Friday, June 19, 2009

Say it's not true?!?!?

They are recalling Toll house cookie dough! Another probable case of e-coli contamination...

Perhaps anouther reason to push HR 875, Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009? (anouther person's take.)

WE NEED SAFE COOKIE DOUGH! But the law will impact small producers and small farmers, and Nestle will hardly make a change. But you know, never let a good crisis go unacted on. As parents are worried about their children's cookie dough why not regulate all our food at the same time?

I have an idea about the new Food Saftey Administration, let us exempt food which is produced and distributes within the boundaries of one state? Let Ohio figure out what they want to do...

(I know, that is very Federalist of me...)

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hi Heather,

The bill would not affect food sold inside the state. That is only a rumor. Because of the inter-state commerce act, this bill could not affect food grown and sold in a single state. So the Federalist in you is safe!
There is a good site that explains the bill. http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/food/foodsafety/background-on-h-r-875

Kim Alexander

Anonymous said...

You know, it's funny. My friends and I were just discussing the recall and I zipped over here to make sure I was getting the number of the Resolution right (I wasn’t; I wanted to say “825” for some reason) because it’s absurd that Nestle and Peter Pan do these things and it’s the small farmers getting hit in the pocketbook because big corporations can’t police their own kitchens worth a damn. Ticks me off no end.

--K

CSA Farmer Girl said...

Kim,

If only i believed that. A 80 year history of supereme court cases has defined "interstate commerce" beyond what most people would think it means.

There was a case where something was determined to fall under this clause because a farmers product (flour I think) was used in a product which was later shipped over state lines. There was a second case where some farmers product was determined to meet because it PREVENTED the sale of items shipped over state lines.

I cannot find the cases, and I am an architect and farmer, not a lawyer of constitutional expert, so it is possible I am wrong...

Anonymous said...

A relevant case is Wickard v. Filburn. The Supreme Court determined that a farmer could be penalized for growing wheat on his own land for his own consumption without government authorization. Roscoe Filburn farmed in Montgomery County, Ohio.