When sharp minds correct untruths on the Internet we must salute them. Today I salute Donovan Bramwell for clearing up the ‘Food bill makes sharing food illegal’ claim (it won’t). He spoke out on a terrible site whose domain I cannot utter here. Quoted below in wonderful stream-of-consciousness-flow, we have the gem of truth every late night truth-seeker should stumble upon:
first, my qualifications: i am literate. i studied literature at the university and graduated magna cum laude with a bachelor of arts degree; i worked 18 years as a science/engineering writer/editor; i am a professional writer with experience in political writing.
i just now spent more time than i should have trying to sort this out. i reviewed S510 at the web site specified above, and i have come to the following tentative conclusions:
the World’s Prophecy article makes scary claims about the dangers of the bill without quoting a single phrase from the actual bill; i find this hugely offensive and irresponsible.
quoting the summary of the bill (as some of the reviewers above have done) is meaningless. the summary can say whatever it wants, and can easily consist of propaganda, and i believe that this particular summary does indeed consist of propaganda; the stuff that matters is in the text of the bill, not in the summary.
the snopes article cited above on this topic is not reliable. for one thing, the snopes article addresses HR875/S425, not S510, and though there are significant differences, i do not know what all of the differences are. snopes needs to revisit the topic and address the most recent version, which appears to be S510. snopes correctly discredits some outlandish claims about the dangers of the food safety modernization act, claims other than and more exaggerated than those made by the WP article above. however, snopes cites Rep. DeLauro’s myths and fact sheet for HR875, and i found the fact sheet to be plainly inaccurate in relation to S510. besides, Rep. DeLauro is the primary sponsor of the bill and clearly has a motive to promote it, disingenuously if need be. further, the snopes article fails to actually quote a single phrase from the bill that might actually support the claims of its opponents; such phrases do exist, even in HR875. Further, S510 includes provisions far more alarming to its opponents than any i was able to find in a quick review of HR875.
S510 plainly gives a lot of authority to the bureaucrats to write new regulations. this phenomenon is always a problem to people who cherish their freedom, and concern in this regard is fully justified.
S510 specifically applies to small businesses and even, in at least one instance, to “a very small business,” whatever that means. for example:
“(3) CONTENT.—The proposed rulemaking under paragraph (1) shall—
“(A) provide sufficient flexibility to be applicable to various types of entities engaged in the production and harvesting of raw agricultural commodities, including small businesses and entities that sell directly to consumers, and be appropriate to the scale and diversity of the production and harvesting of such commodities;
“(B) include, with respect to growing, harvesting, sorting, packing, and storage operations, minimum standards related to soil amendments, hygiene, packaging, temperature controls, animal encroachment, and water;
“(C) consider hazards that occur naturally, may be unintentionally introduced, or may be intentionally introduced, including by acts of terrorism;
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (referred to in this Act as the “Secretary”) shall promulgate regulations to establish science-based minimum standards for conducting a hazard analysis, documenting hazards, implementing preventive controls, and documenting the implementation of the preventive controls under section 418 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (as added by subsection (a)).
(2) CONTENT.—The regulations promulgated under paragraph (1) shall provide sufficient flexibility to be applicable in all situations, including in the operations of small businesses.
(2) EXCEPTIONS.—Notwithstanding paragraph (1)—
(A) the amendments made by this section shall apply to a small business (as defined by the Secretary for purposes of this section, not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act) after the date that is 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act; and
(B) the amendments made by this section shall apply to a very small business (as defined by the Secretary for purposes of this section, not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act) after the date that is 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act.
i found evidence that S510 regulations that will apply to domestic food production will not apply to imported food. in other words, it is likely, for example, that imported food will be subject to regulations far more lax than those imposed on domestic producers, handlers, and marketers. specifically:
SEC. 404. COMPLIANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS.
Nothing in this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) shall be construed in a manner inconsistent with the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization or any other treaty or international agreement to which the United States is a party.
in summary: the fear mongers have a good case, but they represent themselves and their case very poorly, and thus detract significantly from their credibility.
thank you for your time and interest
No. Thank YOU for actually doing some reading and not retweeting something you know nothing about (I’m so guilty of that, but nevertheless you can find me on Twitter here.)
Essentially tomorrow we need to be certain the ‘Tester’ amendment (pdf) stays in there, or else small farms are going to have to go through a mess of extra paper work.