You should definitely do some research into the S 510 bill congress has been working at for a while.

While not specifically written by Monsanto, apparently it was drawn up by their PR corporation, so not much of a difference.

I can't really find much information in support of the bill, which can either mean it's a plain shitty bill, or it's self-supporting enough to not require adamant defense.

But from what I've read on it so far, it sounds like the worst piece of legislation we could possibly pass.

It involves the publics ability to grow, sell, trade, or buy foods that do not directly come from as of yet unspecified corporations (but most likely Monsanto).

Anyone interested should check out this site, but should also keep looking, because it seems incredibly biased =/

http://foodfreedom.wordp...is-hissing-in-the-grass/

All I know for certain is that it involves food, people associated with Monsanto, and that it will instill an unelected Food Czar (just like the DEA's drug czar).

Here's another site with a bit more information.

http://constitutionparty...-510-set-for-vote-today/

“I can see a day coming when even your home garden is going to be against the law” – Bob Dylan

God Bless America!

Seems to me that these guys are blowing this bill ridiculously out of proportion. It seems to be very different than what they're claiming, but I only skimmed it. It's not hard to find out about the bill, doesn't seem to be hidden or anything...

Bill S510 - Summary/Full Text

It all depends on how they interpret "growers" and the "risk" they are exposed to from food they grow for personal consumption, I guess. I dunno, I see the potential for abuse of this, but I don't see the enforceability.

As I read it, this Bill will increase food safety for consumers. It says nothing about what you can or cannot grow. It does give the government the authority to recall food products that are contaminated or pose a health threat. (Currently, national food recalls are voluntary.)

I worked for many years as a regulator (not with the FDA), and I see this Bill as a step in the right direction. It makes commercial producers of food more accountable and attempts to ensure the safety of food for consumers. What’s wrong with that?

Isn't DMT a scheduled substance because it's... um... a threat?

In a perfect world, gibran, I agree with you.

But the corporate/government world is far from perfect. IMHO, the very PROBLEM is that "growers" and "risk" is open to interpretation. There's always hope, but it also always helps to not be completely naive and just waive all rights to one's health and body away. Discussion and awareness are very good. It's important to ask questions, extremely dangerous to assume--especially if the assumption is that companies (especially ones with nefarious track records) have anyone's best interests in mind, short of their own.

The threats with respect to food safety are reasonably clear and straightforward. If ground beef is nationally distributed and is found to contain E. Coli, then that’s a health threat. Or if packaged cereal is found to contain metal fragments, that’s a threat to health. If food products are mislabeled and either contain things that aren’t listed (such as nuts) or don’t contain things that are listed, then there’s a potential for harm. These are the sorts of things that food safety regulators regulate.

The Bill that’s the topic of this post doesn’t lead us to “waive all rights to one's health and body away”. To the contrary, it makes food producers more accountable for the products they’re providing to consumers and reduces the likelihood of foodborne illness and injury.

Some people think irradiating lettuce is a measure of safety. Somehow additives like sodium benzoate are welcomed in packaged food by food safety agencies.

I understand the principal of what you are saying, but I'm also pointing out that the system in practice is quite corrupt. Following the track record of the people pushing this legislation and people who can potentially profit from this legislation, I think it's VERY important to remain astute and think critically. You may be able to potentially reduce short-term harm within the current agricultural model, but in the end, it needs a total overhaul because it's not sustainable, from factory farming to soil depletion. It doesn't work. Remember that time when Rome fell? If your system isn't a sick system creating more sick people, you won't have to worry about foodborne illness. Bandaid solutions vs. the bigger picture.

Corporate micromanagement of health is, by very nature, a conflict of interests!!

This body is sacred and it's the only one you've got! My body belongs to me and Mother Earth... not Monsanto.

Have you ever seen someone die of cancer? Have you ever seen someone naturally heal themselves of cancer? Legislation like this can be manipulated to have far-reaching consequences that impacts everyone one of us right now. Really stop and look at the bigger picture--where are we heading as a whole? What is helping? What is harming? Look at all the health problems and developmental disorders popping up in children.

Fresh food is so important!! The integrity of the soil is our future. It's not just your soil. It's your children's soil. It belongs to the future of humanity, and, to EVERYONE.

(Edit: and my ranting is just frothy-mouthed passion, nothing personal, so please don't take it that way, I think I am fired up tonight. )

I dont trust any bill that has ANYTHING to do with regulating my food..simply becasue I dont trust the assholes that make these bills...

But hey, Im paranoid as fuck when it comes to these things based on my experiences with the food industry, the FDA and health canada.

It has proved impossible to enforce a law banning Cannabis, but they tried.

It is impossible for the government to ban ALL websites containing copyrighted material in the secondary universe that is the internet, but the COICA (The act that allows them to do so) passed unanimously - and although on the same day a senator from Oregon froze the act for a year, the point remains, they are certainly going to try.

I read only the summary section of the Bill, so maybe I’m missing something. What sections of the Bill in particular are problematic? It’s easy to complain, but more difficult to rationally examine. If there’s a problem with this Bill, where is it?

I agree that government often does things to erode our trust, but this doesn’t mean that everything government does is bad. I was a government regulator for nearly ten years, and I can tell you that my colleagues and I worked very hard to protect the public health. And protecting the public health doesn’t mean advocating irradiation of food or supporting corporate interests or discouraging the public from eating fresh, wholesome, natural food products.

@ fractal enchantment – you say that you don’t trust any bill that has ANYTHING to do with regulating your food. So what’s the alternative? Stop regulating food producers? Do you honestly believe that we’d be better off without food safety regulations?

Should it be OK for a consumer to be served a sandwich that was dropped on a dirty floor? How about buying a cookie loaded with sharp metal fragments because the manufacturer didn’t want to pay to have his equipment fixed? Or how would you like to buy some beans and rice that have been home to a large family of rodents? Do you really want that sick cook coughing up phlegm on your dinner entrée? Do you want your lettuce and tomatoes smeared with feces from a sick field worker? Do you want to eat that vegetable stew that’s been sitting out at room temperature for two days? If you had a severe nut allergy, would you be comfortable buying food products that might be mislabeled? Do you want to eat the restaurant salad that has had raw chicken juices dripping on it? Do you want to buy dairy products that are weeks past their expiration dates?

I could go on, but I hope you see that regulation is necessary. Food safety regulations exist because food producers are often more concerned with profit than with safety. If I had to side with either incompetent government or the greedy private sector, then I choose incompetent government.

@ ms_manic_minxx – no offence taken regarding your “rant”.

In a perfect world, all food would be fresh and clean and wholesome and produced in a sensible sustainable way. Unfortunately, that’s not the world we live in. I’ve had friends die of cancer. Are you suggesting that many cancers are the result of current food regulations? If so, please explain. People also die of foodborne illnesses every year. Do you think that fewer people will die – either from cancer or foodborne illnesses – if food regulations are eased or eliminated? If so, please explain.


It’s easy to complain about government, but sometimes government (as hard as it is to believe) actually tries to do the right thing. Sometimes government puts the interests of the public first. I’m not saying this because I’m pro-government, I’m saying this because I was once a government regulator who every day tried to do the right thing.

Gibran2 isn't joking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle

(though obviously the jungle isn't about making sure your food is safe to eat, but rather the plight of the working class without any check for the owners of those plants)

The warning signs lie in the fact that almost every multinational corporation in the world is supporting the bill, and almost every association of local farmers/meatpackers/etc. are opposing it.

The corporations haven't done one good thing for the people of this country in a very long time. Why would they start caring now?

This bill is about what EVERY OTHER BILL in the past ten years has been about. $$$$$$$$$$$$ at the expense of American business owners, taxpayers, and consumers in general.

They can't handle the economy, health care, social security, education, or even the postal service. What makes you think they'll do any better with your food?

There is a link to the Bill in the second post of this thread. Examine it as closely as you care to, and give some examples of problems you see with it. You say the Bill is bad, but you don’t give even a single example of problems with it. I looked at the summary and didn’t see any problems. Maybe I didn’t look closely enough. Regardless, it’s hard to take your complaints seriously when they have no basis.

Your very first sentence in this thread is “You should definitely do some research into the S 510 bill congress has been working at for a while.” yet it seems you haven’t even read the Bill yourself. Read it and report back.

I'll do my best to interpret this legal mumbo jumbo.



"‘SEC. 419. STANDARDS FOR PRODUCE SAFETY.

‘(3) CONTENT- The proposed rulemaking under paragraph (1) shall--

‘(A) provide sufficient flexibility to be applicable to various types of entities engaged in the production and harvesting of raw agricultural commodities, including small businesses and entities that sell directly to consumers, and be appropriate to the scale and diversity of the production and harvesting of such commodities;"



"‘SEC. 420. PROTECTION AGAINST INTENTIONAL ADULTERATION.

‘(a) In General- Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Agriculture, shall promulgate regulations to protect against the intentional adulteration of food subject to this Act."


" (b) Guidance Documents-

(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Agriculture, shall issue guidance documents related to protection against the intentional adulteration of food, including mitigation strategies or measures to guard against such adulteration as required under section 420 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as added by subsection (a).

(2) CONTENT- The guidance documents issued under paragraph (1) shall--

(A) include a model assessment for a person to use under subsection (d)(1) of section 420 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as added by subsection (a);

(B) include examples of mitigation strategies or measures described in subsection (d)(2) of such section; and

(C) specify situations in which the examples of mitigation strategies or measures described in subsection (d)(2) of such section are appropriate.

(3) LIMITED DISTRIBUTION- In the interest of national security, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, may determine the time and manner in which the guidance documents issued under paragraph (1) are made public, including by releasing such documents to targeted audiences."


"SEC. 108. NATIONAL AGRICULTURE AND FOOD DEFENSE STRATEGY.

(c) Limited Distribution- In the interest of national security, the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Agriculture, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security, may determine the manner and format in which the National Agriculture and Food Defense strategy established under this section is made publicly available on the Internet Web sites of the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Agriculture, as described in subsection (a)(1)."



"‘SEC. 805. FOREIGN SUPPLIER VERIFICATION PROGRAM.

‘(a) In General-

‘(1) VERIFICATION REQUIREMENT- Each importer shall perform risk-based foreign supplier verification activities for the purpose of verifying that the food imported by the importer or its agent is--

‘(A) produced in compliance with the requirements of section 418 or 419, as appropriate; and

‘(B) is not adulterated under section 402 or misbranded under section 403(w).

‘(2) IMPORTER DEFINED- For purposes of this section, the term ‘importer’ means, with respect to an article of food--

‘(A) the United States owner or consignee of the article of food at the time of entry of such article into the United States; or

‘(B) in the case when there is no United States owner or consignee as described in subparagraph (A), the United States agent or representative of a foreign owner or consignee of the article of food at the time of entry of such article into the United States.

‘(b) Guidance- Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, the Secretary shall issue guidance to assist importers in developing foreign supplier verification programs."



"‘SEC. 806. VOLUNTARY QUALIFIED IMPORTER PROGRAM.

‘(a) In General- Beginning not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, the Secretary shall--

‘(1) establish a program, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, to provide for the expedited review and importation of food offered for importation by importers who have voluntarily agreed to participate in such program; and

‘(2) issue a guidance document related to participation and compliance with such program.

‘(b) Voluntary Participation- An importer may request the Secretary to provide for the expedited review and importation of designated foods in accordance with the program procedures established by the Secretary."



"‘SEC. 807. REVIEW OF A REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF A FOREIGN COUNTRY.

‘The Secretary may review information from a country outlining the statutes, regulations, standards, and controls of such country, and conduct on-site audits in such country to verify the implementation of those statutes, regulations, standards, and controls. Based on such review, the Secretary shall determine whether such country can provide reasonable assurances that the food supply of the country meets or exceeds the safety of food manufactured, processed, packed, or held in the United States.’.

SEC. 306. BUILDING CAPACITY OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS WITH RESPECT TO FOOD.

(a) In General- The Secretary shall, not later than 2 years of the date of enactment of this Act, develop a comprehensive plan to expand the technical, scientific, and regulatory capacity of foreign governments, and their respective food industries, from which foods are exported to the United States.

(b) Consultation- In developing the plan under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult with the Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, the United States Trade Representative, and the Secretary of Commerce, representatives of the food industry, appropriate foreign government officials, nongovernmental organizations that represent the interests of consumers, and other stakeholders."


"‘SEC. 808. INSPECTION OF FOREIGN FOOD FACILITIES.

‘(a) Inspection- The Secretary--

‘(1) may enter into arrangements and agreements with foreign governments to facilitate the inspection of foreign facilities registered under section 415; and

‘(2) shall direct resources to inspections of foreign facilities, suppliers, and food types, especially such facilities, suppliers, and food types that present a high risk (as identified by the Secretary), to help ensure the safety and security of the food supply of the United States.

‘(b) Effect of Inability To Inspect- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, food shall be refused admission into the United States if it is from a foreign facility registered under section 415 of which the owner, operator, or agent in charge of the facility, or the government of the foreign country, refuses to permit entry of United States inspectors, upon request, to inspect such facility. For purposes of this subsection, such an owner, operator, or agent in charge shall be considered to have refused an inspection if such owner, operator, or agent in charge refuses such a request to inspect a facility more than 2 business days after such request is submitted.’."



"SEC. 310. SMUGGLED FOOD.

(a) In General- Not later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Commissioner of Customs and Border Patrol, and the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, develop and implement a strategy to better identify smuggled food and prevent entry of such food into the United States.

(b) Notification to Homeland Security- Not later than 10 days after the Secretary identifies a smuggled food that the Secretary believes would cause serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals, the Secretary shall provide to the Secretary of Homeland Security a notification under section 417(k) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 350f(k)) describing the smuggled food and, if available, the names of the individuals or entities that attempted to import such food into the United States.

(c) Public Notification- If the Secretary--

(1) identifies a smuggled food;

(2) reasonably believes exposure to the food would cause serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals; and

(3) reasonably believes that the food has entered domestic commerce and is likely to be consumed,

the Secretary shall promptly issue a press release describing that food and shall use other emergency communication or recall networks, as appropriate, to warn consumers and vendors about the potential threat.

(d) Definition- In this subsection, the term ‘smuggled food’ means any food that a person introduces into the United States through fraudulent means or with the intent to defraud or mislead."


"SEC. 404. COMPLIANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS.

Nothing in this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) shall be construed in a manner inconsistent with the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization or any other treaty or international agreement to which the United States is a party."

These are all the sections I've identified as having a high potential for abuse.

Most have to do with smuggling, food importers policing themselves, U.S. inspection in foreign countries, and the ability of the government to decide on if, when, and how information is disseminated to the people.

Hope this helps?

Also, just to show everyone the seriousness of this, here's a report on a police raid done in California on an organic foods store called "Rawesome Foods". They were searching for unprocessed milk. They enter with guns drawn as if on a drug raid. It would appear as if they don't even need this act to start terrorizing our health food stores.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifvp3Fxi7Uo

And an article

http://theintelhub.com/2...for-raw-milk-guns-drawn/

All almonds in grown in North America are pasteurized, which is absolutely bogus. The TASTE of TRULY RAW ALMONDS is completely different than what is commonly sold here. (The taste, interestingly, is very similar to strong cielo Caapi and apricot kernels, both with extreme health-imparting properties ). I can still find almonds from Spain and Italy, for the cost of an arm and a leg. I. don't. want. that. to. continue. happening.

It's also MY RIGHT to eat a biologically appropriate diet! That is my inalienable right as a human being!

Clean food is important. But there are a lot of people who think things aren't clean until they're dead (raw milk bust is a great example). There's a huge gap between nutrition and politics, generally. Conflict of interest and lack of education are a deadly combination.

Thank god, honestly, gibran, it's awesome to know that there are people involved with regulation that care. Thank you.

But... I am extremely vigilant when it comes to any abuse of power than may result in limiting my access to pure food. I suffered internal hemorrhaging and acute colitis from taking pharmaceuticals/antibiotics, and after seeing a slew of different doctors, switching to an organic, raw food diet healed my body.

One of the most inspiring events I attended this summer was an heirloom seed festival. People breaking their backs to put their hands in the dirt simply because they give a fuck about the future of humanity, indiscriminately.

Manic Minxx, I completely agree.

I think you would really enjoy a documentary called "Simply Raw: Reversing Diabetes in 30 Days".
Half a dozen people, all with type 1 or 2 diabetes, are put on a strictly raw, organic food diet for 30 days, combined with exercise. I don't want to spoil it, but I'll just say it'll blow your mind! Here's a link where you can watch it =)
http://www.sprword.com/videos/simplyraw/

Gabriel Cousens, MD claims that "when you cook the food you lose 50% of the protein, 70% to 80% of the vitamins and minerals, and close to 100% of the phytonutrients."

Reversing type 1 diabetes? Type 1 diabetes has a very strong genetic component, telling me that change in nutrition can reverse type 1 diabetes is like saying that change in nutrition can change the colour of my eyes.



The Doctor should know that proteins are anyway destroyed during digestion; cooking does not really do much harm on proteins, at least in the way the body is going to process and assimilate them. I have no problem understanding that a portion of vitamins can get destroyed by cooking but destroy minerals? hard to believe that as well. Minerals are very stable substances. Table salt (and may other salts) are examples of minerals. And phytonutrients? what does this term include?

I'd be wary of bogus doctor claims especially when he uses bogus statements.

@ TheReadyAwakening –

I’ve added comments to the sections you’ve selected. The only problems/unusual features I see are the “secrecy” provisions. But even those are understandable to a certain extent. Anyhow, take a look and add additional comments if you’d like:

"‘SEC. 419. STANDARDS FOR PRODUCE SAFETY.

‘(3) CONTENT- The proposed rulemaking under paragraph (1) shall--

‘(A) provide sufficient flexibility to be applicable to various types of entities engaged in the production and harvesting of raw agricultural commodities, including small businesses and entities that sell directly to consumers, and be appropriate to the scale and diversity of the production and harvesting of such commodities;"
There is nothing wrong with this section – it says that smaller operations will not be required to reach compliance in the same way as huge food processors. For example, a large food processor may be required to have expensive automated equipment to wash produce prior to processing. A “mom and pop” farmer’s stand will still have to ensure that their produce is clean, but won’t be required to buy industrial-scale equipment.



"‘SEC. 420. PROTECTION AGAINST INTENTIONAL ADULTERATION.

‘(a) In General- Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Agriculture, shall promulgate regulations to protect against the intentional adulteration of food subject to this Act."
This just establishes a timeline to create regulations against adulteration that are not a part of the current Bill.

" (b) Guidance Documents-

(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Agriculture, shall issue guidance documents related to protection against the intentional adulteration of food, including mitigation strategies or measures to guard against such adulteration as required under section 420 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as added by subsection (a).
Again, this establishes a timeline/deadline.

(2) CONTENT- The guidance documents issued under paragraph (1) shall--

(A) include a model assessment for a person to use under subsection (d)(1) of section 420 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as added by subsection (a);
Model assessments and model codes are used by state and local governments as an aid to achieve uniformity of regulation at the state and local level. Model codes are advisory only.
(B) include examples of mitigation strategies or measures described in subsection (d)(2) of such section; and

(C) specify situations in which the examples of mitigation strategies or measures described in subsection (d)(2) of such section are appropriate.
This is good – it says the model advisory should include specific examples of mitigation strategies and appropriate situations for their application. This helps state and local governments better understand the rationale behind the new requirements. It explains, by example, the “why” of the new requirements.

(3) LIMITED DISTRIBUTION- In the interest of national security, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, may determine the time and manner in which the guidance documents issued under paragraph (1) are made public, including by releasing such documents to targeted audiences."
This isn’t clear to me. Are they saying that guidance documents may be kept secret? If so, it doesn’t make much sense.


"SEC. 108. NATIONAL AGRICULTURE AND FOOD DEFENSE STRATEGY.

(c) Limited Distribution- In the interest of national security, the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Agriculture, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security, may determine the manner and format in which the National Agriculture and Food Defense strategy established under this section is made publicly available on the Internet Web sites of the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Agriculture, as described in subsection (a)(1)."
Again, this doesn’t make much sense. Unless Homeland Security has certain methods of identifying and intercepting adulterated food that would be made ineffective if “terrorists” knew about it. Still, it doesn’t make much sense.



"‘SEC. 805. FOREIGN SUPPLIER VERIFICATION PROGRAM.

‘(a) In General-

‘(1) VERIFICATION REQUIREMENT- Each importer shall perform risk-based foreign supplier verification activities for the purpose of verifying that the food imported by the importer or its agent is--

‘(A) produced in compliance with the requirements of section 418 or 419, as appropriate; and

‘(B) is not adulterated under section 402 or misbranded under section 403(w).

‘(2) IMPORTER DEFINED- For purposes of this section, the term ‘importer’ means, with respect to an article of food--

‘(A) the United States owner or consignee of the article of food at the time of entry of such article into the United States; or

‘(B) in the case when there is no United States owner or consignee as described in subparagraph (A), the United States agent or representative of a foreign owner or consignee of the article of food at the time of entry of such article into the United States.

‘(b) Guidance- Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, the Secretary shall issue guidance to assist importers in developing foreign supplier verification programs."
All of this section is good – it says that we intend to hold imported food to the same standards as domestically produced food. (Remember when China was adulterating food products with melamine?)


"‘SEC. 806. VOLUNTARY QUALIFIED IMPORTER PROGRAM.

‘(a) In General- Beginning not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, the Secretary shall--

‘(1) establish a program, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, to provide for the expedited review and importation of food offered for importation by importers who have voluntarily agreed to participate in such program; and

‘(2) issue a guidance document related to participation and compliance with such program.

‘(b) Voluntary Participation- An importer may request the Secretary to provide for the expedited review and importation of designated foods in accordance with the program procedures established by the Secretary."
I don’t see a problem with this. It says that importers, if they want to import food into the US, will have to have their products and methods reviewed. (I think.) Importers who voluntarily agree to participate will have expedited/preferential review. Those who don’t agree will still be reviewed, but in a more “leisurely” manner.


"‘SEC. 807. REVIEW OF A REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF A FOREIGN COUNTRY.

‘The Secretary may review information from a country outlining the statutes, regulations, standards, and controls of such country, and conduct on-site audits in such country to verify the implementation of those statutes, regulations, standards, and controls. Based on such review, the Secretary shall determine whether such country can provide reasonable assurances that the food supply of the country meets or exceeds the safety of food manufactured, processed, packed, or held in the United States.’.
This just says that we expect food safety regulations for importers to be comparable to our own. That’s reasonable.

SEC. 306. BUILDING CAPACITY OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS WITH RESPECT TO FOOD.

(a) In General- The Secretary shall, not later than 2 years of the date of enactment of this Act, develop a comprehensive plan to expand the technical, scientific, and regulatory capacity of foreign governments, and their respective food industries, from which foods are exported to the United States.

(b) Consultation- In developing the plan under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult with the Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, the United States Trade Representative, and the Secretary of Commerce, representatives of the food industry, appropriate foreign government officials, nongovernmental organizations that represent the interests of consumers, and other stakeholders."
This section says that we will encourage or actively help importing countries to improve their food safety.


"‘SEC. 808. INSPECTION OF FOREIGN FOOD FACILITIES.

‘(a) Inspection- The Secretary--

‘(1) may enter into arrangements and agreements with foreign governments to facilitate the inspection of foreign facilities registered under section 415; and

‘(2) shall direct resources to inspections of foreign facilities, suppliers, and food types, especially such facilities, suppliers, and food types that present a high risk (as identified by the Secretary), to help ensure the safety and security of the food supply of the United States.

‘(b) Effect of Inability To Inspect- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, food shall be refused admission into the United States if it is from a foreign facility registered under section 415 of which the owner, operator, or agent in charge of the facility, or the government of the foreign country, refuses to permit entry of United States inspectors, upon request, to inspect such facility. For purposes of this subsection, such an owner, operator, or agent in charge shall be considered to have refused an inspection if such owner, operator, or agent in charge refuses such a request to inspect a facility more than 2 business days after such request is submitted.’."
This is very reasonable. It says that if a food importer agrees to comply with US import requirements, then the US has a right to verify compliance.


"SEC. 310. SMUGGLED FOOD.

(a) In General- Not later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Commissioner of Customs and Border Patrol, and the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, develop and implement a strategy to better identify smuggled food and prevent entry of such food into the United States.

(b) Notification to Homeland Security- Not later than 10 days after the Secretary identifies a smuggled food that the Secretary believes would cause serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals, the Secretary shall provide to the Secretary of Homeland Security a notification under section 417(k) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 350f(k)) describing the smuggled food and, if available, the names of the individuals or entities that attempted to import such food into the United States.

(c) Public Notification- If the Secretary--

(1) identifies a smuggled food;

(2) reasonably believes exposure to the food would cause serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals; and

(3) reasonably believes that the food has entered domestic commerce and is likely to be consumed,

the Secretary shall promptly issue a press release describing that food and shall use other emergency communication or recall networks, as appropriate, to warn consumers and vendors about the potential threat.

(d) Definition- In this subsection, the term ‘smuggled food’ means any food that a person introduces into the United States through fraudulent means or with the intent to defraud or mislead."
Look at the definition of “smuggled food” and you’ll see that this section makes sense.


"SEC. 404. COMPLIANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS.

Nothing in this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) shall be construed in a manner inconsistent with the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization or any other treaty or international agreement to which the United States is a party."
This says that prior international agreements will take precedence – we won’t violate prior agreements in the process of enforcing these new regulations.

This is extremely vague. Provide sufficient flexibility? Who will determine if it is 'sufficient?' What exactly is 'flexibility?' Excessive bail is illegal, yet a friend had his bail set at $500K for a single, small time drug transaction. I don't have the time or motivation to discuss the rest of the bill, but this is bureaucratic nonsense. Small business will be strangled by red tape. Corporations will bite the bullet, or rather the beesting, until their small competitors start losing from uncontrollable regulation. Look at the Federal Reserve. They make their own rules. Look how that's working.