives a warning letter from the FDA, makes the appropriate changes, never hears anything further from the FDA, and out of nowhere gets raided. Such actions on behalf of the FDA are ultimately unwarranted and illegal, and the offended parties have every right to sue the agency for damages.

"You think you are doing things correctly, and there hasn't been any word, and all of a sudden you get this," said Brewer to The Kansas City Star.

[American Patriot]

This is bullshit too. Another agency that should be closed. Forever.

[American Patriot]

I have to mention something here in the interest of full disclosure

I take several "supplements" and have been for the past few months.

Fish oil, some stuff called "osteo-biflex" and something called "hyloranic acid" ( think I spelled it right) among other things.

I have arthritis now, especially my hips and shoulders and some trouble with my knees. But I started working out again and yesterday I was able to actually curl 40 lbs with each arm again

The two latter things I mentioned seem to be helping me with my joints. The fish oil has been helping with other things it seems. My BP is normal again (I'm also on meds for hypertension though but since the fish oil the BP has leveled out lower than it has been in years).

Now, I don't know much about elderberry being a "supplement" but I've heard you can get sick from it if you eat the wrong kind or too much of it. Other than that, I don't know much more.

On the other hand, it also has anti-oxidants. Anti-oxidants help to keep you "younger" for longer. It helps to stop and remove oxidants from your blood and your body.

I can see if they think that this stuff might KILL people, but if they are doing this because they don't "believe" in anti-oxidants then there's going to be other raids like this, trying to prevent people from living longer.

[Ryan Ruck]

Agreed. If products are dangerous, the free market (through the civil court system) will prevent dangerous products from being sold after they are determined to be dangerous. If people are harmed or killed by dangerous food or drugs, they (or the survivors) can sue with the end result being the product being pulled or even the company folding. Not to mention negligence laws can cover criminal prosecutions of those behind marketing such dangerous products.

Given all of the above, what is the point of the FDA?

[American Patriot]

Given all of the above, what is the point of the FDA?

To rival the BATFE in stupidity?