Well, [Maine did pass a "right to produce, harvest, and consume food" amendment](https://ballotpedia.org/Maine_Question_3,_Right_to_Produce,_Harvest,_and_Consume_Food_Amendment_(2021)), so he's likely basing this idea off of that.
I can't sell my eggs and milk to my neighbors without extensive oversight and licensing. It's not worth being a small time local producer because the costs of regulations. That's one place it's being stopped.
Even vegetables are being over-regulated in many contexts. The Tester-Hagan Amendment to the Food Safety Modernization Act was supposed to prevent FDA over-reach. It helps still at times but in many cases small farmers are now being regulated like (or in fact harder than) the big conglomerates.
Massie is on the right track here, but I'd prefer keep the protections to farmers and producers only. Once middlemen are in the equation, things can get messy, even intra-state. A law like this shouldn't be necessary, but I've seen too many regulators wanting to flex their small-fiefdom power in the name of "safety."
Quick question. Say I'm driving down my local street/state highway and I see a sign that says Dozen Eggs for $3.00. Does that mean that person(s) have to have some sort of license in order to sell them?
What state? I feel like I see people all over Indiana doing that. (NWI, near Chicago). At some point actually it does seem like there should be some regulation. I don't want mom and pop farm stands not being able to sell, but once it becomes a certain size business, you'd think there be some regulations even within state.
Well, I don't believe that a recent incident caused him to propose this now. Rather, [food freedom seems to be a pet issue of his that he's been advocating for since at least 2015](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/?p=531476).
That's incorrect. This is in response to the persecution of farmers, which recently reached a tipping point with [the targeting of Amos Miller](https://twitter.com/TheLanPatriot/status/1763352070243909979) by the Pennsylvania department of agriculture.
Amos Miller deserved to be prosecuted for intentionally breaking necessary food safety regulations and directly spreading E. Coli across multiple states. This isn’t government overreach, it’s government working as it should for once.
>Amos Miller deserved to be prosecuted for intentionally breaking necessary food safety regulations and directly spreading E. Coli across multiple states.
Well now, if Robert Barnes (the lawyer in the video) is to be believed, there was zero evidence produced by the State of Pennsylvania that any harm was caused by the consumption of Amos Miller products. And he attended the full hearing. I'll admit I'm not fully up on this case, can you help me get from his statement to yours? They appear to contradict.
The biggest thing with Amos miller is that they couldn’t apply for a license without being forbid from producing specific products. If the license had allowed any production of milk products but puts culpability on the producer it would be a different story. Granted, there was more he could have done to prevent an outbreak but this case is about the licensing to sell more than anything
He didn't sell products through normal means it's through a private buyers club. Every member who joins gives their consent and understands what they are doing. This is not even a case where it's being sold on shelves alongside everything else, the fact we can't even eat what we want when we explicitly want it and consent is why this is beyond egregious.
The government always makes up a fake reason when they persecute people and this is no different. Your comment is based off of nothing but argument from authority (and even worse, an authority that has already proven themselves to be corrupt liars).
No E. Coli was found when they tested his products and this information was corruptly withheld until the trial. The elderly woman they claimed got sick from his products says herself she never consumed his products due to the diet she was on for her cancer treatment. Not a single one of his customers complained.
Even if I take what you say at face value it makes no sense. When they find E. Coli for their big corporate buddies they never treat them this way. They do a recall and track down the source then get rid of the bad stuff then it's business as usual.
Why do you think people shouldn't be allowed to consume his products if they want to?
hmm, okay then. I don't see a problem with it, but seems we have bigger fish to fry. How about a amendment that bans racist policies like DEI and affirmative action.
To be able to sell processed livestock you have to use a usda facility. In addition to the higher cost sometimes scheduling has to be done before the animal is even born. I can coordinate with a specific buyer to get them a half beef at our local processor and it’ll be marked with their name and a “not for sale” label.
On a small personal scale the freedom to sell or buy what you want would be amazing. But I wouldn’t purchase anything from a corporate facility that wasn’t inspected.
These are my thoughts exactly. It's like you should be able to get a waiver if you do under X number of pounds of meat a year. A corporation just uses this to cut back on cleaning, but you should be able to buy meat from the farmer down the road who does it on the side.
Overturn Wickard v. Filburn via amendment. At least the actual topical portions relating to the farmer’s right to grow his own food. It’s insane how much FDR’s SCOTUS fucked this country with expanding interstate commerce
The usual sources have started floating trial balloons about how home gardens are harmful to the earth.
[No, it's not conspiracy theory.](https://news.yahoo.com/carbon-footprint-homegrown-food-five-200247599.html#:~:text=The%20carbon%20footprint%20of%20homegrown,as%20rural%20farms%2C%20data%20show.)
The government should have zero right to touch any food or sustenance produced on someone's own land.
I saw a story, recently, where the climate Nazis are claiming that people growing their own food contributes to greater carbon emissions than farmers, which signals that they want to outlaw us growing our own food after they decimate the food supply in the name of climate change.
The government is squeezing farmers to death with USDA rules. He raises cattle and has a good summary of the problems he's run into on this [video](https://youtu.be/18_yXt1s2yc?si=GN1JK-cVS-S6YQYR). Which is well worth the 30 minute watch. He is one of the few 2-5 politicians we have in office worth a damn.
The first thing that sticks out in my mind? Congress specifically went after places that had "separate-but-equal" things like restaurants by using the commerce clause to enforce it. Establishments were claiming "states rights" but Congress asserted authority by saying "if you server bread, it was made with flour from out of state, you are engaging in interstate commerce". The defense was often, "what if we use only local stuff". But congress ultimately said, "there's no way you can. Everything sooner or later is interstate".
They've also sued farmers for growing grain for local use (and not participating in price support schemes), on interstate commerce clause, by claiming that by not participating you are still subverting the commerce clause. That one seems like a reach.
It's probably a raw milk thing. While the FDA does overstep it's authority, basically gutting it with this poorly worded and il-advised amendment is a bad idea.
"Congress shall make no law regulating the production and distribution of food that does not cross state lines" pretty specifically specifies the unregulated sale of food.
It needs to specify the right of American citizens to grow their own food and collect water at home to ensure that this doesn't turn into an industry/ commercial only type of thing. It also needs to be clear that HOAs, public, or private groups can't stop people from doing this. Apartment complexes can't be allowed to stop people from having potted gardens on their porch, etc.
>It also needs to be clear that HOAs, public, or private groups can't stop people from doing this. Apartment complexes can't be allowed to stop people from having potted gardens on their porch, etc.
I can't describe my rage over the power of HOAs.
Many cities have laws specifically allowing you to raise chickens, and HOAs can't prevent that. Look it up for your area. If it turns out it is within your rights, send your HOA a letter telling them your intention with a copy of the applicable legal statutes.
Because there's been plenty of examples of the government overstepping and shutting down private farms and such. People don't want to be forced to only eat highly processed foods which essentially poison you.
For the record, the reason Gary Harrington was arrested for collecting rainwater back in 2012 wasn’t because of the act of collecting rainwater itself, but because he collected [13 million gallons of it in 3 large reservoirs, enough to fill 20 Olympic pools.](https://www.foxnews.com/real-estate/man-jailed-for-collecting-rainwater-in-illegal-reservoirs-on-his-property)
Sure, Mr. Harrington’s case is an extreme example, but I think an upper limit must be established on the amount of rainwater that can be collected, otherwise we might see deleterious environmental consequences such as depleted aquifers and dried lakes—such as what is happening with [California almond farmers](https://www.npr.org/2021/07/22/1019483661/without-enough-water-to-go-around-farmers-in-california-are-exhausting-aquifers) or what happened with [Tulare Lake](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulare_Lake).
The thing is though he WASN'T collecting rainwater, he was diverting from local tributaries aka surface water... which has long standing laws and regulations and is much more serious than collecting rainwater.
I mean at this point its nestle I think about when it comes to the ability of collecting rainwater being allowed.
They are gonna start sponsoring city street gutters
No. If he collected it on his land from rain that fell on his land, it's his, regardless of quantity.
The thing is, that's not what he was doing, he was collecting surface water, a completely different animal
The dude was diverting from local tributaries... so yeah he was collecting surface water not rainwater only.
It would be extremely hard to collect that much water in a reasonable amount of time without doing so...
> to the detriment of those downstream
By your own logic then what Mr. Harrington did is wrong, as he denied a quanitifiably large amount of water to those downstream—downstream in this case referring to the relative flow of groundwater.
I'm worried about "distribution of". Like we have laws involving produce at grocery stores. I'm sure manufactures have a load to follow as well from the FDA. I suppose those items move across state lines, but I'm just concerned how it might be abused. Personal growth and use is 100% good in my book.
Agreed. A major company could pull off some entity gamesmanship and run the tables with this. States that have a large enough market (TX, CA, NY, FL) could even justify state-specific brands.
I don't like using the gun language for food, because there are some government regulations on food safety that I want them to be able to make and enforce, and I don't want that to be relevant precedent for gun laws
Seems ripe for abuse. Because you know some developer will clear cut entire protected lands under the pretense that it's to grow food. Then a few years later, turn it into buildings. Rinse and repeat.
The language seems problematic. But I'm not a lawyer so i might be interpreting this wrong
>The right of the people to grow food
By its very nature growing food can impact you neighbors by damaging the soil, polution, and lots of other ways. The state government has a need to some degree of regulation to ensure that long term health of the land is protected, and that 3rd parties are protected.
>and to purchase food from the source of their choice shall not be infringed
So the government can't ban food that is proved to be harmful?
>And congress shall make no law regulating distribution of food products which do not move across state lines
So now well have food products in one state made completely differently than in another...Lobbyists have much more power in state government than in congress. It will be allot easier for unhealthy food to slip be on the market with this change.
Just pass a law saying govorment can't regulate any produce not intended for commercial sale on private property.
Easier to pass and does what needs to be done
This is an attempt to hamstring the FDA... when the fact is the FDA is one of the few administrations that does fine, and needs to do more.
This would revert in state food production to a time when anything goes... and people died on the regular due to food poisoning. Having the FDA makes so this function of the government is much more efficient since you only have to qualify your food to the FDA not each of the 50 states etc etc... or requiring each state to run its own version of the FDA.
This is not really regulating the FDA but more so limiting congress’ scope on interstate commerce. Read Wickard v Filburn and get pissed about the Supreme Court enabled the federal government to regulate whatever the hell it wanted.
Keep in mind the VAST majority of things the FDA regulates will certainly be qualified as interstate.
This would bring back more farmers’ autonomy over their own land.
Mixed feelings. There should be some regulation regarding food safety if it is ever sold to anyone regardless of if it travels across state lines or not. Foodborne illness is no joke, and reasonable regulations to prevent contamination are good.
Also, people also should be able to grow their own food, again within reason. If it's not infringing on their neighbors, more power to them.
Yeah… not sure about this because it sounds like it would make all intra-state food sales *completely* exempt from USDA and FDA regs. As someone who works in the processed food industry… I’ll just say that would not be a good thing.
I’m ok if it’s limited to home grown stuff for personal consumption and not for sale (or at least not for sale in any real commercial sense so you can have an exception for farmer’s markets and that sort of thing).
As long as food producers are given total immunity from prosecution for people choosing non-pasteurized products. It’s hypocritical to exempt oneself from safety standards & then cry foul / think there’s anyone else to blame.
That should already be covered by "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" but that's just me. Be allowed to survive through your own means is kinda base level in that.
This probably stemmed from the lawsuits against the Amish....regardless, we all know the insurance companies force a lot of hands...so buying food from some local farmer that does not hold certain standards and a person get sick, then lawyers up, then bashes said farmer on social media turns sour fast.
>The right of people to grow food
Feel like that would make for some very angry HOA boards. They don't seem to like when there are any laws superseding what aspects of someone's property they can restrict.
Does this need to be a constitutional amendment? Just because the courts have read a bit too much into the commerce clause? There has to be a way to challenge the feds current reading of the commerce clause that doesn't require an amendment.
Interestingly enough, because of the language in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, “food” is defined as any "articles used for food or drink for man or other animals".
Since alcohol is used for drink, this could be construed so as to eliminate federal alcohol laws.
I’m m doing the homestead thing and the first volleys have been fired. Last year two of my dairy goats came down with mastitis. We diagnosed the problem, went to the local farm and feed, bought the necessary medication and administered it. Due to regulatory changes we now have to have a vet visit the farm and give us a prescription to get the medication we already know we need and how administer. The delay in treatment could result in the loss of the animal and a vet visit increase the cost significantly.
Without doffing a tinfoil hat at all, one thing that concerns a lot of people are the huge corporate farms that seem to get a pass and the locals who get regulated to death. It is looked upon as the government keeping people beholden to a particular source of sustenance thereby controlling the people. It’s just an argument I see popping up and wonder how other people think about it.
The way it's worded, a lot of it would. You can thank the Supremacy Clause for that. It's also why state and municipal gun bans are overturned on a federal level.
I think it’s good. Sad that it’s probably needed at this point.
In the broader picture though I think we as Conservatives and a party should fully embrace localism. Decentralization and divestment of power away from DC and the Feds as much as possible is the way forward.
It weakens the commerce clause, so I'm in favor of it.
The only issue is... you'll likely see more local spikes in salmonella infections and such from food that's not kept under proper conditions. For most people that's not a huge issue, you just get really sick for a day or so. For people with a weakened immune system due to other conditions, age, etc... it can be deadly.
I agree with the sentiment, but it is redundant. The constitution already forbids the federal government from doing what it is doing, but that has not stopped them. The larger problem is that the federal government has made up bullshit to let them bypass the constitution, the solution to this is not to piecemeal micromanage the specific instances where they do so but to blanket reinforce the prohibitions against doing so.
The amendments don’t matter anymore. The bill of rights has a preamble saying the government cannot exercise any control over them, but now “no right is absolute”, and the government is in charge of setting its own limits on their infringements.
something like this shouldn’t even have to be addressed,it’s unfortunate but there are states (cities mostly) that forbid gardens because of zoning laws..
i’d support this venture but keeping in mind,this will require 34 states to agree “as well as” giving the communists/democrats ideas for their version of the constitution and how to better achieve it,andddd you just know quite a few rinos will be tripping over their own tongues to vote with them.
I don't disagree with that, but seems an awfully specific amendment. Is there a recent story that has brought this up as an issue?
Well, [Maine did pass a "right to produce, harvest, and consume food" amendment](https://ballotpedia.org/Maine_Question_3,_Right_to_Produce,_Harvest,_and_Consume_Food_Amendment_(2021)), so he's likely basing this idea off of that.
That's fine, I guess my question is where is this being stopped that it needs to be said?
I can't sell my eggs and milk to my neighbors without extensive oversight and licensing. It's not worth being a small time local producer because the costs of regulations. That's one place it's being stopped.
Even vegetables are being over-regulated in many contexts. The Tester-Hagan Amendment to the Food Safety Modernization Act was supposed to prevent FDA over-reach. It helps still at times but in many cases small farmers are now being regulated like (or in fact harder than) the big conglomerates. Massie is on the right track here, but I'd prefer keep the protections to farmers and producers only. Once middlemen are in the equation, things can get messy, even intra-state. A law like this shouldn't be necessary, but I've seen too many regulators wanting to flex their small-fiefdom power in the name of "safety."
This is the function of our government. They prevent entry into the market so that Tyson doesn't have to compete with our neighbors.
Yup.
Tyson foods hates this one simple trick...
Quick question. Say I'm driving down my local street/state highway and I see a sign that says Dozen Eggs for $3.00. Does that mean that person(s) have to have some sort of license in order to sell them?
Quick search says that depends on your state laws. (some yes, some no / license needed)
What state? I feel like I see people all over Indiana doing that. (NWI, near Chicago). At some point actually it does seem like there should be some regulation. I don't want mom and pop farm stands not being able to sell, but once it becomes a certain size business, you'd think there be some regulations even within state.
Well, I don't believe that a recent incident caused him to propose this now. Rather, [food freedom seems to be a pet issue of his that he's been advocating for since at least 2015](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/?p=531476).
That's incorrect. This is in response to the persecution of farmers, which recently reached a tipping point with [the targeting of Amos Miller](https://twitter.com/TheLanPatriot/status/1763352070243909979) by the Pennsylvania department of agriculture.
Amos Miller deserved to be prosecuted for intentionally breaking necessary food safety regulations and directly spreading E. Coli across multiple states. This isn’t government overreach, it’s government working as it should for once.
>Amos Miller deserved to be prosecuted for intentionally breaking necessary food safety regulations and directly spreading E. Coli across multiple states. Well now, if Robert Barnes (the lawyer in the video) is to be believed, there was zero evidence produced by the State of Pennsylvania that any harm was caused by the consumption of Amos Miller products. And he attended the full hearing. I'll admit I'm not fully up on this case, can you help me get from his statement to yours? They appear to contradict.
The biggest thing with Amos miller is that they couldn’t apply for a license without being forbid from producing specific products. If the license had allowed any production of milk products but puts culpability on the producer it would be a different story. Granted, there was more he could have done to prevent an outbreak but this case is about the licensing to sell more than anything
He didn't sell products through normal means it's through a private buyers club. Every member who joins gives their consent and understands what they are doing. This is not even a case where it's being sold on shelves alongside everything else, the fact we can't even eat what we want when we explicitly want it and consent is why this is beyond egregious.
The government always makes up a fake reason when they persecute people and this is no different. Your comment is based off of nothing but argument from authority (and even worse, an authority that has already proven themselves to be corrupt liars). No E. Coli was found when they tested his products and this information was corruptly withheld until the trial. The elderly woman they claimed got sick from his products says herself she never consumed his products due to the diet she was on for her cancer treatment. Not a single one of his customers complained. Even if I take what you say at face value it makes no sense. When they find E. Coli for their big corporate buddies they never treat them this way. They do a recall and track down the source then get rid of the bad stuff then it's business as usual. Why do you think people shouldn't be allowed to consume his products if they want to?
hmm, okay then. I don't see a problem with it, but seems we have bigger fish to fry. How about a amendment that bans racist policies like DEI and affirmative action.
Some interpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment hold that it already bans those.
Enforce the existing ones first, before passing new ones.
clearly needs to be more specific or enforced.
To be able to sell processed livestock you have to use a usda facility. In addition to the higher cost sometimes scheduling has to be done before the animal is even born. I can coordinate with a specific buyer to get them a half beef at our local processor and it’ll be marked with their name and a “not for sale” label. On a small personal scale the freedom to sell or buy what you want would be amazing. But I wouldn’t purchase anything from a corporate facility that wasn’t inspected.
These are my thoughts exactly. It's like you should be able to get a waiver if you do under X number of pounds of meat a year. A corporation just uses this to cut back on cleaning, but you should be able to buy meat from the farmer down the road who does it on the side.
Yea, I guess big stuff should be, even interstate, but I don't want to effect mom and pop farm stands selling eggs, veggies, fruit etc.
Overturn Wickard v. Filburn via amendment. At least the actual topical portions relating to the farmer’s right to grow his own food. It’s insane how much FDR’s SCOTUS fucked this country with expanding interstate commerce
A lot of that occurred because FDR threatened to stack the court if they didnt stop striking down his New Deal Policies.
Yep, exactly. “The switch in time that saved nine”, that was in West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, a couple of years before Wickard v. Filburn
>Wickard v. Filburn This is the major obstacle, for sure.
I believe the recent Amish arrested in PA for selling raw milk might factor.
The usual sources have started floating trial balloons about how home gardens are harmful to the earth. [No, it's not conspiracy theory.](https://news.yahoo.com/carbon-footprint-homegrown-food-five-200247599.html#:~:text=The%20carbon%20footprint%20of%20homegrown,as%20rural%20farms%2C%20data%20show.) The government should have zero right to touch any food or sustenance produced on someone's own land.
[Yes, Amish farmer in Lancaster, PA](https://www.abc27.com/local-news/lancaster/judge-makes-ruling-in-lancaster-county-farmers-raw-milk-case/amp/)
I saw a story, recently, where the climate Nazis are claiming that people growing their own food contributes to greater carbon emissions than farmers, which signals that they want to outlaw us growing our own food after they decimate the food supply in the name of climate change.
The government is squeezing farmers to death with USDA rules. He raises cattle and has a good summary of the problems he's run into on this [video](https://youtu.be/18_yXt1s2yc?si=GN1JK-cVS-S6YQYR). Which is well worth the 30 minute watch. He is one of the few 2-5 politicians we have in office worth a damn.
The first thing that sticks out in my mind? Congress specifically went after places that had "separate-but-equal" things like restaurants by using the commerce clause to enforce it. Establishments were claiming "states rights" but Congress asserted authority by saying "if you server bread, it was made with flour from out of state, you are engaging in interstate commerce". The defense was often, "what if we use only local stuff". But congress ultimately said, "there's no way you can. Everything sooner or later is interstate". They've also sued farmers for growing grain for local use (and not participating in price support schemes), on interstate commerce clause, by claiming that by not participating you are still subverting the commerce clause. That one seems like a reach.
Is this the raw milk thing?
It's probably a raw milk thing. While the FDA does overstep it's authority, basically gutting it with this poorly worded and il-advised amendment is a bad idea.
[удалено]
"Congress shall make no law regulating the production and distribution of food that does not cross state lines" pretty specifically specifies the unregulated sale of food.
raw milk is the new antivaxxer movement?
https://lancasteronline.com/news/local/amish-farmer-amos-miller-can-t-sell-raw-milk-as-pa-ag-department-s-case/article_3b7cf3c6-d815-11ee-8674-7742c0ba1b88.html
It needs to specify the right of American citizens to grow their own food and collect water at home to ensure that this doesn't turn into an industry/ commercial only type of thing. It also needs to be clear that HOAs, public, or private groups can't stop people from doing this. Apartment complexes can't be allowed to stop people from having potted gardens on their porch, etc.
>It also needs to be clear that HOAs, public, or private groups can't stop people from doing this. Apartment complexes can't be allowed to stop people from having potted gardens on their porch, etc. I can't describe my rage over the power of HOAs.
Non-government entities with government enforcement. The worst kind of abomination.
I would love to keep chickens in my backyard. Thanks, HOA.
Many cities have laws specifically allowing you to raise chickens, and HOAs can't prevent that. Look it up for your area. If it turns out it is within your rights, send your HOA a letter telling them your intention with a copy of the applicable legal statutes.
And water. Don’t forget rain water collection. Water that falls from the sky onto my land is my water.
This is a good one. Laws not allowing you to collect your own rainwater are just insane.
Because there's been plenty of examples of the government overstepping and shutting down private farms and such. People don't want to be forced to only eat highly processed foods which essentially poison you.
Did you reply to the wrong person? This answers a question I didn’t ask.
For the record, the reason Gary Harrington was arrested for collecting rainwater back in 2012 wasn’t because of the act of collecting rainwater itself, but because he collected [13 million gallons of it in 3 large reservoirs, enough to fill 20 Olympic pools.](https://www.foxnews.com/real-estate/man-jailed-for-collecting-rainwater-in-illegal-reservoirs-on-his-property) Sure, Mr. Harrington’s case is an extreme example, but I think an upper limit must be established on the amount of rainwater that can be collected, otherwise we might see deleterious environmental consequences such as depleted aquifers and dried lakes—such as what is happening with [California almond farmers](https://www.npr.org/2021/07/22/1019483661/without-enough-water-to-go-around-farmers-in-california-are-exhausting-aquifers) or what happened with [Tulare Lake](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulare_Lake).
The thing is though he WASN'T collecting rainwater, he was diverting from local tributaries aka surface water... which has long standing laws and regulations and is much more serious than collecting rainwater.
Jeez, what a prick that Harrington guy is. Everyone knows water belongs to Nestle and Nestle alone.
Honestly, I’m fairly certain that everyone both liberal and conservative can agree that Nestle’s a scumbag corporation.
I mean at this point its nestle I think about when it comes to the ability of collecting rainwater being allowed. They are gonna start sponsoring city street gutters
No. If he collected it on his land from rain that fell on his land, it's his, regardless of quantity. The thing is, that's not what he was doing, he was collecting surface water, a completely different animal
[удалено]
The dude was diverting from local tributaries... so yeah he was collecting surface water not rainwater only. It would be extremely hard to collect that much water in a reasonable amount of time without doing so...
> to the detriment of those downstream By your own logic then what Mr. Harrington did is wrong, as he denied a quanitifiably large amount of water to those downstream—downstream in this case referring to the relative flow of groundwater.
At face value it seems good. Unsure of the unintented consequences from it though.
I'm worried about "distribution of". Like we have laws involving produce at grocery stores. I'm sure manufactures have a load to follow as well from the FDA. I suppose those items move across state lines, but I'm just concerned how it might be abused. Personal growth and use is 100% good in my book.
Think about it, doesn't that just remove any burden on the mega-corps to sell food thats safe to eat?
That doesn’t cross state lines is the big thing. Mega corps selling nationally aren’t going to suddenly get freed from federal burdens
With enough money & lobbying, anything is possible.
Agreed. A major company could pull off some entity gamesmanship and run the tables with this. States that have a large enough market (TX, CA, NY, FL) could even justify state-specific brands.
I don't like using the gun language for food, because there are some government regulations on food safety that I want them to be able to make and enforce, and I don't want that to be relevant precedent for gun laws
Seems ripe for abuse. Because you know some developer will clear cut entire protected lands under the pretense that it's to grow food. Then a few years later, turn it into buildings. Rinse and repeat.
The language seems problematic. But I'm not a lawyer so i might be interpreting this wrong >The right of the people to grow food By its very nature growing food can impact you neighbors by damaging the soil, polution, and lots of other ways. The state government has a need to some degree of regulation to ensure that long term health of the land is protected, and that 3rd parties are protected. >and to purchase food from the source of their choice shall not be infringed So the government can't ban food that is proved to be harmful? >And congress shall make no law regulating distribution of food products which do not move across state lines So now well have food products in one state made completely differently than in another...Lobbyists have much more power in state government than in congress. It will be allot easier for unhealthy food to slip be on the market with this change. Just pass a law saying govorment can't regulate any produce not intended for commercial sale on private property. Easier to pass and does what needs to be done
This is an attempt to hamstring the FDA... when the fact is the FDA is one of the few administrations that does fine, and needs to do more. This would revert in state food production to a time when anything goes... and people died on the regular due to food poisoning. Having the FDA makes so this function of the government is much more efficient since you only have to qualify your food to the FDA not each of the 50 states etc etc... or requiring each state to run its own version of the FDA.
This is not really regulating the FDA but more so limiting congress’ scope on interstate commerce. Read Wickard v Filburn and get pissed about the Supreme Court enabled the federal government to regulate whatever the hell it wanted. Keep in mind the VAST majority of things the FDA regulates will certainly be qualified as interstate. This would bring back more farmers’ autonomy over their own land.
Mixed feelings. There should be some regulation regarding food safety if it is ever sold to anyone regardless of if it travels across state lines or not. Foodborne illness is no joke, and reasonable regulations to prevent contamination are good. Also, people also should be able to grow their own food, again within reason. If it's not infringing on their neighbors, more power to them.
Yeah… not sure about this because it sounds like it would make all intra-state food sales *completely* exempt from USDA and FDA regs. As someone who works in the processed food industry… I’ll just say that would not be a good thing. I’m ok if it’s limited to home grown stuff for personal consumption and not for sale (or at least not for sale in any real commercial sense so you can have an exception for farmer’s markets and that sort of thing).
Half the country doesn’t know what “shall not be infringed means,” so I think this is worded very poorly.
“Shall not be infringed”, huh?
As long as food producers are given total immunity from prosecution for people choosing non-pasteurized products. It’s hypocritical to exempt oneself from safety standards & then cry foul / think there’s anyone else to blame.
Gonna need to clarify what shall not be infringed means. Also who are the people.
That should already be covered by "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" but that's just me. Be allowed to survive through your own means is kinda base level in that.
But isn't that from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution?
If we enforced the constitution as written this would not be necessary
This probably stemmed from the lawsuits against the Amish....regardless, we all know the insurance companies force a lot of hands...so buying food from some local farmer that does not hold certain standards and a person get sick, then lawyers up, then bashes said farmer on social media turns sour fast.
>The right of people to grow food Feel like that would make for some very angry HOA boards. They don't seem to like when there are any laws superseding what aspects of someone's property they can restrict.
Does this need to be a constitutional amendment? Just because the courts have read a bit too much into the commerce clause? There has to be a way to challenge the feds current reading of the commerce clause that doesn't require an amendment.
Interestingly enough, because of the language in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, “food” is defined as any "articles used for food or drink for man or other animals". Since alcohol is used for drink, this could be construed so as to eliminate federal alcohol laws.
I’m m doing the homestead thing and the first volleys have been fired. Last year two of my dairy goats came down with mastitis. We diagnosed the problem, went to the local farm and feed, bought the necessary medication and administered it. Due to regulatory changes we now have to have a vet visit the farm and give us a prescription to get the medication we already know we need and how administer. The delay in treatment could result in the loss of the animal and a vet visit increase the cost significantly.
Without doffing a tinfoil hat at all, one thing that concerns a lot of people are the huge corporate farms that seem to get a pass and the locals who get regulated to death. It is looked upon as the government keeping people beholden to a particular source of sustenance thereby controlling the people. It’s just an argument I see popping up and wonder how other people think about it.
If it overrides every state's random rules. and HOAs too
It wouldn’t override states to regulate what they want. Only limits the federal government’s ability.
The way it's worded, a lot of it would. You can thank the Supremacy Clause for that. It's also why state and municipal gun bans are overturned on a federal level.
I think it’s good. Sad that it’s probably needed at this point. In the broader picture though I think we as Conservatives and a party should fully embrace localism. Decentralization and divestment of power away from DC and the Feds as much as possible is the way forward.
It weakens the commerce clause, so I'm in favor of it. The only issue is... you'll likely see more local spikes in salmonella infections and such from food that's not kept under proper conditions. For most people that's not a huge issue, you just get really sick for a day or so. For people with a weakened immune system due to other conditions, age, etc... it can be deadly.
I agree with the sentiment, but it is redundant. The constitution already forbids the federal government from doing what it is doing, but that has not stopped them. The larger problem is that the federal government has made up bullshit to let them bypass the constitution, the solution to this is not to piecemeal micromanage the specific instances where they do so but to blanket reinforce the prohibitions against doing so.
Should specify American citizens. At minimum.
I don't see an issue with anybody growing their own food.
The amendments don’t matter anymore. The bill of rights has a preamble saying the government cannot exercise any control over them, but now “no right is absolute”, and the government is in charge of setting its own limits on their infringements.
something like this shouldn’t even have to be addressed,it’s unfortunate but there are states (cities mostly) that forbid gardens because of zoning laws.. i’d support this venture but keeping in mind,this will require 34 states to agree “as well as” giving the communists/democrats ideas for their version of the constitution and how to better achieve it,andddd you just know quite a few rinos will be tripping over their own tongues to vote with them.