ADVERTISEMENT



Google       
Call (866) 635-2689 for a free Personal Injury evaluation by attorney in your area.

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Personal Injury Law Blogs -> Marler Blog

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Personal Injury Law

: Marler Blog

Over at Crooks and Liars - More on Food Safety and HR 875

By Bill Marler, Esq.

ADVERTISEMENTS

Nonny Mouse wrote "Monsanto and HR 875, Take Two"

To set the record straight:

There is no language in HR 875 that would regulate, penalize, or shut down backyard gardens or ‘criminalize' gardeners; the bill focuses on ensuring the safety of food in interstate commerce.

Farmer's markets would not be regulated, fined, or shut down, and would, in fact, benefit from strict safety standards applied to imported food to ensure that unsafe imported food doesn't compete with locally grown produce.

The bill would not prohibit or interfere with organic farming, or mandate the use of any chemicals or types of seeds. The National Organic Program (NOP) is under the jurisdiction of the USDA. HR 875 addresses food safety issues and falls under the jurisdiction of the FDA.

Monsanto and any other large agribusiness company had no part whatsoever in drafting this bill, and Rep. DeLauro's husband and his company do no lobbying on this issue.

HR 875 has nothing to do with any national animal ID system, which would fall under the jurisdiction of the USDA, and not the FDA.

This isn't a done deal – the bill hasn't yet even been considered by any Congressional committee, nevermind seen any debate or proposed amendments. There is no ‘plot' to ram this through Congress and into law.

For those who are backyard gardners, farmers and growers who sell direct to customers, and folks who sell at farmers markets, certainly some of the provisions on records keeping will necessarily need to be less than for business who put thier product into the broader stream of commerce - organic or not so.  The goal behind this and other food safety legislation is to try and make a complex national and international food supply be more traceable and more trasparent.  One only needs to look at the recent peanut butter fiasco to see how one relativey small player (<1% of peanuts processed) can cause nearly 4,000 products to be recalled, $1.5 billion in losses, as well as 700 illnesses and nine deaths.

Bottom line, food needs to be safe.  All producers - small or large - need to have standards.  But, they also need to be rational, based on risk and be fairly enforced.  Large producers should not be cut slack because they have lobbyists.  Small producers should not have relaxed standards because they are small.  If you produce food that does not involve a handshake with your customer (a direct sale), you wll necessarily require more oversight because the risks are much greater that a small mistake can bloom into a nasty outbreak.

Full post as published by Marler Blog on March 29, 2009 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0314 secs (new cache)