0 votes

SANITY: How to see through the nonsense of S.510 - "Food Safety Modernization Act" - UPDATED

The following was posted as a comment in an older thread on the topic, but since it may have fallen off the radar, and there is renewed interest in this legislation, I thought I'd reproduce an edited version of my call for sanity in its own thread.

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/142382#comment-1532685

Just Added: a section on 21 CFR 1.227 which contains the regulations used as guidance to enforce the present Act and which are NOT amended by this bill (S.510)

Also, to answer a question specifically to any other sections (like 105 of the bill) and how they apply, please see this comment: http://dailypaul.com/node/149518#comment-1582648

I really wish people would read the bill and the law which it is amending before they spout off.
Submitted by samadamscw on Thu, 09/09/2010 - 05:53

Present Code - 21 USC Chapter 9
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/21/usc_sec_21_00000350---d...

The law as currently before the Senate:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=11...

(in particular, please go to page 123, sec. 102 Registration of Food Facilities)

Issue #1 - Scope
Here's the deal: this bill is an amendment to the Food and Drug Safety Act.

Therefore, unless this bill changes the scope of the original act, then this bill is limited by the scope of the original act. Furthermore, words in this bill, being in amendment to present law, may not be common words, but specifically defined legal terms, whose definitions, if they exist, will be found in the present law..

That means, you can't just read a bill and presume that every word you read is used with only the common everyday contemporary meaning in mind. You HAVE to look in the definitions section of the bill, and the present law, to determine if anything is a specifically defined term. Such a term may not be as broad or as general as the everyday meaning.

This is CRITICAL when determining the scope of a law.

All too often, people fly off at the mere mention of a new law, and how Congress is taking authority it doesn't have, before they even read the damned thing.

And this bill does not change the important limiting sections out-lined below

So here goes:

The Food and Drug Safety Act, and thus this bill, as well as its House counterpart, are limited by the following sections of the present law:

21 USC § 350d. Registration of food facilities
(a) Registration
(1) In general
The Secretary shall by regulation require that any facility engaged in manufacturing, processing, packing, or holding food for consumption in the United States be registered with the Secretary.

Okay, so far, this does NOT include growing food either by a company, organization, or individual as in a garden or home farm.

Let us look at the next important part:

§ 350d (cont.)
(b) Facility
For purposes of this section:
(1) The term “facility” includes any factory, warehouse, or establishment (including a factory, warehouse, or establishment of an importer) that manufactures, processes, packs, or holds food. Such term does not include farms; restaurants; other retail food establishments; nonprofit food establishments in which food is prepared for or served directly to the consumer; or fishing vessels (except such vessels engaged in processing as defined in section 123.3(k) of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations).

So, this specifically does NOT include "farms; restaurants; other retail food establishments; nonprofit food establishments in which food is prepared for or served directly to the consumer; or fishing vessels..."

Looks to me like the "Facility Registration" process, which is the lynch pin to all the rest of the authorities of the original act, and this bill in amendment thereto, DOES NOT apply to whom the scaremongers say it does. It in fact, specifically says it DOES NOT apply to them. There is no question about it. The law is VERY clear in this case.

Issue #2 - Licensing
Additionally, there is yet another important subsection which drives the nail in the coffin of the idea that this bill will somehow require all farms and gardens to be licensed by the HHS Secretary:

§ 350d (cont.)
(c) Rule of construction
Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the Secretary to require an application, review, or licensing process.

Any questions? Is it possible to misunderstand that extremely clear, succinct and to the point sentence?

Issue #3 - Constitutional Authority
The big kicker to all of this, is that the entire original Food and Drug Act is even more limited in scope than what you see here. There are general definitions for the Act as a whole, and in them you will find a definition for "interstate commerce" upon which the power to regulate is found in the Constitution, and thus is the authorization for the original act:

§ 321. Definitions; generally
(b) The term “interstate commerce” means
(1) commerce between any State or Territory and any place outside thereof, and
(2) commerce within the District of Columbia or within any other Territory not organized with a legislative body.

So "interstate commerce" which this entire original act, and this bill amending it are drawing their constitutional legitimacy on, is clearly defined to exclude intrastate commerce except in those areas where Congress has exclusive jurisdiction: D.C. and unorganized Territories. If you grow your own food, even if you sell it, but only within the same State, this act and bill DO NOT APPLY TO YOU.

Issue #4 - Applicability
And finally, we see that "person" is clearly an artificial "legal" person by this definition:

§ 321. Definitions; generally
(e) The term “person” includes individual, partnership, corporation, and association.

Accepted rules of construction used by the Supreme Court, indicates that the use of the term "individual" here is not to mean each and every American, but to mean the actual man or woman who is or may be responsible for, or the one who acts on behalf of other "legal persons" such as an officer of a corporation, or an employee acting in its name or on its behalf. This is done so a real live, flesh and blood man or woman can be held responsible for certain actions, or compelled to comply with certain laws even though the laws work on artificial persons.

This definition really isn't necessary to see how limited this act and thus this bill are because that is taken care of up above, but it is illustrative of what is really the kicker for most laws that people mistakenly believe apply to them, when they are written specifically to regulate artificial entities.

(it would be unconstitutional and a direct violation of your natural and inalienable rights to require you to comply with this act if you were not acting in some legal capacity for an artificial entity. Legal fictions have no natural rights, because they are not natural. You do. So the law only applies to you as a real man or woman, to the extent that you are involved somehow with a covered legal person and only with respect to that involvement)

Issue #5 - Regulations
To be sure, the devil is always in the details. And some will invariably point to the Code of Federal Regulations as a source of much of where innocuous law goes bad. And in many cases, I agree. But in this case, the regulations only serve to further back up my position that this law has VERY limited scope, and it does NOT apply to what the fearmongers are claiming.

http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRS... (hit the link for 21 CFR and then in the search box enter 1.227- sadly there is no direct link)

(2) Facility...The private residence of an individual is not a facility. Nonbottled water drinking water collection and distribution establishments and their structures are not facilities.

Looks pretty clear to me. Your personal garden or family farm are NOT faciliites. Thus the original Food and Drug Act do NOT apply to you, and since S.510 does not change the scope of this act, then it doesn't apply to you either.

(3) Farm means a facility in one general physical location devoted to the growing and harvesting of crops, the raising of animals (including seafood), or both. Washing, trimming of outer leaves of, and cooling produce are considered part of harvesting. The term "farm" includes:
(i) Facilities that pack or hold food, provided that all food used in such activities is grown, raised, or consumed on that farm or another farm under the same ownership; and
(ii) Facilities that manufacture/process food, provided that all food used in such activities is consumed on that farm or another farm under the same ownership.

So if you aren't on your personal residence and consume everything you pack or hold or manufacture or process (this does NOT mean growing) then you are a "farm" and thus this law does not apply to you. (if you are doing any of these things on your personal residence, this law doesn't apply to you because it is not a "facility")

(11) Retail food establishment means an establishment that sells food products directly to consumers as its primary function. A retail food establishment may manufacture/process, pack, or hold food if the establishment's primary function is to sell from that establishment food, including food that it manufactures/processes, packs, or holds, directly to consumers. A retail food establishment's primary function is to sell food directly to consumers if the annual monetary value of sales of food products directly to consumers exceeds the annual monetary value of sales of food products to all other buyers. The term "consumers" does not include businesses. A "retail food establishment" includes grocery stores, convenience stores, and vending machine locations.

If you sell anything you pack, package, manufacture, or process, to anyone OTHER than consumers, then the law might apply to you, but only if you are within D.C., one of the organized territories, or are engaged in "interstate" commerce as noted above. Otherwise, this law does not apply to you.

Please, go read the rest of 21CFR 1.227. It is a page long and easy to read. You will understand this much better after you do.

Conclusion
So the lesson here for today?

Learn to read the law, and don't take what just anyone on the internet says at face value about a law, most especially if they are claiming Congress is usurping authority, or about to pass this or that draconian legislation, odds are, it either doesn't do what the fear mongers claim it does, or it doesn't apply to the people they claim it applies to.

It is also important to KNOW the law. So when some idiot agent of the government decides he wants to agree with the fear mongers and try to enforce this law on you when it CLEARLY does not apply, you can rake him over the coals in court, if he gets that far after he finds out he is barking up the wrong tree and instead might think twice about intentionally and willfully violating your inalienable rights.

In closing, I'll leave you with this little scenario:

Congress doesn't have a certain power.

So they pass a law that "appears" to apply to everyone, but doesn't. (because it can't)

Everyone is pissed off, but still complies because they are fools and didn't bother to check the actual scope of the law.

A few people do check out the law and rightfully refuse to comply, (because they don't have to) but no one will believe them, because "everybody knows" you must comply.

Congress, without having a power, just duped Americans into complying anyway.
And then those Americans get pissed off and have the nerve to be mad at Congress passing "unconstitutional" laws.

In reality, is was the laziness and stupidity of Americans who refuse to READ, and LEARN, and who BLINDLY follow like sheep to the slaughter, who allowed Congress to take a power they don't have.

After years or decades it becomes impossible to avoid this law, that doesn't even apply to you. Anyone you try to tell the real scope of the law to, thinks you are a looney bird.

And the country goes down the toilet of tyranny, and we give up yet more essential liberty, all because people wanted to sensationalize rather than do a little homework.

Complying with an unconstitutional act is more egregious than the passing of the act in the first place. Even worse, is claiming Congress is doing something it hasn't the power to do, for then, people will believe you, and comply when they are not required to, until many years later, though no one being prohibited, many are imprisoned for doing that which "everyone knows" is against this non-existant law.

S.510 is a bad bill for lots of reasons. None of them include what is being claimed in other threads here and across the blogosphere.

Good luck to anyone working to defeat this bill. But please do so armed with truth rather than sensationalism. Advocates of small government are done a great disservice when the people who advocate the loudest are spouting nonsense.




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Action Alert!

issued by Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund

http://www.ftcldf.org/petitions/pnum1061.php

Reject S.510 - Protect America's Small Farms & Food Producers
2,814 Submissions so far
111th U.S. Congress - Senate Bill S.510 [Click here for Talking Points]http://www.ftcldf.org/petitions/pnum1061.php

Update 11/18/10: The S.510 vote on November 17 was simply to allow cloture which passed 75-25; the vote on November 18 has moved S.510 to the Senate floor for a vote. Call Senators to VOTE "NO" on S.510

More than ever S.510 represents a major threat to the local food movement, states' autonomy to regulate food, and the country's ability to become self-sufficient in food production.

Passage of the revised version into law will enable FDA potentially to regulate all farms marketing food products direct to consumers even if the farms engage only in intrastate commerce. [NOTE: The Amendment offered by Jon Tester was adopted 11/18/2010 to mitigate the most immediate impact on small farms and counter the trend of consolidation of the food supply; bottomline, however, there are unamended provisions in S.510 that are nonetheless distressing.] The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act of 2010 (S.510) needs to be stopped!

How bad can a federal food safety bill be? Let me count the ways! Better yet, let Senator Coburn give you a short video tutorial on the underlying problems with S.510.
http://www.farmtoconsumer.org/news/news-coburn-video-092510.htm

FDA's failure to exercise its current powers hardly justifies rewarding the agency with expanded authority in the aftermath of the egg recall and peanut butter fiasco. Moreover, FDA has proven itself untrustworthy to operate in the best interest of the American public as clearly seen in allowing the nontherapeutic use of antibiotics in animals and its lax policy regarding genetically modified foods.

Congress hasn't gotten the message that they need to solve the real problems--the centralized food distribution system and imported foods--and not regulate our local food sources out of business.

link to site: http://www.ftcldf.org/petitions/pnum1061.php

samadamscw or others could you look this over for accuracy before I start this as a new thred

The Coburn link site has a talking points link.

I generally agree with its assessment. However, I take issue with the claims that this will affect small farmers.

(note it does NOT make the spurious claim that has been used as a scare tactic that this bill will regulate gardens or family farms)

The present law is very clear. Farms are not regulated. No one advancing these "small farm" claims can show language that amends the controlling definitions that result in the inclusion of farms in the class of entities that are regulated. (aka "facility")

As for the other link, they don't seem either to provide anything to back up their claims concerning the law's alleged affects on small farms.

Most likely, I can only surmise that this is because these sources are reading this bill with two errors:

1. in a vacuum instead of in context of the present law, which it is basically a set of amendments to.

2. reading words with their common meanings, rather than their statutory definitions which control WHO the bill applies to.

The way to determine what a bill does is first look at WHO a law applies to.

If it doesn't apply to you, then the rest is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with you.

The only case you might want to pay any further attention, is if you are given an "exemption" from the law. Which means the law DOES apply to you, but under certain circumstances, you get a pass. Thus, you need to know what those circumstances are, to determine if, when, and in the future if you must once again, have to be concerned with the other provisions.

In the 20 some odd minutes of that speech, Coburn has pointed out that this bill is bad for all sorts of reasons, mostly reasons of inefficiency and wastefulness, and accountability of PRESENT agencies, as well as the general process of "how to pay for it."

Coburn says nothing about regulating seed saving, gardens, family farms, etc. (the claims from others on DP and elsewhere on the Net)

Yes, this bill is a bad bill that needs to be defeated. It is mere lipstick on a pig, but it is not a trojan horse that opens us up to a government takeover of your personal food supply.

So what do you think of Dr. Coburn's amendment

so what do you think of Dr. Coburn's amendment

Dr. Coburn filed an amendment that from my understanding basically strikes down the current bill and replaces it with legislation that empowers the free market rather than the heavy hand of government to keep food safe, it's called: The Ensuring Greater Food Safety Act of 2010

go to his website to read the amendment:
http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/rightnow

I haven't seen this discussed here, is this a potential fix and a realistic solution that would make both sides happy? Could this satisfy those that say "we have to do something" without handing more power to the FDA? Should we be supporting him on this?

Here is the agenda for Monday according to National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) sustainableagriculture.net/blog/food-safety-bill-update (I do not personally agree with NSAC as they still support S. 510 so long as the Tester amendment is included) I provide this to show that Coburn's bill is scheduled for debate.
"A time agreement was reached by the Senate leadership late Thursday night. It provides for two more cloture votes to take place on November 29, immediately following the Thanksgiving week congressional recess, one to shut down debate on the Manager’s amendment and a second to shut down debate on the bill.
As a result of the time agreement there will only be debate on four measures — the Johanns health care amendment and a Democratic alternative from Senator Baucus (D-MT) with one hour of debate combined; a Coburn substitute for the entire food safety bill; and the Coburn amendment to ban congressional earmarks, with four hours of debate on the two Coburn amendments combined. After those five hours of debate, there will be votes on each measure, in the same order, and then on the manager’s amendment and final bill."

Note I have posted a new thread with talking points that doesn't sidetrack with fear-mongering about seed saving ect.
http://dailypaul.com/node/150334

How do you get a post to show up so people can see it? As a small Organic farmer this battle over this "Food Safety" bill has been going on for a long time and now finally when it comes the time to do something about it everyone here seems more interested in body scanners (not that this is not important, but the timing of all the media time it is getting, seems as though it could be a diversion for all the freedom mined people to look away from this)

Thanks for that info.

The only way a post stays up top is if it has active discussion. You can request a pin to the front page otherwise, but that is about it.

Since this is timely and the action starts Monday, perhaps your request will be fulfilled.

I'll read Coburn's amendment and get back to you.

I'm still not understanding what the deal is with the "manager's amendment." Senator Vitter's office told me that it was "new" yet the online version on Thomas shows it as part of the bill reported out of committee.

I'm not up on Senate procedure, so maybe the amendment out of committee is merely a recommendation yet it still has to be voted on by the full Senate. If so, I can see why people are against the bill as written. The original version was garbage. (not that the manager's amendment is much better, but it is somewhat)

There is a portion of the House bill though that I would like to see pass no matter what.

The definitions in the regulations at 21CFR 1.227 are included in the House version to be made a part of law. This way, the protections for gardens and family farms will be part of the law rather than just the regulations which are at the Secretary's discretion.

If this bill passes, I hope that part makes it through conference.

I think the Tester Amendment confuses things. That guy obviously doesn't understand the present law. He'll just make a mess of it. That amendment should be defeated.

From now on, I'll let this thread die, and discuss in your other thread you linked.

Almost all government is nonsense.

Joe6pack thinks he is being protected. Anyone in his right mind thinks this is plunder, control, and pure insanity.

It is just a matter of time before Madame Guillotine is rolled out from the warehouse of history, and that will be justice, retribution, and salvation for freedom.

If you think we are going to restore freedom by begging our masters or voting for the slate they present us, you are doomed to bear the burden of your chains.

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

Agreed. We should treat their assertions of authority

as non-starters.

.

damn can a moderator get someone to fix when you sign in to reply to a comment it takes you to the comment box but not as a reply to the comment thanks

So are they still debating?

No vote yet???

Nope, the "managers" amendment was just

introduced.

Which is in the nature of striking the entire bill and substituting a new one.

This was already done in committee as far as I was aware. The version on Thomas we've been discussing here was in that form, a bill that was struck in its entirety and then substituted with a new version. (I guess this is the only way to make multiple changes at one time, else you'd have to make multiple amendments and get each one passed)

I don't know if this is that second version, or an as yet unpublished THIRD version of the bill.

I called both my Senators and both seem to be on the unsure category now until they consider this new amendment. I urged both to vote for more efficiency and not to add new employees or spending or new agencies to what we already have. (i.e. vote the bill down)

"I urged both to vote for

"I urged both to vote for more efficiency and not to add new employees or spending or new agencies to what we already have. (i.e. vote the bill down)"

wow those are NOT the main issues here, those are softballs

you are obviously a diversionist

Not at all. I'm not about to call my Senators ranting about

something the bill doesn't even do as a reason I want them to vote against it.

They'll just ignore me.

I'd rather urge them to vote based on what the bill actually says and does than some made up story on a blog.

you don't think it's

you don't find it concerning that not only would it only take an outbreak to be traced back to a small farm for the Secretary to decide it is no longer exempt, but a decision by the Secretary that a farm MAY cause an outbreak

you are a diversionist

all of your arguments of inapplicability will have been void if the feds decide INTERstate is the same as INTRAstate like in current gun cases

and it will further be VOID if the final bill looks anything like the house bill! (gotten back on that yet, by the way?)

It can't be traced back to a small farm that isn't registered

because there is no paper trail to trace it back. That's the point of registration.

If the farm isn't registered, because it doesn't have to be, then the Secretary won't even know about it to shut it down.

However, if that farmer listens to your position, he'll think he's required to register (though he isn't) and then he will be creating a paper trail, and may very well get shut down on a whim as you put it, all because of of people like you who convinced him this law applies to him.

You are making it easier for the Feds to win the intra=inter argument by repeating that they even can do it, and will do it, and there is no stopping, so we're all screwed.

If that's the case then, it is irrelevant if this bill passes or not. They'll just take whatever power they want and regulate you into non-existence anyway.

And, no, I haven't read the House bill yet. It does take some time. I read S.510 some time ago. I'll get to it when I get to it.

In the meantime, care to show the changes in definitions I've been asking for, in either this bill or the House version? Because unless you can do that, this bill isn't what you say it is.

YOU are the one making the claim. (or defending it)

YOU have the burden of proof.

I've proven my claim.

You're just repeating your original argument with no additional proof to counter what I have presented.

the only way there wouldn't

the only way there couldn't be a paper trail is if all transactions were done with cash

and anyway this provision *Tester ammendment* does not deal with already registered farms it is dealing with ones that are supposed to be exempt, unless the Secretary decides otherwise per the ability given in the ammendment

Edited the comment I see.

Very well then. I'll leave my reply below anyway. It is illustrative and answers this as well. It explains the exemption issue.

Exempt and not covered are two different things. Do you understand that?

Something that is "exempt" under a law is COVERED by a law. The law applies to it, but in this special case, it is exempt.

If something is not covered by a law, it doesn't need an exemption. The law doesn't apply to it. It is outside the scope of the law. It may be mentioned in the law, but only to clarify that it is not included in covered subjects of it. (as is the case with farms and gardens)

The Tester amendment provides an exemption to something that is covered.

Or maybe it's a bad amendment. Maybe he's offering an exemption to something that doesn't even need one. He may be wanting to make sure someone doesn't think that this entity is covered.

If that is the case, his amendment is a mess and should be amended itself.
I'll have to go read it again and get more familiar with it. (the version of it that passed that is)

yea, maybe it most certainly

yea, maybe it most certainly IS a bad ammendment, downright evil. it exempts something that does not need to be exempted and then provides a condition for that exemption - per your logic

You mean we agree on something!

(other than that the bill is a bad bill and needs to be defeated that is)

Wow. Who would've guessed?

Well, I'm tired and I have to be up early for work tomorrow. So until later...

yea, until laterdiversionist

yea, until later

diversionist

"In the 2002 Bioterrorism Act, Congress required that all facilities that manufacture, process, pack, or hold food must register with FDA, but it exempted from that requirement “retail food establishments.”"

your are LYING and spinning a web a symantics meant to divert. the legal definition of exempt:

Not subject to a responsibility held by others.

You are confounding the controlling definitions and an

exemption.

Seriously man, you are whacked in that area.

You are reading stuff using the plain meanings and not the legal definitions given by Congress.

The definitions say farms are not included in facilities. Facilities have to register and follow the regs. Thus farms do not have to register or follow the regs.

NOT because they are exempt, but because they are not included AT ALL.

Some facilities are granted an exemption that can be taken away.

This does not mean that something that isn't a "facility", no matter what they hell you call it, is now subject to the law, unless the definition of facility is changed to include it.

Let me give you the ABC example again.

You have three groups the law presently applies to, A, B, C.

In S.510, group C is granted an exemption that can be withdrawn by the secretary.

This does not mean that group D isn't covered by the law because of the exemption given to group C. Group D isn't even at issue here. Only group C is.

The situation we have here is that there is a superset group E (small businesses)

It includes C and D. (specific types of small businesses DEFINED in the law)

E as a whole is not under the law. (it isn't even mentioned)

D is not. (it is specifically NOT included in the definition of the term "facility")

C is.

To illustrate further we'll put some members in each set.

E={1,2,3,4,5,6}
C={1,2}
D={3,4}
(5 and 6 don't belong to either C or D)

The law applies to C{1,2}

The exemption applies to C{1,2} but can be taken away.

IN no way does this even imply that any or either of 3,4,5 or 6 is now subject to the law.

As for the "traced back" how do you think they trace back the source of a contamination of pathogen?

As for your inter=intra, that is made easier, as I said, by your activities. Out of the two of us, I'm the only one providing any defense against that. You are granting it as a fait acompli. So under your own reasoning, you are wasting your time trying to block this bill.

I'm sorry did you read the

I'm sorry did you read the right post?

also, the word "farm" is used in the Tester provision it referred to both facility AND farm

"that is directly linked to a facility or farm exempted under this section"

"based on conduct or conditions associated with a facility or farm"

Good try.

Read my other reply.

You edited your comment in between when I clicked reply and saved mine.

That's okay. I'll leave both up there.

As I mentioned, that may be a problem with the Tester amendment. It won't change the scope of the law, but it will be an illustration of how ignorance of the law can make it more confusing and can create the very situation you are so worried about.

This is precisely what has happened with tax law in Title 26.

People are now writing amendments to it and they have no inkling of an understanding of what the original law said, applied to, or taxed. Now it is one giant mess of rotten spaghetti.

It is a perfect example of why it is crucially important to learn how law is organized and constructed so you don't get mixed up in who it applies to.

see above post..

see above post..

according to the tester

according to the tester ammendment summary:

"In the 2002 Bioterrorism Act, Congress required that all facilities that manufacture, process, pack, or hold food must register with FDA, but it exempted from that requirement “retail food establishments.” FDA defined the term at 21 CFR 1.227(b)(11). For purposes of the definition, the Tester amendment would require FDA to clarify that “direct sales” of food to consumers includes sales that occur other than where the food was manufactured, such as at a roadside stand or farmers’ market."

BUT LOOK AT THIS (at the bottom)

-Limitation:
• In the event of an active investigation of a foodborne illness outbreak that is directly linked to a facility or farm exempted under this section, or if the Secretary determines that it is necessary to protect the public health and prevent or mitigate a foodborne illness outbreak based on conduct or conditions associated with a facility or farm that are material to the safety of food, the Secretary may withdraw the exemption provided to such facility under this section. No activities under this limitation expand existing FDA authorities to inspect farms.

Please provide a link to that last paragraph for more study.

If possible, please include a link to this Tester amendment.

Thanks.

Nevermind.

I read it.

This paragraph is in the amendment.

It does not add anyone to the law.

It merely provides for a certain group already covered to be exempt except under certain circumstances.

mhm, unless the Secretary

mhm, unless the Secretary decides they aren't

so, how does the 2002 bioterrorism act fit into all this

The definitions I provided the text of and linked to

in the current law already reflect that act.

Go read the first excerpt which is the requirement to register. You will see it mimics the language you posted.

Also, I don't see any language that gives the Secretary discretion to include new people or entities under the law or allows him to redefine what is and is not a facility at his discretion.

.

.

I'm against ANY law that

I'm against ANY law that isn't needed, this being one.

though apparently it has been over hyped for no reason (according to the above post, that I have not verified further).

summery:

S 510 is a bad law and should NOT be passed, we do NOT need to over complicate an already over complicated system.

“One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.” Plato

samadamscw- missing the point...

samadamscw- you've written a nice thread, we'll thought out and backed by data. But with respect- I fear you've missed the point: Although everything you claim may be dead on- this bill WILL eventually be used to grasp everyone in time... as an ever growing power grabbing gov't. always does.

My case in point- spend some time in Title 26. Just as you have explained with interesting detail how S 510 may not be so sinister after all- and does not (currently) apply to the average Joe- I and many others could detail why/how Title 26 (particularly Subtitle C- personal Federal income tax) does not apply to most Americans, yet since it's passage in 1913 it has been so abused and mis-applied and perverted by the courts that it's tentacles reach to every American today. For those that try to escape the 'voluntary' tax find the themselves in a pertpetual battle with the IRS thugs. The same thing will eventually happen with S 510- just give it some time.

That's the danger in S 510. Study history and you'll see virtually no one was concerned with Title 26 back 1913 because it impacted virtually no one- with the less than 2% tax on those making over 500K IF the income was connected to a trade or business through the Federal Gov't. How far we've come, huh?

PRECISELY!!

You got my point perhaps without realizing it!

This is EXACTLY (almost) like title 26. (though to be fair, title 26 is a bit less clear and a bit more wordy)

That's why I'm fighting this so hard.

Of course I don't want S.510 to pass.

I'm trying to ARM defenders of liberty with the tools to make a stand.

Challenging jurisdiction is KEY.

Knowing the law is CRUCIAL.

Granting power that isn't there is a COLOSSAL MISTAKE.

I don't want title 21 or any other title for that matter to become what title 26 has.

Check out my thread on Tyranny of the Useful Idiots
http://dailypaul.com/node/149676

What I have presented here is about the best 'silver bullet' anyone will get in fighting this law once it passes. (it will pass. If not great, but I'm not holding my breath)

What I don't understand is the burning desire to GIVE UP liberty without a fight.

What I don't understand is the hell bent determination to denigrate the SOLUTION to this bad bill that could prevent it from becoming a nightmare.

You are right. Government will always grab power.

Imagine how much easier it will be for them to do so if people comply with a law they don't have to comply with?

If people think they have to register their gardens or their family farms as "facilities" but really don't, do you think the HHS Secretary is going to stop them?

(Does the IRS stop you from filing paperwork claiming Subtitle A or C applies to you when it doesn't?)

I don't want to see us go down that path.

We can stop this.

This is how we do it.

Don't comply if you don't have to.

"If it doesn't apply - don't comply."

Anyone trying to enforce this law on you if it doesn't apply can be taken to the woodshed PERSONALLY because they are acting under color of law. They are not protected by their office. You can take them for everything they've got and their job for violating your inalienable rights.

This isn't patriot lore.

This is the real deal.

Challenge jurisdiction. If you don't, or you submit by complying, then the only question is, did you fully comply. You've 'waived' your rights at that point. (so to speak)

If you haven't already, check out my Tyranny thread I just linked. I think my position will make more sense.