Home

What you need to know about food safety in America, and specifically about the fake food safety bills

Leave a comment

by Marti Oakley ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

                                                                Tell a Friend 

H.R. 2749 – The Food Safety Enhancement Act. S. 510 – The Food Safety Modernization Act, are nothing more and nothing less than the codification of Codex Alimentarius into US Code & Statute.  These bills are meant to do nothing other than centralize food production and supply in the hands of corporations, (the same industrialized corporate farming operations which cause 95% of all food borne illnesses) while at the same time driving independent farmers and herders off their land and out of business.

If you think either of these two assaults on freedom have anything to do with food safety or protecting the sovereign states from food borne illnesses, you are not only mistaken, but also extraordinarily dense. 

The federal government has no real interest in food safety other than using it as an excuse for facilitating centralization and seizing food production and sales for corporate stakeholders.  Its also going to be a fabulously effective tool for relieving property owners….of their property. 

America’s Food Safety System More

Image or Action? “Never mistake motion for action.”

Leave a comment

by: Lynn Swearingen                 Tell a Friend

Image or Action?

Image. While the dictionary has numerous definitions of the word, my favorite today must be:
“the general or public perception of a company, public figure, etc., esp. as achieved by careful calculation aimed at creating widespread goodwill.”

One recently addressed issue is the freedom to choose what foods we eat through the Freedom of Farming Act as proposed by Mr. Greipentrog:

From my understanding this common sense proposal is being rejected left and right by not only Politicians, but the general farming community as well. They appear to prefer Motion (in proposing a law to “help” Raw Milk farmers in Wisconsin– as long as there is appropriate regulation) vs Action (adopting the straight forward Freedom of Farming Act)
“Wherein any family farm, defined as an operation engaged in production agriculture that employs no full time personnel, save those within the family construct, shall have exclusive right to market all products of the farming operation, raw or value added through processing, direct to consumers, or local establishments, and shall be free of all inspection, recordkeeping, and traceability requirements of any governmental agency.

The producer and consumer shall make a reasonable effort to exchange information regarding these products, and the methods of production and processing, in the formation of a covenant between them.” More

Ethicureans post The New USDA guidelines

Leave a comment

January 22, 2009   (this is from early in the year but quite relevant now)

NATURALLY RAISED.
smokingchicken.jpgIf you were told an animal was “naturally raised,” what would you imagine that meant? Is it evidence that they wandered a field? Felt the touch of sunlight? Ate their normal diet? Well, no. At least, that’s not what it means if you see “naturally raised” on a package of meat. The USDA released their guidelines for the marketing term this week. Grass, sunlight, and open space don’t enter into it. Rather, animals are “naturally raised” if they “have been raised entirely without growth promotants, antibiotics (except for ionophores used as coccidiostats for parasite control), and have never been fed animal by-products.”

Got that? No growth promotants or antibiotics — except, of course, for ionophores used as coccidiostats — or eating the ground-up remains of other animals. That’s what counts as a natural upbringing in our food production system. We have not medically accelerated your growth nor made you into an inadvertent cannibal nor crammed you into such unhealthful conditions that you needed to be pumped full of antibiotics to stay alive.

The problem with this label is not specifically how the animals are raised. Excising antibiotics and growth promotants from their diet is a good thing. The problem is what the USDA’s new guidelines say about, well, the USDA. These guidelines are a simple act of collusion with the marketing teams in the livestock industry. When a consumer sees “naturally raised,” they almost certainly don’t say to themselves, “Terrific! This chicken was raised entirely without growth promotants, antibiotics (except for ionophores used as coccidiostats for parasite control), and has never been fed animal by-products!” The implication of “naturally raised” is that the chicken lived the natural life of a chicken, not the life of a widget. But USDA has defined it as living the life of a widget, just not a particularly heavily medicated widget. And why have naturally raised” at all? The shrinkwrap enclosing a chicken breast has room for “No growth hormones or antibiotics!” They’re using “naturally raised” because it’s more efficiently misleading to consumers who want to do good by eating well, and the USDA is just gave its seal of approval to the practice.

See the Ethicureans for more.

Image used under a CC license from NukeIt1.

%d bloggers like this: