S 510, the Food Safety Modernization Act*, may be the most dangerous bill in the history of the US.
http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2010/0 … the-grass/
Do you want this Bill passed?
And who is pushing this? The socialist democrats, you know the party of FORCE! I'm sure they think this is for our own good and of course we trust them because they are FOR the people! Ugh, I almost threw up in my mouth!
Actually it looks like the bill was written by big corporations.
If you expect your beloved Republicans to protect you on this one, prepare to be betrayed.
All laws are written by lobbysts, stop making excuses for the socialist democrats like Hillary Clinton!
The bill was sponsored by a Democrat and is co-spnsored by a bunch of Dems and a few Republicans, including the two senators from GA. I read the bill, and there's nothing in it to prevent people from growing their own food. It's more about food safety issues in food-processing plants.
I read it also, and agree. This Snopes page might help those too lazy to read the actual bill: http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/organic.asp
Where would we be without Snopes...?
This is why I question our ability to have a democracy. Too many people are too easily caught up by the spin created by lobbyists, blowhard radio personalities, corporate advertisements, and bloggers spreading garbage on the internet.
Back to digging my bunker.
habee, I was going on what I read in the website linked by the OP. The blogger there says it was written by some PR folks and people who work for some of the big Ag Corporations.
So you trusted what they said and didn't bother to look any farther?
That makes sense.
Meh. It's called not having enough time to investigate every single claim that flashes across my screen.
Ahh. But you have time to leave comments in a thread that whose truth you don't have time to even check with Snopes? I can understand not reading the bill - that took me almost 45 minuts and I was scanning like a banshee. But how much time does it take just to see if there is any disagreement at all?
Holy heck, give me a break! I made one forum post based on a quick reading of a blog post.
Usually I try not to give to much credence to things that seem like conspiracy theories. I guess some paranoid crazy has rubbed off on me lately. Not sure from where.
I'll scrub extra hard tonight, hopefully it will come off.
"Ugh, I almost threw up in my mouth!"
Try arguing intelligently about issues rather than shrieking hyperbolic epithets, and you might get smart people to pay attention to you.
Yeah, I hear ya! Then we end up in a puking contest, of sorts.
There is nothing more environmentally sound or cost effective than responsibly planting, growing and harvesting your own food. For our garden, we buy some of our seeds, use some that we've harvested from previous crops, make our own compost, and then get any extra we need from the local landfill for a miniscule fee (in both cases reducing waste). We don't use pesticides (bad for not just the pest insects, but also the beneficial ones--most especially the bee) and we're able to preserve any of what we don't use or give away to our neighbors.
Should this practice ever become banned, then haul me off in handcuffs because I won't ever be told that I can't be self-sufficient.
I agree with your first paragraph.
Unbelievable, there ARE laws against rainwater harvesting and drying clothes via a clothesline. Although I can't imagine a law (including the misinformation of the one mentioned above) that prohibits growing our own food.
growing your own garden costs more than buying the stuff from the store, and it most likely causes more damage to the environment than buying from a farm.
It's impossible to know, however, because the farming industry is SO heavily subsidized. The pricing system is so out of whack that these statements aren't fully provable.
How you figure? A few .99 packs of seeds and a couple hours of labor could easily yield a few hundred dollars worth of produce if conditions are right. And even if you broke even dollars and cents wise (counting in things like labor and water), you would have veggies that taste better than anything at the store.
And how is this bad for the environment? Replacing the sterile monoculture of your lawn with edible plants is bad? What planet are you living on?
My argument about home gardens costing more: buying seeds, tilling the ground, labor costs: opportunity costs, price per unit of fertilizer, water, trash, moving all of everything from and to each individual house. Along with the fact that you can't grow basil in the winter and numerous other factors that aren't coming up.
But one more time: we don't know because if subsidies and tariffs put in place by by a tyrannical government
From my own personal experience, I can say that growing your own veg saves you loads of money, provided that:
1. You grow stuff that's suited to the conditions/climate you're growing it in
2. You grow it from seed or swap plants with neighbours
3. You make your own compost
4. You use rainwater/bathwater to water your crops
5. You grow things that you actually like eating (surprising how many people forget this one)
6. You get creative when it comes to what you grow things in (for example the containers I use include old polystyrene fish boxes, plus half a dozen catering sized buckets that once contained golden syrup of all things)
7. You grow things that would be expensive in the shops. For example, I can buy locally grown onions, cabbage, cauliflower and potatoes for very little money, so financially it's not probably worth me growing it myself. (Although if I had a large garden rather than a tiny one, I would definitely do it - but for other reasons than cost.) BUT I have saved masses of money by growing my own salad leaves, herbs and tomatoes in containers. I just pick what I want, when I want it all the time it's in season.
Buying seeds costs pennies. Seriously, you can get an entire year's worth of zucchini for a family of five off approximately two plants. I don't can or preserve, so I give away many pounds of tomatoes off the five or so plants I grow every year because my household (six and sometimes seven tomato lovers) simply can't keep up with the plants' production. Two basil plants keeps me in leaves for the whole summer. Etc. (It is possible to grow basil in winter, by the way, though at that point you're starting to increase the costs quite a bit because you need grow lights or a greenhouse or both. A better solution is to eat fresh basil in summer, when it's in season, and stick to dried the rest of the year. )
I have, at this point in my life, a relatively small veggie garden - one bed about 3x20 feet that is planted intensively. We spent about four hours two years ago double-digging it and piling in the aforementioned logs and brush and haven't had to "till" it since. Just stick the plants/seeds directly in the ground and mulch around them to smother weeds. Tilling kills soil life en masse, which is the last thing you want to do if you're trying to get a good amount of food out of a small garden with no chemical inputs. My garden produces no trash because I compost everything, and requires no fertilizer because I just add compost. Water is the only major outside input, and thanks to the hugelkultur bed and the mulch, I don't have to do much of that except when the plants are just getting established (and not then, if it rains regularly, which it usually does here in spring and early summer) and a few times during the hottest, driest parts of summer.
On a farm scale, it becomes a little more complicated, but again, things like cover crops can do wonders. The only issue where industrial agriculture is genuinely more cost-effective than small scale, diversified farming is in the cost of human labor. Fields that are not monocultures require more human labor than monocultures do. However, considering that unemployment tops 10% in many regions of the country, I don't necessarily consider the fact that small scale agriculture produces more jobs for human beings and fewer for tractors to be a bad thing.
So, one more time, we know EXACTLY which type of agriculture would survive better in the free market system you propound, and it ain't mega-farms, so stop acting like they might. It just makes you look either ignorant or hypocritical and you'll end up in heated arguments with people who - technically - are arguing for exactly the same thing you are. Come to the dark side, dude, we've got organic heirloom tomatoes.
No, it's not hypocritical to defend the current cheapest way to do things.
I think we should get government out.
Quit twisting my words.
The end. I won't say more - i don't want to get banned again.
It is when it's only the cheapest because of government intervention you oppose.
Look, we ultimately agree here, in desired end result if not in method of achieving it, and I have no interest in getting you banned. I'm just saying that going on and on about how home/locally grown foods are more expensive and more environmentally destructive than agribusiness with no facts and statistics to back up your claim, despite multiple people explaining to you in great depth why you are mistaken, is inconsistent with your stated ideals, even if you don't yet realize that fact.
I'd be more than happy to rec some books, documentaries, etc. to you if you are interested in learning more. I'm pretty sure you'll love Joel Salatin (Everything I Want To Do Is Illegal), for example.
"My argument about home gardens costing more: buying seeds, tilling the ground, labor costs: opportunity costs, price per unit of fertilizer, water, trash, moving all of everything from and to each individual house. Along with the fact that you can't grow basil in the winter and numerous other factors that aren't coming up."
How is tilling the ground more expensive. If the garden is small enough, this can be done by hand, and there's nothing more free than one's own labor. The seeds can be taken out of the vegetables you've harvested in previous years. Fertilizer is as easy as getting compost from the local landfill and/or making your own with the peels and other organic waste from your own household (thereby reducing waste going to the landfill). Water is secondary and costs the same month-to-month.
As for the waste coming from the garden--what waste? Whatever is leftover, be it vines or whatever, is tilled back into the soil, thereby lessening what is needed to be added to it the next year.
And the basil...well it just so happens I planted this for the first time this year. I used every leaf because I dried it. Much less expensive than buying from the store and oh so much better. Not only that, but you can also harvest the seeds from the basil plant and use them the next season to grow your own without any added expense.
"growing your own garden costs more than buying the stuff from the store, and it most likely causes more damage to the environment than buying from a farm"
That statement is so ridiculous, of course it can't be proven. We use natural products, reuse waste, pay pennies, if anything else for our seeds and water with secondary water. How is this harmful for the environment or expensive. I can't even begin to tell you how much we saved with what we grew and preserved (either by freezing or by canning).
It's hard to take someone seriously when they make blatantly wrong statements like that.
Absolutely nothing surprises me anymore. The TSA was groping a nun for a flight today too. So I can't help but wonder what's next.
first off, buying locally is quite harmful to the environment: if a gigantic farm industry can pump out a tomato for $.75/ea, but it costs you $3-5 to grow one, they are obviously using less resources and thus harming the environment less. It's just that the damage is done centrally and en masse, so it looks worse.
Second, this being said, obviously it's more cost-efficient to let a big farm do it. Thus Buying it at a store is better for your wealth.
Third, Unfortunately, everything I've said so far MIGHT NOT BE TRUE: there are SO many farm-related pieces of legislation on the books right now that it is impossible to actually know how best to grow food. I mean, we're still dealing with the New Deal policies!!! The recent issues with "cheese" in the media highlight this absurdity: the government takes money from us to grow cheese through subsidies, then it takes money from us to tell us it's bad for us... ... the hell?
Fourth: EVEN IF it IS worse to grow locally, and EVEN IF we had a TRUE free market -- the people should be allowed to choose how to spend their money and how to grow their food.
This is NOTHING MORE than an example of the government trying to take over our lives. It's hard to believe, but this is a PURE example of tyranny through democracy.
I'm with you in hating this bill, although I approach the subject differently than you. ALL legislation is tyranny; by definition Government is the restriction of liberty.
I would like to draw everyone's attention to how similar legislation like this is to the recent "in case of emergency" Internet legislation, TSA legislation and just about every other in case of emergency legislation in history.
tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito.
Ah, but you haven't considered the so-called "food miles" - the amount of fuel used to transport food grown in centralised megafarms to points around the country/world.
But then there's issue of what I call "economic diversity" (like biodiversity, but with companies rather than different animal/plant species). If you only have a few companies controlling food production and distribution, then they've got the consumer over a barrel because they can charge what prices they like. You might get a "honeymoon period" of low prices, but that would go once all the competition had gone to the wall. That's why I think local food growers should be supported, at least by us as consumers. (Like you I'm not a fan of government intervention, at least not in this arena anyway. And subsidies are bad news, to say the least - they encourage dependency in the people they're given to, and they screw up the economies of countries in the Third World who get flooded with all the subsidised produce grown in the West, resulting in bankruptcy for their domestic growers.)
ahhh, but you haven't considered the fact that it would take more fuel to have each person drive around to buy their farming needs every week!
Nor have you considered the decentralized water systems, or the amounts of extra garbage produced due to the fact that every individual farmer is buying products with a higher surface-area-to-volume product, nor countless other ways that big farming most likely is cheaper, and thus more environmentally sound, than individual small farms.
And your arguments about "economic diversity" simply show a lack of understanding of how competition works. Merely the threat of competition is enough to keep prices low -- thus Monopolies (at least, those that are harmful to society) all fail unless government is there to enforce them.
This single statement illustrates absolute ignorance of environmental issues, as well as farming practices.
If you're talking about conventional farming, where you grow one single crop variety that is genetically modified to be resistant to a certain pesticide, and then you spray the crap out of that field with pesticides and herbicides to save labor, and then use chemical fertilizers to "replenish" the soil for the next season's crop... well, if that was the only kind of farming, then maybe your assumptions would be true.
But there's a lot more to it than that.
It all depends on how you farm... and the big farms are profitable largely because of government policies that favor big farms - not because they are more efficient, and definitely not because they are in the business of
a. producing healthy nutritious food for people to eat or
b. protecting the environment.
Instead they are in the business of
a. making a profit and
b. f*** all else.
I can EASILY and HAPPILY agree with you FULLY that government subsidies have so horribly twisted the market in farming that it's truly impossible to know if it's cheaper or more environmental to grow through big farms than to home grow.
We can at least agree on that. And i'd venture a guess that we'd both like to see government take, at least, its shoulder, if not it's whole arm, out of the nether regions of the farming industry.
I'll have to think on this - I agree with you for the most part... I just have to put my finger on the exact problem I think we are both looking at in different ways.
What's there to think about? In another post you pointing out the idiocy of how the govt tells us to eat leas fat but then subsidizes fatty foods.
I already know that you agree with me -- you're just scared to join the dark side! Search your feelings, William, you know it to be true! Join me, and together we can rule the universe.... Errrr... Hubpages
So I've been thinking about this more, and I think what you are trying to say is that we can't feed the population of the world, under our current system, without big centralized farms taking advantage of economies of scale.
Am I right? I mean, backyard gardens and farmers markets are one thing, but feeding billions of people is a different kind of problem.
How do you grow massive amounts of food and also get it to market without big corporations who can send trainloads of wheat and corn out at a time?
Since I'm not sure when or if you'll reply to this (you've sworn off this thread at least once already), I can say that a big part of the problem seems to be to be artificially created consumer preferences. For example, as "third world" countries "develop" (more accurately, as they are colonized by Western economies in the process euphemistically called "globalization") the emerging middle classes seek out more meat to eat. This creates a demand that wouldn't have been there before, for beef and other non local foods.
Same thing goes with produce and the food industry here in the states. The big supermarket chains are probably more concerned with how produce looks on the shelves, how long it will last on the shelves before it must be discarded, and how easy it is to transport long distances, than they are with how nutritious or economically or ecologically sustainable the food is. That's just good business (within our current model) - profitability takes priority over everything else. Sure, McDonalds might have changed from styrofoam packaging to paper, but they're still deforesting the Amazon to create pasture for cows.
So I can agree with you that the gov't needs to get out of the business of supporting certain types of agriculture (although they should still have an oversight role to make sure that there aren't rat turds in my cereal). But I also think that marketing science, and the corporate mentality (not sure what else to call it) is just as responsible for our food problems.
You are a business leader. And you want to make money. What's a better business strategy? -- "f*** everything" or "giving a rat's a$$ about your customer's concerns"?
I'm sure we both agree the second will earn you more money, and it is the same reason why McDs gave up on styrofoam packaging.
Good points. Biodiversity stands out the most to me. If big agribusiness has a strangle hold on farming. What happens if there is trouble with the seed supplies? As it stands now, much of the crops grown today are genitically modified. The seeds that result from these crops are non viable. If science were to determine tommorow that a particular modification were harmfull, we would be in serious trouble.
I think you say some of the dumbest things I have ever heard. Take you your agenda elsewhere and stop stupefying people's perspectives. You know who heads this sh*t? BUSH mutha f**ka!
actually it's anarchist in nature - about the last thing that Bush would ever support.
But thanks for the direct personal insults.
Seriously, you are so wrong that being wrong is an understatement to how wrong you actually are.
Bush is one of the primary beneficiaries to the "corn" industry. You are diluted to believe he wouldn't support it. Really!
why... do you keep... associating me with Bush?
I hate Bush. You can check my other posts.
like... what ...?
Actually My Goddess, I agree to most of what Evan has to say, on this or other threads, so you might as well direct same words at me
Sorry. You need to study up on local farming vs. big ag.
Then they turn around and tell us it's good for us and that we should buy Domino's Pizza.
Please, read a book or two. It would help you not sound so ill-informed on this subject.
Oh my god, I hardly know where to begin. Please, please read up on food and ag policy, dude.
"first off, buying locally is quite harmful to the environment: if a gigantic farm industry can pump out a tomato for $.75/ea, but it costs you $3-5 to grow one, they are obviously using less resources and thus harming the environment less. It's just that the damage is done centrally and en masse, so it looks worse.
Second, this being said, obviously it's more cost-efficient to let a big farm do it. Thus Buying it at a store is better for your wealth."
You are ignoring the fact that agribusiness is paid billions of dollars in subsidies every year by the government to sell food at below production cost. You are ignoring the fact that agribusiness is given subsidized or even completely free water. You are ignoring the fact that agribusiness uses illegal workers and in some cases literal slaves (the tomato industry is actually notorious for this) to labor for them. You are ignoring the fact that agribusiness is dependent on cheap, subsidized oil for the majority of its labor. One modern tractor has the power of tens or hundreds of horses, let alone humans, but unlike a horse that runs on grass and has relatively constant costs of operation, the tractor's cost of operation depends on the price of oil. We spend billions of dollars in subsidies annually to keep the cost of oil low, in addition to the billions of dollars in subsidies we pay directly to farmers to help them pay for oil that is already kept artificially cheap. Still think agribusiness is more cost effective?
"The recent issues with "cheese" in the media highlight this absurdity: the government takes money from us to grow cheese through subsidies, then it takes money from us to tell us it's bad for us... ... the hell?"
This, I agree with you about.
"ahhh, but you haven't considered the fact that it would take more fuel to have each person drive around to buy their farming needs every week!
Nor have you considered the decentralized water systems, or the amounts of extra garbage produced due to the fact that every individual farmer is buying products with a higher surface-area-to-volume product, nor countless other ways that big farming most likely is cheaper, and thus more environmentally sound, than individual small farms."
The number of "farming needs" a person has and the amount of driving required to secure them depends entirely on what type of farming they're doing. An organic farmer who knows what he's doing will not need that many inputs - seeds, occasional tools, water. If he saves seed instead of purchasing it, he'll need even fewer. Ultimately, he may not even need water, because organic farming methods build organic matter in the soil better than conventional methods and organic matter holds water really well. My vegetable garden actually has rather poor soil (I'm working on fixing that), but it's built over a pile of logs and brush and mulched heavily, so I rarely need to water. On a larger scale, you can use cover crops to get similar results.
Finally, I'd like to point out that smaller, more diversified farms produce exponentially more food per square foot than large industrial farms. One of the most impressive examples is the Dervaes family, which produces 6,000 pounds of food annually on 1/10 of an acre in urban Pasadena. Himalayan peasants are considered to be "unproductive" because they produce much less rice per acre than industrially farmed rice monocultures, but they also grow millet, amaranth, soy, beans, peas, and many other foods in multi-crops fields, so their total output per acre is six times that of the rice monocultures.
Wow. That's amazing for such a small garden. I was going to reply to Evan's post but you got in there before me and did a far better job than I would have done
Isn't it? I stumbled across their blog completely by accident a few years ago and my eyes just about popped out of my head when I saw the kind of results they were getting.
There was a neat documentary done about them awhile back, too. Here's the abridged version, if you're interested: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCPEBM5ol0Q
I find it strange - and a little depressing - that our two resident anarcho-libertarians are defending agribusiness when growing your own food is, as Jules Dervaes suggests in the film, the single most anarchist act anyone can do. There's a disconnect there, and I can't figure out where it's coming from.
It's almost like turkeys voting for Christmas LOL. Or maybe just playing Devil's Advocate.
Have bookmarked the video - my soundcard is playing silly b*****s so I can't watch it till I've rebooted!
Whoa whoa whoa - my posts are all consistent with anarchism. I am repeatedly arguing to get govt out of agribusiness so that we actually know which system IS better.
i wasn't ignoring any of that stuff. In fact i directly mentioned that it's impossible to know because of how much government subsidies are in there.
You guys know I'm an anarchist - you should easily have noticed this statement.
I guess you just didn't read my post... I dunno. Here's a direct quote from my post:
"Third, Unfortunately, everything I've said so far MIGHT NOT BE TRUE: there are SO many farm-related pieces of legislation on the books right now that it is impossible to actually know how best to grow food. I mean, we're still dealing with the New Deal policies!!! The recent issues with "cheese" in the media highlight this absurdity: the government takes money from us to grow cheese through subsidies, then it takes money from us to tell us it's bad for us... ... the hell?"
so... good job on that one.
Thanks, but I did read your post and understood it just fine. The point you don't seem to understand is that these large industrial farms can ONLY exist and operate the way they do because of massive direct and indirect government subsidies. You seem to think there is some uncertainty about this, but believe me, there is no question whatsoever. Small, diversified farms produce more food per acre than large ones by every measure - be it tons, calories, or dollars - and they are generally better for the environment and for local economies as well.
By defending agribusiness, you're only defending the system you claim to hate.
Jeez! I'm arguing that we need to get government out of agribusiness, and then you're telling me that I'm arguing for government intervention.
I don't know what to say, but this sounds like another area where if I keep defending myself I'll get banned. So I'm done here - vie made my points
"obviously it's more cost-efficient to let a big farm do it."
No, it's more price-effective. The cost has been hidden.
kerryg has done an admirable job of pointing out the subsidies that big ag gets. Also, big ag gets to deduct the cost of transporting their produce to the market, which is another way of subsidizing/hiding the true cost of that winter strawberry.
Further, old-style agriculture (the kind where there's a crop field, a grazing field, and a fallow field, and they get rotated [an oversimplification]) is self sustaining: the animals eat the grass in the grazing field, and their poop fertilizes it. Next year, you plant on the grazing field while the cows will graze on the fallow one, and this year's crop field lies fallow.
Big ag took that elegant solution and turned it into two huge problems: the monoculture crop that gets planted from fencerow to fencerow depletes all the nutrient in the soil over time, so we have to dump fertilizer on it. The caged-animal feeding operations (CAFOs) over-concentrate all that poo and pee to the point where it becomes impossible for the local land to absorb it all. So instead of the cows fertilizing the land over time, they poison it, and the land has to be fertilized by petrochemical fertilizers.
Plus, all that monoculture means if the crop gets infected by disease or pests, the whole damn crop is gone (as opposed to a farm where they grow wheat and maize and peas, and one disease or pest won't get the whole crop), so you have to dump insecticide and herbicide and fungicide all over the FOOD. On the animal side, if one critter in a CAFO gets sick, they ALL get sick, so antibiotics get routinely mixed into the critters' food, which keeps them nominally healthy, but also means that when they do get sick, antibiotics will be largely ineffective.
And we haven't even gotten into the magnified effects of an e. coli or salmonella outbreak in our centralized industrial food system. Centralized food production regularly sickens and even kills people--many more than would be affected by a distributed/decentralized system. Further, an outbreak in our centralized system requires the destruction of literal tons of food, just in case some of the other meat that came from that plat is also tainted. In a decentralized system, any outbreak would be more contained, fewer people would be affected, and less food would be wasted in a recall.
"No, it's more price-effective. The cost has been hidden."
Yup, exactly. In some regards, massive subsidized agriculture has certainly been good for us - we spend a lower percentage of our income on food than almost anyone else in the world - but by the time you add in the tax dollars we pay in direct and indirect subsidies to agriculture, I imagine the direct costs to our pocketbooks even out.
Moreover, when you consider that we're essentially stealing food from our grandchildren by encouraging agricultural practices that deplete and erode the soil, deplete freshwater reserves, and deplete the genetic diversity of our food supply, I think the costs of cheap food become far greater than the difference between $0.75/lb conventional Roma tomatoes shipped from South America in January and $3/lb organic, locally grown heritage tomatoes in August.
Right now, I'm only underground but the day I start being force fed by any government is the day I join the revolution.
you're 70 years too late - FDR's New Deal pretty much made the government the decider of what food is grown, and what food we get access to.
Oh please. I'm from Vermont although I live in Florida now. Up there every single family has their own garden. How more green can you get to grow your own food right in your own yard?
No transportation and very little fertilizer. Every rural area has more families growing their own food than the ones who don't.
Banning that is like banning mowing your lawn or your own home repairs.
There seems to be in this something more sinister but I can't quite put my finger on it. To guess and speculate would seem almost hysterical at this point.
The really scary bit is the idea of patenting plant genomes. Not just genetically modified plant genomes, but ANY naturally occurring plant genomes.
Jaggedfrost, sinister? Yeah buddy. I have always considered myself to be a level headed person, laid back, got a little common sense, never paid much attention to talk radio. Recently a friend and I listened to Alex Jones. What he said sounded like a scare tactic. My thought was, that aint gonna happen. But, then I get to looking around, reading papers, watching tv, learning of the new bills being passed, going to the store and seeing half stocked shelves. Might be something to it afterall.
Myths and Facts.
Or just go READ the bill. The OP link is utter nonsense.
Maybe your local store isn't paying it's bills? That would explain half-stocked shelves and a lack of supply contracts. On the other hand, if the suppliers themselves are struggling, then maybe they're the ones going out of business?
Just another example of who is really in charge here - corporate interests dictating to the government. Forget the people.
I'm from Tn. Been gardening a long time. It's second nature here. There's a lot of hard work, little gas used, we don't use a lot of pesticides, as of now, we try to do that work with other plants and even let a few chickens to roam around.
Granny and papah were both in their upper 90s when they passed. They raised 8 children on home grown foods. They raised cows for meat, cheese, butter and milk. They also raised hogs.
They did not have any spare money to spend on gardening and the pasture land fed the cows and the pigs were fed by leftovers until it was time to fatten them and at that time, we fed them corn.
That being said, when we used to put out garden, we would go to the freezer and get out the seeds from the previous years crop. Now, most everybody has to buy the seeds. They are not the same and in no way shape or form can you save seeds from that crop and get them to grow.
i went to the store to get a tomato. 2.13 a pound. I did not get one. But I did have a chat with the produce guy, and he informed me that he had been in that business for 25 years and has NEVER seen anything like it. He said right now, (their store) had a contract with certain companies up through next spring, and after that he did not know what was going to happen as they can't get any other contracts past that point.
My gut feeling? Get some older seeds if you can, put them in the freezer, learn how to grow a garden, learn how to preserve food, get some older herb seeds, learn about their health properities.
Nope, this ain't panic talking. Its just plain truth.
socialist democrats? LOL I thought both parties were indiscernable just a few years ago. Don't fall for TV labeling. I wouldn't be surprised which party it was. It only means more profits for the likes of walmart, kroger and the like.
That web page is very inaccurate and hysterical. An actual reading of the bill (yeah, I know - that's EFFORT) tells a very different story.
from the source:http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-510
you can choose to compare side by side from original and proposed amendments
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtex … l=s111-510
Even though I don't agree with the OP, I am very glad to have read the replies. It's been an interesting discussion and I've found some very well-informed people to follow.
I really hope for the best for the U.S.A, but any outsider can see the media constantly sets up this partisan bickering over which party is better while both of them work to dismantle the american system and your liberties. I wish americans could see that rather than carrying on with all the infighting.
Likewise, the fed reserve is doing more damage than any invading army could ever do. Food inflation is just the start I am afraid.
canadawest99 I think you are right.
I am just about to the point that neither party is "for the people". And I am even more convinced that they like it when the people argue among themselves.
My question is why do they want to treat us this way? I'm not much into politics and I admit, I've led a sheltered life in a lot of ways but for the life of me I can not figure this one out.
You are missing the point. The forum is incorrect. I've read the bill, and every other person who commented on here, who have read the bill, say the same thing: it doesn't stop people from growing their own food. It is involved in ensuring the safety of the food producers and distributors already out there.
I'm reading a link provided by the original blogger and I've found a few interesting things.
Here's the link:
This is interesting too:
I agree somewhat with the Bill's efforts to make food more traceable - it would be nice to know if my produce came from Illinois or from Argentina, if only so I could decide to buy the US made product. But I agree more with this statement:
And I agree with the final conclusion:
So - some overblown, hysterical fearmongering is going on, but there are reasons to be concerned about the bill.
There PC, there's my additional research. Satisfied?
Yes, and I too have long been in favor of decentralization. This bill could actually help that as it could increase costs of the big producers more than your local farm stand.
But.. even well intentioned laws can have bad consequences.
About 3000 Americans die each year of preventable food-borne illness such as E Coli or Salmonella. The CDC are often delayed by months in locating the source of an outbreak (like the appaullingly mis-managed DeCoster egg farm which has been poisoning and killing people for decades) because the food cannot be traced to its source.
Why not make food traceable? Seriously. Why not?
I have kept my comments on this post to general food policy issues for a reason - I haven't even read the OP's blog post, let alone the actual bill. (Although I did read William's post above.)
However, working from that position of ignorance, the thing that concerns me is that food safety regulations in the past have tended to benefit the largest producers far more than the small ones, even though smaller producers are far less likely to have problems with contamination in the first place. Even if a small producer manages to sell contaminated meat or other products, it will affect far fewer people than these huge mega-producers that supply 75% of the eggs, etc. for a 10 state area.
I agree in a general way that traceability is a good thing and that allowing meat packers, etc. to issue voluntary recalls instead of mandatory ones even when they've managed to ship out thousands of pounds of severely contaminated food, as we currently do, is suicidally stupid. But Congress (both parties) is so deep in the pockets of agribusiness that I don't think it's capable of passing any bill that isn't just one more handout to agribusiness, let alone one that would be effective. This is a change that has to come from the grassroots.
There's no need to add elaborate and expensive tracking methods if you're buying food direct from the farmer, or even direct from a grocery store that buys direct from a small packing plant that buys direct from farmers. It's only when you're working on the scale of thousands of head of cattle a day or millions of eggs or whatever, spread across multiple states, that traceability becomes a serious problem.
"food safety regulations in the past have tended to benefit the largest producers far more than the small ones, even though smaller producers are far less likely to have problems with contamination in the first place."
Indeed. That's because food safety regulations (much like the new airport security measures) have very little to do with how safe the food actually is, but rather how safe the process looks. Regulations require things like certain records to be kept in a certain way, and, for example, for a slaughterhouse to have its walls made of certain materials. They do not, however, require the food leaving a processing plant to have a low bacteria count. There is no requirement to even test random samplings of produce for bacteria. As long as all the record-keeping is in order (and there's a separate restroom for the exclusive use of the USDA inspector--no foolin'!) it doesn't matter if the food is dipped in poo just before it leaves the processing plant: everything's in order, no problems here!
Those safety requirements were originally meant to keep an eye on the food producer, since it's impractical for someone like me to trace my food from where I bought it to where it was raised. But I can go and visit the farms I bought tonight's dinner from, if I choose. But I don't need to; I met the farmers this weekend at the market. If their food makes me sick, I can go see them next weekend and tell them. (The food was delicious, though.)
I don't know about anybody else, but the last thing I want to do is grow my own food anyway. I have a difficult enough time finding time to go pick petunia heads off all Summer long. It's bad enough I have to go buy it, let alone grow it!
When we had our farm, I had a HUGE garden. I sure miss it! I spent all spring and summer freezing, canning, and making pickles, jams, jellies, and relishes.
We like growing herbs, tomatoes and squash. It's not exactly hard work and the taste is wonderful.
Besides, we get to give a lot away to friends.
LOL roflmao "Socialist Democrats' is like "It's God's fault" every time we have a disaster. But FEW ever remember to thank God for the good stuff. LOL Ridiculous! But, no, no, don't look to big business who is the Forcers and Controllers, obviously controlling YOU!
The thing that comes to my mind while reading this is the waste of big corporate farms. Carrots or potatoes and other fruit and veg gets wasted in huge quantities every year because its not round enough or the right color naturally, it looks funny and not 'traditional' to that food type, and so will not be sold by the shops. Since the shops don't feel these fruit and veg are sell-able they sit there and rot.
I have always found this sad as I just love rainbow carrots for instance, and I don't give a toss about the shape of a potato when I am going to mash it!
Personally if food is poisoning me I want the government to have the power to inspect and recall that food. Which is what this statute provides.
And I don't mind farm subsidies that are for ensuring that enough crops are grown to avoid famines and to be able to help other countries with wheat or corn.
But I do NOT like subsidies that plainly are aimed at making someone richer - like cattle producers wanting corn subsidies so that they can poison their cows (cows have trouble eating corn) more cheaply.
I also do not like Monsanto patenting seeds. I agree that they need some consideration and protection for research, but I think it is a bit overboard now and dangerously so.
If you want to ensure that the crops are stored away with the express intention of being used only in times of famine, then you have to give the government the power to compel the farmer to keep the crops under lock and key, or give it the power to confiscate the crop and store it themselves. I'm not sure I like the idea of giving governments that sort of power, except in extreme emergencies.
And if you do any research about subsidised Western produce being sold to Third World countries, you'll find that the recipients don't actually benefit - far from it.
I will take locally grown produce over cloned food any day.
And more about the bill... scroll down for info about the two amendments that are relevant:
http://www.fooddemocracynow.org/blog/20 … -nov-17th/
Thought some of you might be interested in this discussion of S. 510 from Tom Philpott, one of my favorite food policy bloggers: http://www.grist.org/article/2010-11-23 … ety-reform
It's fairly balanced in its assessment of what the bill does right and wrong.
Of course it should we should all be forced to eat food that has travelled miles and been stored for weeks and been sprayed with goodness knows what. It is highly dangerous to eat your own home grown food, it might lead to you becoming self-sufficient one day. Besides which all that fresh air and exercise might lead to you questioning how much sense politicians and law makers really have. Oh yes growing your own food is really dangerous it is one of the few things I would be prepared to break the law to do.
ready ro start that movement today?
This bill is dangerous on so many levels, and it is way past time to start teaching our children more than to read, we HAVE to let them know that it is more than ok to think for themselves.
Oh, I can't get started just yet. Subject, too big, and I'm just now starting my pepsi. I'll be back.
by milleramanda53 15 months ago
Could you survive if you had to rely on growing your on food?
by thomasczech 5 years ago
How many of you grow your own food?With the rising cost of groceries, it certainly is a good idea to grow your own. What are your personal experiences? How do you grow them? Please give ideas, hints etc
by Beata Stasak 5 years ago
Are you ready to grow your own food?Will Allen believes that everybody regardless of their economic means should have access to the same healthy, safe and affordable food that is grown naturally.For some poor urban residents, who are sick of fast food and scarcity of grocery shops it means that...
by MikeNV 8 years ago
Or should they just be voted on and made into law and "fixed" later.Maybe this is the new Government Paradigm.Make laws that only a select few are privy too... then just fix them later.That's an interesting plan.
by MikeNV 8 years ago
The media continues to omit the word ILLEGAL when they attack the Citizens of Arizona for taking action when the Federal Government will not.The Arizona law is NOT an anti immigration law... it's an anti ILLEGAL immigration law.I did not compile this list... I've had it for some time. You can...
by Doug Hughes 8 years ago
from Politics Daily http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/03 … contest%2F"As reported by Details magazine, Paul, while campaigning recently in Kentucky's coal country, maintained that there should be no federal regulation of the mining industry: "If you don't live here, it's none of...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|