[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Dead Constitution See other Dead Constitution Articles Title: Feds tell court they can decide what you eat - 'Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish' Attorneys for the federal government have argued in a lawsuit pending in federal court in Iowa that individuals have no "fundamental right" to obtain what food they choose. The brief was filed April 26 in support of a motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund over the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's ban on the interstate sale of raw milk. "There is no 'deeply rooted' historical tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds," states the document signed by U.S. Attorney Stephanie Rose, assistant Martha Fagg and Roger Gural, trial attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice. "Plaintiffs' assertion of a 'fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families' is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish," the government has argued. WND has reported several times on fed crackdowns on producers of raw milk for friends and neighbors, including the recent case when agents arrived to inspect a private property belonging to Dan Allgyer in Pennsylvania at 5 a.m. The incident was followed by a report a few days later that documented a proposal pending in Congress that critics say would do for the nation's food supply what the new health-care reform law has done for health-care resources. "S. 510, the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2010, may be the most dangerous bill in the history of the U.S.," critiqued Steve Green on the Food Freedom blog. "It is to our food what the bailout was to our economy, only we can live without money." The plan is sponsored by U.S. Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., who explains the legislation "is a critical step toward equipping the FDA with the authorities and funding it needs to regulate what is now a global marketplace for food, drugs, devices and cosmetics." Now it's statism on our plate! Mark Levin's manifesto – 'Liberty and Tyranny' – provides the antidote to its growing stranglehold His website explains, "The legislation requires foreign and domestic food facilities to have safety plans in place to prevent food hazards before they occur, increases the frequency of inspections. Additionally, it provides strong, flexible enforcement tools, including mandatory recall. Most importantly, this bill generates the resources to support FDA food-safety activities." The proposal cleared the U.S. House last year but has been languishing in the Senate because of a full calendar of projects. It creates a long list of new requirements for food-producing entities to meet the demands of the secretary of agriculture. It is expected to be the subject of discussion in coming days. The Iowa case alleges the federal restrictions on raw milk are a violation of the U.S. Constitution, according to a report at Natural News. The federal attorneys want the case dismissed. "The interest claimed by plaintiffs could be framed more narrowly as a right to 'provide themselves and their families with the foods of their own choice,'" the government document states. But the attorneys say that right doesn't exist. "The FDA essentially believes that nobody has the right to choose what to eat or drink," said the Natural News site, which explains it covers topics that allow individuals to make positive changes in their health, environmental sensitivity and consumer choices. "You are only 'allowed' to eat or drink what the FDA gives you permission to. There is no inherent right or God-given right to consume any foods from nature without the FDA's consent." The Natural News report continued, "The state, in other words, may override your food decisions and deny you free access to the foods and beverages you wish to consume. And the state may do this for completely unscientific reasons – even just political reasons – all at their whim." The report cited an increasing level of frustration on the part of the federal government because of tactics including buying "cow shares" in which a consumer drinks milk from a cow he partly owns, or "buying clubs." "This arrangement drives the FDA absolutely batty because it bypasses their authority and allows free people to engage in the free sales of raw dairy products produced on small family farms," Natural News said. The report blames the aggressive campaign against raw milk on large commercial dairy interests, "because it threatens the commercial milk business." The reason cannot be safety, the report said, since a report from the Weston A. Price Foundation revealed that from 1980 to 2005 there were 10 times more illnesses from pasteurized milk than from raw milk. The federal government attorneys say the FDA's goal is to prevent disease, and that's why the "ban on the interstate sale of unpasteurized milk" was adopted. The attorneys conceded that states ordinarily are expected to regulate intrastate activity but noted, "it is within HHS's authority … to institute an intrastate ban as well." Natural News reported the ban could be seen as violating the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which leaves to states all powers not specifically designated in the Constitution for the federal body. In fact, according to the Wisconsin State Journal, lawmakers there have adopted a bill, with the governor's support, that would allow farmers to sell raw milk directly to consumers. The move puts Wisconsin in position to be the 20th state to allow direct sales of raw milk. Another handful of states allow retail sales. Read Joseph Farah's commentary on the issues of natural foods, in today's column: "Got milk? You bet – from Mexico"
Poster Comment: "There is no 'deeply rooted' historical tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds," states the document signed by U.S. Attorney Stephanie Rose, assistant Martha Fagg and Roger Gural, trial attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice. It is our DUTY to put these rabid dogs down, wherever we find them.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 14.
#14. To: Rotara, christine, Dakmar, Jethro Tull, Cynicom, all (#0)
(Edited)
Let this be an end to the matter--McCain_Rocks in his head has spoken (to the poster who calls himself Mad Dog). Here it (as it would say in the Jargonizer). The fact of the matter is that S510 is a bipartisan bill. If it were a bad bill then the Republican Party would have nothing to do with it. Instead, 50% of the co-sponsors of the bill are Republican. So much for your "fraud conservative" accusation, which is really nothing more than a poor attempt to shut me up because you are mentally incapable of having a rationale debate on any subject. You are emotionally unstable and mentally crippled; challenged if you will, which is likely why you spend so much time on the internet. Also, it is a fact that the USSC has made it clear that the federal government has the authority to regulate food. The measures found within this legislation are common sense and needed in our post 9/11 world. This has nothing to do with limited government (code word for anarchy) and/or the tenth amendment and everything to do with the health and safety of tens of millions of Americans from those terrorists that want to do us harm. Your quoting a known leftist homosexual like Thoreau says a lot about you. You are obviously a liberal pole smoker and considering your immature behavior on this forum, you are a likely child molester as well. McCain_Rocks posted on 2010-05-14 14:34:27 ET Reply Trace This is Mad Dog's reply to McCain_Rocks in his head. I thought it was hilarious, and I thought that because M_R thinks there is no bad legislation as long as anyone with an R after his name votes for it. LMAOAY!!!!!!!!!!!! The repukelican'ts are as culpable for the state of this nation as the demonRATS are whore. R does NOT mean CONSERVATIVE b!tch. McCartoon you are nothing but a clumsy bad parody. You are nothing but a poser FRAUD. You aren't any kind of American conservative, what you are is a statist fascist POS. Don't give me that cr@p that USSC supplants the US Constitution you simpering whore. This has EVERYTHING to do with limited gooberment you vile statist whore. Here's a little heads up for you FRAUD, American conservatives believe in OBJECTIVE TRUTH and you know what you vile statist whore? THE OBJECTIVE TRUTH is the OBJECTIVE TRUTH no matter who states it. You never had the b@lls to say that vile sh!t to my face you vile statist whore c^nt, and you still don't. IF I was a litigious person I'd own your worthless a$$. But what am I going to do with a stolen shopping cart filed with rags and garbage and a broken down cardboard box? The worst "punishment" that I could ever come up for you would never be as bad a you having to look at yourself in the mirror every day for the rest of your worthless life. Goldi I only pinged you so you would be aware of what this vile POS is calling other posters, which exposes both this vile creep, and this site, to legal action over his continued libels. I don't sue people, but I'd be happy to beat his foul a$$ down. Not that a COWARD such as he would ever dare be face to face with anyone and say such things. Mad Dog posted on 2010-05-14 15:11:56 ET Reply Trace http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=289200&Disp=17#C17
There are no replies to Comment # 14. End Trace Mode for Comment # 14.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||