Wayne,
I found it and here is the whole message since I can not post the URl

"
Hello All,
I rarely post here, but felt compelled to share todayÂs experience with you. IÂll start with a bit of background to bring you up to speed. I run a small (very small) ChildrenÂs Ag Program near Lake Berryessa, California. We currently have only 2 does in milk but share the pasteurized goat milk with family and friends. We have never sold raw or pasteurized milk or products in any form. I do teach children to milk, pasteurize, make cheeses, cajeta, ice cream, etc. but they are for their own personal consumption. I have also "given" milk to others to feed their goat kids, to make their own cheese etc. I even make cheese to share and give to friends and family and take to potlucks etc. (Gosh.. I must be a real criminal)
Today a state Ag inspector and two county officials show up and scare the bee-jesus out of me. First they accuse me of selling products and milk, then explain that even "giving milk products away" is illegal in California. Now everything is pasteurized, but it is illegal to share milk products in any form! They explained it was even ILLEGAL to give it to my own children if they did not live under my roof! I canÂt even take a lasagna dish to my grown sons home without risk of being fined, arrested and or jailed! This is OUTRAGIOUS!!!! Now let me assure you that this did not come about because anyone got sick from our products in anyway.. nor have there ever been complaints about our productsÂ

I understand the need to license dairies, but this is over the top! To meet the requirements for a food handlers permit, milk handlers permit, pasteurizer operators permit, a dairy license, and a commercial kitchen is undue punishment! This is ridiculous! Heck, someone want to explain this to me? This is a hobby for me and an opportunity to teach city kids about agriculture and real foods. How can it be illegal to give something away or take a casserole to a friendÂs house?
Robin
Kiddin Korral Manager" Tue Aug 12, 2008 8:37 pm

Posted to finance groups Yahoo Americans_Against_NAIS message 26452 (spam guard will not let me post URL)

From my understanding, the US has a more regulated food market than the rest of developed world. In my opinion enforcing the existing regulation (some more inspectors perhaps) is the way to go not more regulation. Just my 2 cents on the matter.

Governmental agencies go by rulebooks and regulations...they tend to have things "codified". I remember a health department employee telling me, "If we give you an exception, we would have to give others one."

One case of salmonella on almonds and now they all have to be "treated".....til there're dead and twice plucked up!!Maybe an exaggeration but you get the point.

"Anyways, to be fair, I highly doubt they are on a mission to actually "ban" organics, maybe just overregulate it somehow like congress always does."

That's how large corporations weed out competition. They can afford the initial cost of regulation and then pass it on to the customer. The little guys can't afford the initial costs and get screwed.

Of course they don't want an outright ban. Rather, they want control of the market. We live in a corporate socialist (corporate welfare) society. You'll still have organic food if this bill gets passed and has the feared effect, but it will be controlled by the big guys. FYI, corporate socialism is just another name for fascism.

This bill is way too general. If the Federal government wanted to stop you from selling tomatoes you grew in your yard, they theoretically could with this bill. We don't need another law to stop food contamination. We already have enough laws. What we need is better enforcement and tougher penalties for making people sick.

Peter DeFazio is cosponsoring this bill. DeFazio is a ranking member of the house organic caucus and the politician responsible for the organic label on food. He is a long time advocate for organics. I find it impossible to believe that he would sponsoring legislation to damage organics.

Seems like hyperbole to me.

Why do we need a new entity for food safety? Every case in recent years that I have heard of contamination is from a violation of existing regulation. How about enforcing the existing rules?

This bill just splits the FDA into food/drugs. The drug component remains under HHS (health and human services) and is renamed "Federal Drug and Device Administration". The food portion is still retained under the HHS umbrella. The only other reorganization is the moving of "the personnel and assets of the National Marine Fisheries Service of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the Department of Commerce used to administer the seafood inspection program" to be under HHS instead of commerce (which makes a lot more sense from a food policy perspective). The USDA would remain unchanged.

All this is contained in section 102 of the bill.

Excellent point discocarp, I did not fully read that section. So, it is at least good that they are re-using existing resources from the FDA.

So, how about this scenario. I have a home garden and I organically produce some berries. I happen to have a friend that owns a diner down the road that likes to use my berries in pies and other products. Wouldn't I, at a minimum, be a category 5 food establishment and therefore under the jurisdiction of this legislation? Also, I am not confident that a backyard garden would fall under the exclusion list of "farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined animal-feeding operation.", but in this example we can assume that it is excluded. It is the storage and transport that I am concerned with.

In California and elsewhere, there are many such arrangements of a restaurant that uses food the employees and/or owner grow on a small scale. All these folks would have to register, pay whatever fees for registering, and have their homes/vehicles inspected etc. correct? Seems like a mistake in the current economic situation and for what benefit?

The only way I could think this would be good legislation is if there are specific exclusions for small operations, home gardens, community gardens, etc. Otherwise, I see negative impact to small business and more barrier to entry i.e. benefits to large corporations. Of course, a douchey multi-national corp could contract everything out to "contractors" that are a separate legal entity, but only exist to serve that corp. Just like they do to limit risk on illegal farm workers.

The way I see this bill text: there is extra burden placed on small-scale producers to keep additional and accurate records. Trouble is, this can fly under the aegis of 'food protection' with all the tainted foods reaching the market.

The reach of corporations is long. Look what they are doing on Wall St with impunity and protection. Until this system collapses, expect more and more of this sort of thing, with the aim of centralization and consolidation.

Dan

Since we're talking in hypothetics here, as most of the fears expressed are, I'll pose one of my own.

Say I had a small planting of peanuts in my back yard and every year I mixed up a big batch of peanut butter and sold it to a friend who owned a market. Should I receive an exemption from any regulations because I'm a small operation?

Say my little operation produced a batch of salmonella-tainted peanut butter and I intentionally shipped it and sickened 637 and killed 9 people, half of them children. Of what purpose did granting me an exemption serve, a pass to poison, if you will?

Granted a backyard operation likely wouldn't kill on the scale of the Peanut Corporation Of America, so say my product only killed one child, yours perhaps. Does my exemption serve the greater good of the nation as it serves me?

No one likes to be regulated, but we've seen we can't can't trust the big players like the Poison Peanut guy and for all I know, I can't trust backyard gardeners who want to sell food to me and my family.

Hypothetically speaking, of course.

Wayne

Adirondackgardener,

The argument you are presenting is based in fear. Much like the "Think of the children" type arguments for other legislation. I wonder how you might approach other daily activities which present a much higher risk that are engaged without a thought (driving a car or riding a bike for example).

Furthermore, my scenario is not some kind of hypothetical contrived quackery. There are many restaurants across the US that operate exactly as I have described, though I personally do not sell any of my crops. The only hypothetical presented is if this bill is passed as is, which is the only way I can think of to analyze it.

The first problem with your example is that an individual which sells a product that kills people or makes them sick is personally liable. If they did so knowingly it would be criminal and they would likely be sued and go to jail. That is completely different than a corporation which can almost completely eliminate personal liability for such things.

Your argument seems to take stance that we can somehow eliminate risk, which is not possible. All controls have a cost associated with them. The test that we need to perform is matching a control to risk. I have presented a cost scenario for the control suggested in this bill and I have also suggested a compromise. Anyone familiar with ISO 27001/27002 and regulatory control should recognize this approach. A small operation exposes less individuals to risk than a huge operation. That is irrefutable. Therefore, the control should not be the same for small operations.

Here is another item to think about. How will this bill change the outcome of your scenario? A dastardly corporation or individual that wishes to knowingly sell tainted product could still do so. Make no mistake I think that the people running the Peanut Corporation of America are the scum of the earth, but this bill, as is, presents too much of a cost to the small producer.

Wayne: don't buy from backyard gardeners if you don't trust what they are selling. If you are buying from them, understand that there is no guarantee implied or otherwise that what you are buying was properly produced, stored, shipped or handled. At least through regulated outlets, there is reason to believe that the product is safe unless someone like the peanut guy screws with the system. Fortunately he is in the tiny minority.

BTW: the same sort of thing has already happened to the apple juice/cider/hard cider/sweet cider industry. Very very few people ever got sick from contaminated cider produced domestically. Nonetheless, it is no longer legal to sell fresh, unpasteurized sweet cider except at roadside/farm stands where the pressing is done on site along with sales. Containers must state that the contents are unpasteurized. the small number of orchardists in the north-east that were selling before the new law is shrinking due to the costs of adapting their operations. Personally, I think a stated warning at the point of sale would have been sufficient, let the buyer be informed and beware then let them decide.

I agree with this 100%:

"The only way I could think this would be good legislation is if there are specific exclusions for small operations, home gardens, community gardens, etc."

I think rather than knee jerk freaking out over the bill we should be making calls to get a provision like this inserted in the bill. In the national organic program (NOP) there is an exemption from the certification requirements for sales of less than $5k per year (can't remember if that's net or gross). I think this bill really needs something along those lines. I intend to make a few calls to Peter DeFazio and Rosa DeLauro's offices to make this point.

I think this bill as it is written now is nothing more than an economic and political farce. i'm sure it will be accepted by those that would rather let an outside party dictate what should be grown, when it should be grown, and how it should be grown. i, as a civil libretarian do not agree with letting someone else be responsible for my safety, as i am an adult and not in need of big brothers "help". as for those that seem to forget how big government and corporate interests seem to overstep their bounds at every chance they can get, maybe you guys would feel safer when all you intake is produced in a factory enviroment. however, as for me, an organic fanatic, i should still be able to eat healthy foods without government and corporate dictation in my daily life.

>i should still be able to eat healthy foods without government and corporate dictation in my daily life.

What, specifically, in the bill prevents you from doing just that?

Wayne

Read the bill, i personally fall into several of the "food establishment" categories as defined in the bill as written. i guess each citizen(not subject) will have to read the bill and see if they are included and will be affected, although with such all encompassing wording few who garden for food will be exempt. (8) CATEGORY 4 FOOD ESTABLISHMENT- The term `category 4 food establishment' means a food establishment that processes all other categories of food products not described in paragraphs (5) through (7).

Even the OCA, a group that I find sometimes alarmist in their claims, concedes the fears being generated by some are over the top. They title their short article: "Internet Myth of the Week: Congress To Pass Bill That Will Outlaw Organic Farming?"

"This week, we received numerous calls and emails from OCA supporters who came across alarming YouTube videos and emails circulating on the internet that claimed a new food safety bill (HR 875) introduced in Congress would make "organic farming illegal." Although the Bill certainly has its shortcomings, it is an exaggeration to say that is a secret plot by Monsanto and the USDA to destroy the nation's alternative food and farming system."

While they don't support it in it's current version, they concede the intentions are well-meaning: "to address the out-of-control filth and contamination that are inherent in our industrialized, now globalized, 'profit-at-any-cost' food system."

As I've said here and elsewhere, there is too much real work that needs to be done. Wasting energy on the unsubstantiated fears of some, the hatred of anything our government does by a few, or the need for scare-mongering by the tin foil hat crowd saps energy that could be better used elsewhere.

Wayne

Here is a link that might be useful: Internet Myth of the Week

"Peter DeFazio is cosponsoring this bill. DeFazio is a ranking member of the house organic caucus and the politician responsible for the organic label on food. He is a long time advocate for organics. I find it impossible to believe that he would sponsoring legislation to damage organics."

I agree. Barbara Lee, arguably the furthest left member of the 110th Congress, is also a co-sponsor. This isn't a pro-Monsanto group by any measure.

Sponsor: Rep. Rosa DeLauro [D-CT)
Cosponsors [as of 2009-03-07]
Rep. Timothy Ryan [D-OH]
Rep. Gwen Moore [D-WI]
Rep. Fortney Stark [D-CA]
Rep. Bob Filner [D-CA]
Rep. Timothy Bishop [D-NY]
Rep. André Carson [D-IN]
Rep. Joe Courtney [D-CT]
Rep. Jerrold Nadler [D-NY]
Rep. Mark Schauer [D-MI]
Rep. James McGovern [D-MA]
Rep. John Tierney [D-MA]
Rep. Betty McCollum [D-MN]
Rep. Raul Grijalva [D-AZ]
Rep. Barbara Lee [D-CA]
Rep. Chellie Pingree [D-ME]
Rep. John Hall [D-NY]
Rep. Maurice Hinchey [D-NY]
Rep. Louise Slaughter [D-NY]
Rep. Eliot Engel [D-NY]
Rep. Nita Lowey [D-NY]
Rep. Janice Schakowsky [D-IL]
Del. Eleanor Norton [D-DC]
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz [D-FL]

Here is a link that might be useful: HR 875 at GovTrack

I have been to the Organic Consumers Association web site and can find nothing there to support some of the wild claims about HR 875. I have looked over the web site of Organic Gardening magazine and can find nothing there to indicate fear of HR875. I have been to the Acres USA web site and can find nothing there to indicate they are concerned about HR 875.
There has been an Office of Food Sfaety in the FDA for years, but since the Reagon Administration and the very large cutbacks in funding this office has not been able to do the job they are supposed to, as the Food and Drug Administration has been unable to do the job it was meant to.

Here is a link that might be useful: Organic Consumers Association

I have to say that these recent posts have opened my eyes! I can't bear to think that I, a puny citizen, have the NERVE to question our wonderful government and it's big business buddies. How could i have doubted that these wonderful, caring people could have had anything in their minds when they came up with this bill other than our well-being? Haven't we learned yet?, we shouldn't scrutinize our government, they ALWAYS know whats best! So, everyone's right, we do need bigger government, I think we should let them make all of our decisions for us, I personally can't wait till as a people we don't make even one decision. Then and only then will the world be what the Corporate government we live under, considers safe.
I can't wait till those that need a babysitter can sit in their cubicle, with their velcro shoes, watching over-censored media while they eat a delicious, sterile, big mac.

It's usually a sign that someone lacks facts when they resort to such sarcasm. Please post the relevant sections of HR 875 that threaten organic farming/gardening and I will be happy to write the appropriate elected officals with my concerns. If that fails and the bill comes out of sub-committee as a danger to organic growing, I will fully support an effort to kill it.

Does this inhibit the "Victory Garden"??

I would get worried if the gov't dictates what we eat and how...

Especially when our food supply gets cut off by Terrorists, Seems like an easy thing to do nowadays...

Just don't wash CA deer poop off the lettuce until it reaches IN . :)

Mastergreenjeans: I appreciate your civil libertarian sentiments. However, what alternative do you suggest given the state of agriculture tody in the U.S., imported food and all? I suspect if there were no laws regarding food safety, (from the field to the table, including restraunts) we would have an enormous number of people with no reason to follow safe handling and production procedures. Those procedures can be expensive to implement and there are greedy people out there who care not a wit about others when it comes to money I.E. Bernie Madoff. One can wash off their store bought produce but that is just the outside. You can't smell bacteria on raw meat or see it. What do we do about Typhoid Mary if she's flipping burgers at McDonalds? I am not agruing with you, just trying to come up with some alternatives.

Michael

Wayne, the Organic Consumers Association is not supporting HR 875 in its current form precisely for the reason people here oppose it - it threatens the existence of small, organic farmers.

Action alert from OCA's website, linked:

Safety Modernization Act of 2009
"Tell Congress to Improve Food Safety by Stopping Factory Farming

HR 875, the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009, is a limited-vision attempt by moderate Democrats and Republicans to craft food safety legislation to address the out-of-control filth and contamination that are inherent in our industrialized, now globalized, "profit-at-any-cost" food system. This being said, OCA does not support HR 875 in its present form, given the fact that, if the bill's regulations were applied in a one-size-fits-all manner to certified organic and farm-to-consumer operations, it could have a devastating impact on small farmers, especially raw milk producers who are already unfairly targeted by state food-safety regulators. Although the OCA deems this bill somewhat well-intentioned, we are calling on Congress to focus its attention on the real threats to food safety: globalized food sourcing from nations such as China where food safety is a travesty and domestic industrial-scale and factory farms whose collateral damage includes pesticide and antibiotic-tainted food, mad cow disease, E.coli contamination and salmonella poisoning. And, of course, Congress and the Obama Administration need to support a massive transition to organic farming practices."

Organic Consumers Association:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/

Here is a link that might be useful: Organic Consumers Association

>Wayne, the Organic Consumers Association is not supporting HR 875 in its current form precisely for the reason people here oppose it - it threatens the existence of small, organic farmers.

That is a matter of opinion. The bill's sponsor says that it will not do that.

It does not do what the original poster implied in the title of his/her thread: "HR875 Bill to criminalize organic farming" or ban backyard gardening or outlaw seed saving or any of the other imagined draconian things the tin foil hat crowd would have us believe.

Wayne

I have viewed all of the posts in this blog, into the wee hours.

I conclude that this HR 875 bill, and its counterpart, S 425, are quite likely the brainchild of Monsanto, etc., lobbyists.

With the complexities of bills written, and the vagueness implicit in legalese, it may be impossible to decipher how this or any other legislation may eventually used.

But I smell a rat. And I will inform my Congressmen and Senators in the strongest language that they must withdraw these bills from the floor of Congress.

As a side note, I think that at least one of the repeated contributors to this particular blog, who is arguing FOR the HR 875 bill, might just be a 'paid blogger'.

Whom that might be, and whence the payment might originate, I will leave to anyone's wild imagination. As for the volley of ridicule almost sure to ensue, regarding 'conspiracy theories' - have at it. I'm going to bed.

The OCA letter states that is opposition, which was not posted on the web site when I was there looking for it, Might, maybe, could possibly have an adverse impact on organic and small scale farmers. It does not state that it would have.

>As a side note, I think that at least one of the repeated contributors to this particular blog, who is arguing FOR the HR 875 bill, might just be a 'paid blogger'.

If you are referring to me, I assure you that you may need to re-adjust your tin foil hat. Because one looks for documentation for claims made, i.e. "I conclude that this HR 875 bill, and its counterpart, S 425, are quite likely the brainchild of Monsanto, etc., lobbyists," does not put one in the pocket of the "evil empire." It is still possible for some to look past the hysterical hype such as Californian's thread title and look at the text of the bill. Actually read it and not read into it.

I can tell you this for certain, having had some limited contact with the political world: If you write to your representatives about this and make wild claims such as it will criminalize organic agriculture, prohibit saving seeds, and outlaw backyard gardens, they will put your letters in the "communications from wackos" file and any legitimate concerns will not be heard.

Wayne
(still waiting for my check from Monsanto!!!)

Here is a link to an interesting article which deconstructs HR 875, revealing how ambiguity and omission can be deliberately written into a a bill allowing for future exploitation and open ended interpretation.

Like the authors say, it's not going to be called ""The Criminalization of Organic Farming and the Take over of the US Food Supply," Act.

Here is a link that might be useful: A Solemn Walk Through HR 875

... and speaking of Monsanto, Michael Taylor, a member of Obama's transition team is rumored to soon become his USDA pick. Who is Michael Taylor?

"... a lawyer who began his revolving-door adventures as counsel to
FDA. He then moved to King & Spalding, a private-sector law firm
representing Monsanto, a leading biotechnology company. In 1991 he
returned to the FDA as Deupty Commissioner for Policy, where he was
part of the team that issued the agency's decidedly industry-friendly
policy on food biotechnology and that approved the use of Monsanto's
genetically engineered growth hormone in dairy cows. His questionable
role in these decisions led to an investigation by the federal General
Accounting Office, which eventually exonerated him of all conflict-of-
interest charges. In 1994 Mr. Taylor moved to USDA to become
administrator of Food Safety and Inspection Service. In this position, he
became the hero of food safety activists for his courageous
development of the agency's groundbreaking policies for controlling
dangerous microbial contaminants in meat and poultry. After another
stint in private legal practice with King & Spalding, Mr. Taylor again
joined Monsanto as Vice President for Public Policy in 1998. He
resigned that position late in 1999 during the height of public
controversy of Monsanto's aggressive promotion of its genetically
modified foods. At the time of this writing, he had returned to the
private sector, this time to Resources for the Future, a nonprofit think
tank on environmental and natural resource issues in Washington,
D.C."
link:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/3/8/173840/8764/712/706113

Here is a link that might be useful: Obama's Team Includes Dangerous Biotech

HaHa...Wayne a 'paid blogger' for Monsanto?

Thanks, I was in need of a chuckle ;)

>HaHa...Wayne a 'paid blogger' for Monsanto?
Thanks, I was in need of a chuckle ;)

:(

I guess that means I won't be getting my check?

Oh, well.

Wayne

adirondackgardener:

"After reading the bill, I don't see a threat to organic agriculture or backyard gardeners."

Lets say this is not a farce and it's true; where are you going to obtain heirloom or organic seeds if Monsanto owns patents on all of them?

Did you know that over 90% of the world's soy is controlled by Monsanto through their introduction of "Round-up Ready Soy"? The soy resists Round-up, but all the other flowering plants in the vicinity die as a result of drifting spray.

Ever wonder where the bees went? Monsanto may be part of the answer to that!

Better give this one a second thought. I think it's more serious than a lot may think.

If it is a farce, it'll be worth a good chuckle (as you say), but if it's the truth, who'll be laughing then?

Here is a link that might be useful: An End To Organic Farming

Did you know that over 90% of the world's soy is controlled by Monsanto through their introduction of "Round-up Ready Soy"?

pee-pul. Some need to get a hold of themselves.

The Monsanto ululating is farcical. The text of the bill is to make more paperwork in order to track food, so when the FDA fails in its inspections, the burdened grower has a record of their crop. The hope likely is eventually a few small growers will go out of business and Cargill will step in.

Or that is a side effect. Surely the lawmakers think they are doing the right thing. No one is going to listen if you sound like you are delivering your argument in big floppy shoes and a red honkie nose. Get some arguments together and present them calmly and cogently. Not like many in this thread. Come now.

Dan

Dan:

If it's a farce, these guys went to a lot of trouble creating this lengthy video expose of Monsanto:

Here is a link that might be useful: Video Exposing Monsanto's Operations

I'm neither a Monsanto nor an Andura Smetacek fan. And I'm sure there were Big Ag lobbyists influencing the text of the bill. The original intent of the bill was for food safety, and lawmakers think they are doing the right thing by enacting it (if it goes thru).

Ululating and rending of raiment will not get Committee members' attention.

Stating that these may be burdensome to small family farmers (do not mention only organic growers) by burying them in paperwork will get their attention.

Frame the concerns that way. Do not flop on the ground and yell 'Mooooonnnnnsaaaaaantooooo! while foaming at the mouth. Burdensome to small farmers. Unduly burdensome to small farmers. Unnecessarily burdensome to family farmers. Unfair to family farmers.

Get it, everyone?

Dan

$5 words aside, banter is a tool of the enemy. This bill was slated for a two-week turn-around and the clock started ticking Monday, March 16th.

There's not much left to say except CALL YOUR CONGRESSMEN and voice your opinion before (if) they vote on it.

- 30 - (That's a journalism brief that means "end of story.")

$5 words aside, banter is a tool of the enemy.

Only when it leads to undue delay.

Calling Congresscritters and yelling at them that Monsanto is the Antichrist is not effective expression of opinion. Stating it is unduly burdensome to family farmers is.

Dan

Dan, you've created the images for a new SouthPark episode.

Do not flop on the ground and yell 'Mooooonnnnnsaaaaaantooooo! while foaming at the mouth.

LOL! Hilarious and good points, thanks...

Boy, I'm sure glad the Obama's planted an ORGANIC garden this week.

Michelle said this week:
"It just tells you that this country cares about people's good health and about the care of the land," she said. "To have this sort of 'victory' garden, this message goes out that everyone can grow a garden and have free food."

Here's the link to the story: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090319/ap_on_go_pr_wh/white_house_garden

All of us who thought otherwise can relax now.... The Whitehouse reads this forum? I'm not sure what to think of this new Whitehouse promotion in ORGANIC gardening this week. What good timing to quiet any talk.

Thanks Dan,

I truly appreciate your advise. I was headed in the other direction.

Here is another thought -- call news rooms at the local TV stations and give them a few web sites to read. Have a few web sites to give to the Congress and Senate people too.

May truth rain.

Brass:

TV stations, radio stations, all of these may or may not find a story to report. It is hard to say and dependent upon how many family farmers are around.

They appreciate having the information in front of them in a 1-page format, with bullets, little text. If you are going to do this, call them and speak calmly and rationally and sound like you are normal and concerned, and offer to fax them a one-page Press Advisory (use this term) detailing the issues, and send them a one-page Press Advisory on the issues in bulleted form, choose no more than three websites (and ensure one of them is the OCA page updated today).

Stick to the facts. No Monsanto ululating. Family Farmers. Burdensome. The Google has many examples of Press Advisories for you to follow. I send these all the time when I am doing work that requires media coverage and they are the standard announcement for small media outlets.

Good luck.

Dan

Way to go Dan. (He sounds like he knows what he's doing.)

Keep the message simple and keep on the message.
Keep the message simple and keep on the message.
Keep the message simple and keep on the message.

Folks, that's how you get your message across.

Burdensome to small farmers. Unduly burdensome to small farmers. Unnecessarily burdensome to family farmers. Unfair to family farmers.

Well, since we are at it, you want a clear cogent message. When I speak to reporters, I write down my messages and keep them in front of me and make sure I say my important messages at least twice. This is an advantage for me as if the reporter sees it, I don't appear like a professional, but I am organized and my words are cogent so it works. Now.

So for this topic, the message is maybe something like:

The intent of the bill is a noble one: to protect our food supply. But the text of the bill, as worded, is unnecessarily burdensome to family farmers. Especially in these economic times.

So the important points above:

• intent is noble

• protect food supply

• text needs revision

• Family farmers will be burdened

• So much so we don't want to risk any more jobs

These 5 bullets show that you get it and are concerned about the consequences, but support the intent.

Family Farmers is a powerful metaphor. You want action in this case. Education is for another time. Lawmakers get it. Tell them you want some revisions so Family Farmers are protected.

Note also how the OCA text I linked to above is written. And how I differed the style of my sentences in this comment and above. Short sentences for the message. But, you can also use commas for when you explain a topic, so that the tone changes. Commas change voice tone. Short sentences convey a message, something you want to keep in mind, just in case you get an audience.

Dan

"TV stations, radio stations, all of these may or may not find a story to report. It is hard to say and dependent upon how many family farmers are around."

Exactly, this would be useless for me in L.A.- no media outlet of any size is going to care here.

Is there seriously no non-profit or coalition with amended language to HR 875 that people can support when writing to calling the House Ag committeee members or bill co-sponsors? This seems a lot more effective to me, as many of those listed are concerned about the issues raised in this thread and elsewhere.

Good point. The rural folk have an outlet and a sympathetic audience. I personally do not know the answer to which coalitions are recommending killing in committee.

I think there is a possibility it might be hinging on grass roots, which is the reason why I care about this thread.

Dan

To be very honest, I think the HR814, HR875 & S425 are about pricing the growers and ranchers out of business, but not the large corporate kind of agri-business.

Gailh 2008 posted a website with a paper written by William Engdahl entitled 'The WTO & the Politics of GMO' It is easy to read and helps to make some sense of what is happening.
Brass

Here is a link that might be useful: WTO & the Politics of GMO

It's not just what the bill says that causes so much concern as it is what the bill does not say. The problem is that the bill is vague and does not have any provisions or exclusions for organic or backyard gardening. While the author(s) of the bill may have meant well, the law if passed could be seriously abused later on. A real definition of a 'farm' is not provided. Anything that the bill does not exclude explicitly is included implicitly. Let's say 20 years down the road that the head of the NEW agency that is created by this bill happens to be deeply obligated to a large factory farm corporation and he decides at the behest of the corporation that 'farm' means anyone that produces food, period. Then the risk of this bill will become apparent. Not to sound like a conspiracy nut, but everyone knows that a good portion of our elected officials are in the pockets of large corporations. Who do you think pays for all those campaign commercials.

Here is a link that might be useful: Government Puts and End to Backyard and Organic Gardening

g'day freedonatrisk,

that is why they write them in an ambiguouse way, so they can call in anything they like when the time comes. and who pays? us little people of course the big end of town are the ones who make out of it.

but general apathy will see the bill passed without public comment r concern or even knowedge of it.

len