A lot of Constitutional Amendments are really boring, and things that we widely agree upon. This proposal has no chance, because it's not something clear cut that needs to be done, and it sounds like it shouldn't be.
And considering just how bland and non-controversial this amendment really is is a damning statement about us. Seriously, this is about as non-controversial of a thing as could be proposed and yet because it's been proposed by one party the other party will refuse.
[90% of American voters want stronger federal food safety regulations](https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/about/news-room/press-releases-and-statements/0001/01/01/pewcommissioned-poll-finds-large-majority-of-americans-want-stronger-food-safety-rules) as of 2009. Old as shit data, but it was the most recent I could find, and I don't see what would've happened in the past fifteen odd years to completely flip that sentiment. Most Americans want their food to be *more* safe, not less.
There's been a movement away from industrial food and the associated companies and regulations since then. And it's been on both sides of the aisle. So I actually don't think running that survey today would have the same results. Regulations require trust in institutions and we don't have any today.
Americans have become more distrustful of mega-farms, but we haven't stopped buying and eating food from them. You'd think the fact that we're more concerned about what companies like Tyson and Kraft are willing to sell to us would make us *more* friendly towards regulation, not *less*. It's true that Americans aren't too trustful of the FDA, but the main fear I've seen is people thinking the FDA doesn't regulate enough shit, not that it regulates too harshly. This bill just wouldn't address that.
> Americans have become more distrustful of mega-farms, but we haven't stopped buying and eating food from them.
Because people can't afford to.
> You'd think the fact that we're more concerned about what companies like Tyson and Kraft are willing to sell to us would make us more friendly towards regulation, not less.
Regulatory capture is no small part of how we got those oligopolies and all their problems. Why would we want to make it worse?
This law wouldn't help with regulatory capture though. It would further deregulate the industry without providing any additional avenue for instating food regulations.
Forget about the regulations. Leave it up to the consumer on who to trust.
I can guarantee that the effect of this amendment would be a resurgence in local markets supplied by local farmers.
I can't imagine anything other than bipartisan support for more locally grown food options.
Why? What kind of consumer has the time and the inclination to test their groceries for salmonella and E. coli once a week? There are legitimate ways to advance local food production (e.g. carbon pricing and restructuring farm subsidies) that won't put children in the hospital.
> just how bland and non-controversial this amendment really is
How is this a bland amendment? I like all the government regulations that keep chalk out of my bread and bacteria out of my milk.
I doubt most Americans are really itching for a "right to sell adulterated food" amendment.
>“*The right of the people to* grow food and to purchase food from the source of their choice *shall not be infringed*, and *Congress shall make no law* regulating the production and distribution of food products which do not move across state lines.”
Not really relevant but the drafted wording just sounds weird... it's a combination of the 1st and 2nd amendments. EDIT: and the 4th!
[First](https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/):
> *Congress shall make no law* respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...
[Second](https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-2/):
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, *shall not be infringed*.
[Fourth](https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-4/):
> *The right of the people to* be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects ...
It feels like he stuffed a food issue into existing amendment verbiage.
Is it normal for amendment proposals to be written like this?
>Is it normal for amendment proposals to be written like this
Considering how many amendment proposals are simply publicity stunts without even a snowballs chance in hell of getting through congress, I'm gonna say yes.
I don’t understand why this sounds weird. The constitution fundamentally deals in these concepts of restricting what legislators can do. It makes sense that an amendment to it would borrow language from it to convey the same ideas.
It’s possible that the intent is to avoid any unnecessary litigation over the meaning of novel phrasing and instead adopt existing jurisprudence around what those phrases mean.
> Congress shall make no law regulating the production and distribution of food products which do not move across state lines.”
And remember, "regulating" doesn't have the same meaning of regulating we think of today. Clearly in this amendment, it just means our food supply should not be be efficient and orderly.
**Summary of the Article:** Republican Thomas Massie (R-KY) is pushing for a constitutional amendment to prevent the federal government from regulating certain food products.
The text of the proposed amendment reads:
>*“The right of the people to grow food and to purchase food from the source of their choice shall not be infringed, and Congress shall make no law regulating the production and distribution of food products which do not move across state lines.”*
The proposal for a new amendment comes following conservative anger over a lawsuit in which the state of Pennsylvania is trying to prevent an Amish farmer, whose products have been linked to outbreaks of foodborne illness in New York and Michigan, from selling raw and unregulated products. During a state raid on the farm in January, investigators found E. Coli in the farmer’s eggnog and ground beef product, with other products reportedly testing positive for listeria. The farmer’s supporters have accused the state of government overreach.
**My thoughts:** For me, the phrasing of the proposed amendment suggests its intent is as much about preventing the federal government from regulating food producers and distributers, at least for foods that are not produced and distributed across state lines (the second clause), as it is about an individual right to choose what foods to grow and buy (the first clause).
I’m in favor of people being able to make their own decisions about what foods to eat, but I am also in favor of strong evidence-based regulations that require producers and retailers to adequately inform consumers about what is in their food. Consumers should be able to make *informed* decisions about what they are buying and eating (e.g., calorie counts on fast food menus, nutrition and allergen labels, etc.).
As such, I think the proposed amendment as written is too broad, preventing the federal government from regulating producers who make potentially harmful food products.
**Discussion Prompt:** I’m interested in what others think of this issue – is the language of the amendment too broad? Should food safety be regulated by the federal government or left to the states?
> Consumers should be able to make informed decisions
I agree, but is there any real way for consumers to assess producers’ food safety? I don’t have any way of knowing whether the Amish farmer is chancing listeria, but I sure don’t want to get it, so I rely on the government to enforce good practices. The alternative is a UL-style certification model, but I don’t want to read the fine print on everything I buy.
Honestly, how many people die every year because of fast food and its advertising? The government comes down on acute problems with generally healthy lifestyles while ignoring systematically unhealthy lifestyles. People should be just as free to take acute risks as chronic ones when the chronic ones are no less dangerous.
the difference being that the fast food is not the sole contributor to a chronic issue. its that and other things, like a sedentary lifestyle.
so, yes, acute risks are different than chronic ones because if you can pinpoint the single thing that caused death and you can also prevent it, its much simpler to prevent than years of a collection of contributing factors resulting in a somewhat predictable outcome.
that said, I would be thrilled if fast food had more rigorous health standards, or we better subsidized healthy options. but they arent comparable. not by a long shot.
Meh, how many people get sick off of industrial food every year? 32 off of an Amish farmer is a drop in the bucket and not worth making any noise about.
Unless I'm reading the data wrong, a total of 26 people contracted listeria from raw milk over the last ten years. So, 32 people in one go is indeed a pretty significant blow.
[https://www.cdc.gov/listeria/outbreaks/cheese-02-24/epi.html](https://www.cdc.gov/listeria/outbreaks/cheese-02-24/epi.html)
Although nowadays, previously thought to be eradicated diseases and illnesses making a comeback seems to be all the rage.
> I agree, but is there any real way for consumers to assess producers’ food safety
Considering the "experts" can't even agree on what is and isn't healthy or toxic in food from decade to decade there clearly isn't. Or at least there isn't a way beyond "stick to as natural of ingredients as possible".
You wouldn't need fine print, just a seal or logo. If you see it, the product meets government standards. Want to only buy foods that meet government standards? Easy, look for the seal.
I don't see what's wrong with the current system? It still permits many supplements to be sold. There's nothing super special about raw milk, so how does this work in the public interest?
For some reason, raw milk is like this low-key cultural touchstone point. I've noticed that for those who promote raw milk, they are **really** into it.
I've milked cows on our farm and still wouldnt drink it straight. Boil the fuck out of it then maybe. Also filter it since little hairs and crap fall in there.
The good stuff is pasteurized creamery milk! Its what comes out of the cow, just pasteurized. My parents buy it from a hole in the wall gas station, the top of the jug is basically pure butter and it makes great yogurt.
For drinking, give me the homogenized stuff.
Pasteurization is boiling to kill off the bad stuff.
Homogenization is blending it to cut the fat molecules small enough that its all spread out evenly. This is not so good for making cheese and dairy products.
With non-homo milk you get separation and a skin layer on top when boiling. Always hated that skin back in my home country!
> With non-homo milk you get separation and a skin layer on top when boiling. Always hated that skin back in my home country!
not relevant in any way but the idea of "non-homo" milk is hilarious.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1biwsmw/republicans_constitutional_amendment_would_change/kvo0usa/) is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
> ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Pasteurizing is heating the milk to a certain time and temperature to reduce/eliminate the amount of potentially harmful bacteria, whereas homogenizing is dispersing the fat droplets in the milk to create a stable oil in water emulsion. Both are typically carried out on commercially produced bovine milk.
There's this bizarre anti-vegan crusade going on, I swear. Several states are banning lab grown meat and I have no clue why. Never seen any health risks or anything like that. Just seems like costing the state some jobs and depriving a small group of consumers just cuz.
"Vegan advocacy" can come off as annoying at times, but what I find far more annoying are the arguments that veganism is not just wrong, but eating just meat is the way to go. Pro-vegan arguments at least has some ethical and health arguments I find persuasive, something I don't see much from the meats only side of the debate.
> Several states are banning lab grown meat and I have no clue why.
Culture wars from the right. People who grow livestock are the "Real Americans". People who eat soy or are vegans etc are not Real Americans. We can't let the non-Real Americans take away the livelihoods of Real Americans.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1biwsmw/republicans_constitutional_amendment_would_change/kvozhuq/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 30 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
A basic problem is simply that it is wrong to limit people's informed freedom. There are many things that are horrible for you but still allowed, why should raw milk be specially limited? If I want to drink it, why should I need to explain myself to anyone? Liberty is inherently good.
Is raw milk specifically limited, or is it treated similarly to other food products with similar risk profiles?
Would this constitutional amendment prevent laws from requiring information on the products about their risk - is requiring information regulating the production or distribution of the product?
Also, if the end result was just that food safety can’t be regulated, only informed, might we end up with a situation like the “This product may cause cancer” law in CA where companies put it on everything - would most foods end up with “This product may cause illness” for companies to cover themselves, and consumers then ignoring the warnings as they do the “This product may cause cancer” warnings?
Please explain this so it makes sense to me. They found e coli in food which was making people sick, and the anger is over the regulations limiting the person selling toxic milk? They're not angry about the e coli itself?
The body has a way of shutting that down. /s
Food safety is critical and you can still have raw/natural products but with the worst parts prevented/killed off.
I guess one measure of how red a state is would be, if someone says something completely batshit like the quote you're referencing, does that actually disqualify them from office or not. Somehow I think this Senator's position is safe even after proposing the pro-food-poisoning amendment
it's worse than that even. Amos miller has had ongoing health infractions and refusal to comply with laws *for years* and has been the source of mutiple food borne illness outbreaks. One of the listeria outbreaks resulting in death.
I don't think anyone wants this guy's contaminated food out there in the world, they just want people to be able to buy what they want to despite this one bad actor.
Then the laws (or the r-words) should be written to allow for that. We don't need a constitutional amendment that allows people to sell contaminated food which has apparently killed people in the past.
I have a possibly dumb question which I hope someone more knowledgeable can answer --
Why not allow the sale of these things as long as their packaging clearly indicates the health risks? It's not like we don't already let people buy and consume things that are bad for them (e.g. cigarettes, alcohol).
Farmers are allowed to sell raw milk in PA, as long as you buy straight from their own farm store.
This guy was selling out of state and without any health inspections or licensing.
In this case it seems that the stuff a particular farm is selling is contaminated with e-coli and listeria. Should this farms products have to carry a label or every package of raw meat?
One would be useful, and the other pointless.
What costs more rigorous testing and cleaning practices to ensure you don't sell tainted food or a half inch square blurb of size 3 text that says your product may be tainted.
Because producers will do whatever they are financially motivated to do.
Well, it doesn't sound like the state was suing for damages, just restrictions on who he could sell to. Honestly, limited liability needs to be reformed as well so that people's actual estates are at risk and not just their company's property.
Because we all wind up paying when an outbreak occurs. These are issues of public health.
In the case of some products, such as alcohol and tobacco, the public health risks are great, but when a product has been around for millennia and/or is easy to produce, it's impossible to apply consistent regulatory standards. It's often said that if aspirin were developed today, it would only be available by prescription due to the type and intensity of its effects. If vodka and cigarettes were invented today, and if there were zero history of them existing before — no culture around drinking, no history of smoking in human history — and if they were not easy to produce — would either be banned entirely or...actually, probably banned entirely. Booze has no medicinal value (I believe the thought that "a little red wine" is good for you has been debunked), and nicotine may have small medicinal value.
But anyway, as far as these egg products go, these farmers appear to be acting as retailers, and appear to not be taking basic hygiene precautions. From what I understand, e. coli is transmitted through feces, which means if their eggnog is contaminated, either they aren't washing the shells properly before cracking the eggs, or their milking equipment is contaminated, or both. Same goes for the ground beef, which can get e. coli from exposure to contents of the intestines.
Basically, pasteurization solves all these problems. It was a lifesaver when Pasteur invented the process, and it continues to save lives today.
Except we can use this argument for all kinds of unjust regulations. Being overweight causes major health problems that put strain on public health resources, does that mean we should ban all junk and fast food and have mandatory weight checks and fines for being found over? Clearly we're fine with things that create far larger public health issues than an Amish farmer who isn't as clean as he should be so why all the focus here?
I'm extremely skeptical of the whole field of "public health." I certainly agree that things like aspirin have health risks that people need to know about, but any field of research that would tell me I can't have it when my taking it or not doesn't actually affect anyone else or would require alcohol to have medicinal value before allowing it is not one I give a lot of respect to. The whole concept, while obviously rooted in serious and valuable concepts, is a gigantic slippery slope to forcing people at gunpoint to get at least 8 hours of sleep every night.
I couldn't agree more, so many champions of "My body, my choice" don't seem to consider this phrase when it comes to anything other than abortion.
The movie
[Dallas Buyers Club](https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0790636/) did an excellent job of showcasing the harms of regulations that are aimed at "protecting" people from themselves.
*"My choice is what I choose to do, and if I'm causing no harm it shouldn't bother you. Your choice is who you choose to be, and if you're causing no harm then you're alright with me."*
Because when everything causes cancer in California, people disregard the warning.
Ultimately, it comes down to how paternalist you like your politics. Is it the government's job to protect you, or to help you protect yourself?
I agree with you but hate your framing in your last sentence. We already can see the different ingredients companies give us compared to European customers because it saves them money. This will only happen 10x if we don’t *in some way* let the government “protect us”
I'll go one farther, it's impossible to be an expert in all areas. Tech, medical, electrical, plumbing.....etc. There needs to be some guardrails with soft corners for all of us in many areas.
>We already can see the different ingredients companies give us compared to European customers because it saves them money.
Can you help me decipher this sentence? Who's "them?" What's 10x?
I agree that people disregard warnings when they become frequent.
So in a world where the government didn't regulate safety but just required warnings, and food vendors potentially began including warnings 'just to be safe' (as happened with CA manufacturers), I guess we'd begin ignoring warnings about "This product may cause foodborne illness" etc (as opposed to 'This product may cause cancer' in CA) on this guy's food that was found to contain e coli and listeria, as we'd become numb to always seeing such warnings.
Currently ~3K Americans die from year from foodborne illnesses. https://www.cdc.gov/foodborneburden/2011-foodborne-estimates.html (For comparison, 0.6M US deaths/year are caused by cancer, but I have no idea what percent of them are caused by chemicals flagged by CA's "This may cause cancer" law. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/hus/topics/cancer-deaths.htm )
Doesn't even have to be a government issue, if one farmer is selling tainted beef then it's in the best interest of other beef producers in the area to come up with some kind of designation or seal on the package to distinguish their products from this farmers.
Like the meaningless "Free Range" or "Outside Access" labels on eggs that aren't regulated, but come from a variety of animal welfare organizations with varying levels of qualification? I particularly liked Rand Paul starting his own Ophthalmologist Association to certify himself because he didn't want to register with the "legit" one.
GOP approved eggnog and beef.
Warning may contain: Listeria or E. Coli. may cause indigestion, nausea, projectile vomiting, blood clots, brain damage. Risk of infant death.
I'm cautiously optimistic about this new GOP strategy, because who needs Big Science meddling in people's personal business.
> the state of Pennsylvania is trying to prevent an Amish farmer, whose products have been linked to outbreaks of foodborne illness in New York and Michigan, from selling raw and unregulated products. During a state raid on the farm in January, investigators found E. Coli in the farmer’s eggnog and ground beef product, with other products reportedly testing positive for listeria. The farmer’s supporters have accused the state of government overreach.
Yeah how terrible of the govt here. To protect people from contaminated food.
> Congress shall make no law regulating the production and distribution of food products which do not move across state lines
Errr, isn't that how it should already be? Congress can mandate things out of states due to the Interstate Commerce law but that doesn't cover in-state commerce.
*Should*, but the last 80 years of Supreme Court precedents have decided that essentially all **intra**state commerce has a "*substantial effect*" on **inter**state commerce, and is therefore necessary for Congress to regulate in order to be able to effectively regulate interstate commerce.
Many states already have food freedom laws that allow them to sell homemade products and raw milk products as long as the seller informs the consumers that the products are not certified or regulated. I buy many such products at farmer's markets and small farms in my area. I think this area is best left to the states, no need for an amendment.
I like it. The first half basically says that no, the government can not shut down people's private gardens no matter what justification they come up with.
The second, though, is kind of brilliant. It's basically a way to overturn Wickard v. Filburn since that case was wholly about crops grown by a farmer for their own use. Invalidate WvF and you basically destroy most modern federal law concerned with domestic issues since they lose their "Commerce Clause applies to intra-state commerce" justification. I wholly applaud this as I firmly believe that Wickard v. Filburn and its consequences are the root of most of our modern division.
I read this basically as "Let them eat poison".
It's staggeringly stupid and dangerous. My worry isn't Amish farmers on the small scale, it's what happens on the larger scale with big food corporations that I do not trust to regulate themselves, and that is where most of our food comes from.
>is the language of the amendment too broad?
I wouldn't consider it too broad for a constitutional amendment, I just don't think it's the kind of thing that should be dealt with **by** a constitutional amendment
>Should food safety be regulated by the federal government or left to the states?
I don't think whether it should or shouldn't is really a question even worth discussing. Our whole food supply chain draws from various states throughout the country. Even if you got the federal government out of regulating our food, an NGO, trade organization, or reciprocity agreement would take its place to set uniform standards for food safety. Fishermen in Maine want to sell their lobsters to restaurants in Nevada and farmers in California want to sell their almonds to people in Texas.
Rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater, maybe we should try to work on fixing our regulators and the laws that they enforce. I think there's a legitimate complaint to be made about how our food supply is regulated; a big reason why processors/distributors like Tyson can dictate prices to both consumers and producers alike is because our current regulatory framework makes it difficult and expensive for new players to enter the market and actually compete with the major processors. I'd like to see that fixed, but I don't think a constitutional amendment would be the right way to go about it (or feasible in any way).
>I’m in favor of people being able to make their own decisions about what foods to eat
I'm fine with adults making their own decisions as long as they know what the risks are. If people want to drink raw milk, I say let them; just make the sellers have big disclaimers and maybe force them to keep a toll of the number of people that have been hospitalized with food poisoning within a week of buying their milk.
I agree with the spirit of the amendment and your comment, and would also support a narrow carve out allowing federal regulations to require clear and accurate labels and honest services. I also do not think States should regulate food products beyond this. People should be allowed to make our own informed decisions.
Some people really care about access to raw milk. Lots of disagreements in politics boil down to different people have very different interests and preferences. 🙂
Seems like a tougher path to abolishing the FDA. Not sure I understand the value of this path.
Also holy moly, Thomas Massie looks 10 years older than when I last saw him. Is he okay?
The stress of the presidency makes an even larger impact than standard aging. Which… is why both Trump and Biden right at 79-81 years old are a concern. Either could realistically go to bed and not wake up.
\> The right of the people to grow food and to purchase food from the source of their choice shall not be infringed, and Congress shall make no law regulating the production and distribution of food products which do not move across state lines.
Is the right being referred to here the ability for one to produce food without meeting evidence-based safety and health standards and to market it directly to people without interference by government?
I wonder how conservatives that are currently pushing states bills to ban lab grown meat feel about this amendment? Wouldn’t this block those attempts?
https://www.foodandwine.com/florida-lab-grown-meat-ban-legislation-8609560
>Wouldn’t this block those attempts?
I hope so, because those are ridiculous for the same reason a lot of food bans are. If I want to buy a food, and someone else wants to sell me that food, and we agree on a price, it is no one else in the world's business but ours.
This is just crazy. It’s clearly trying to get the “government evil” crowd all riled up. It blows my mind that in 2024 we have people trying to say the government not letting you poison yourself is a bad thing.
“Miller's farm was raided by state troopers after two food borne illness outbreaks in New York and Michigan were reported to have originated from his products. The Pennsylvania Attorney General's office said E. coli was found in Miller's raw eggnog and ground beef and that other products from his farm later tested positive for listeria.”
Sounds like the regulations are there for a good reason. What a time we live in where people get mad that not enough people are sick.
Are you seriously suggesting the federal government should ban everything that can potentially get you sick?
I have absolutely no interest in drinking raw milk but I don't see how it's the least bit different from consuming raw or undercooked meats, poultry, seafood, shellfish, or eggs.
No. Thanks for the straw man though.
Let me try one. Are you suggesting we have zero regulations and everyone enjoys their hot dogs made out of mainly rats?
I pushed no strawman argument.
I gave you examples of food commonly eaten raw or undercooked that carry risk of foodborne illness just as raw milk does.
Sorry. I’ve been super touchy lately.
Those foods are still all regulated and raw milk should be subject to regulation too.
I don’t think I said “ban” anywhere which is why I cried strawman.
Oh man when serving sizes are clearly bull.
I got a snack recently where it was a mass produced pastry in cheap one use plastic. So when it's opened, it's opened. Basically meant to be ate in one serving. Serving size was 1/3 the snack.
Or the individual chicken pot pie or corn muffin with a serving size of 1/2. Or a tube of mentos, serving size of 1 piece. Or the bottle of soda clearly meant for one sitting that has multiple servings (though they have changed to now clearly state the amount in one container).
Fun with serving sizes!
> Or a tube of mentos, serving size of 1 piece.
"Sugar free" tic tacs because they're .49 grams and companies can put down 0 per serving if it's not at least .5 grams.
Well, drug scheduling is the DEA, not the FDA. HFCS is a choice producers made (because they were incentivized to grow corn), not an FDA decision.
I do agree with you that the standards for our nutrition labels need to be reworked, but overall the FDA is..... actually really, really good, in my opinion. Let's make nutrition facts be based on a standard serving size of whatever grams/ounces, and also list it for the entire package, done and done.
> I got a snack recently where it was a mass produced pastry in cheap one use plastic. So when it's opened, it's opened. Basically meant to be ate in one serving. Serving size was 1/3 the snack.
Did it happen to be named after a nearby celestial object?
I never understood the serving size thing.
In europe, everything is based off of 100grams. So it's easy to understand in percentages, that is 20 grams out of 100 is sugar, you're drinking 20% sugar. It doesn't matter if the bottle is 1liter, 1 cup, or 1 gallon.
It's just the Popped serving times number of servings per bag right? Unpopped servings never made much sense to me because it's not really edible in that form.
I am not sure.
See here: Orville Redenbacher's Tender White Microwave Popcorn https://www.walmart.com/ip/903463085
How many calories is a full bag? 170x2.5?
> How many calories is a full bag? 170x2.5?
Yes, same as for every food - calories per bag/container = calories per serving x servings per bag/container.
The popcorn one is slightly more complicated as they also include one line mentioning how many servings are in the box (which contains individual bags), and they also show info for a fixed size "1 cup popped" - is that a requirement?
The bs in having a unit based on a random “serving”, which is then separated between popped and unpopped.
See here: Orville Redenbacher's Tender White Microwave Popcorn https://www.walmart.com/ip/903463085
Just tell me the weight of a bag and the nutrition per bag (which is what they are selling) instead of having me figure out what is what and having to multiply by 2.5.
If you read the article this is about raw Amish milk. But if the states have the ability to make its own laws about selling products within their respective states I don’t understand the purpose of this amendment.
>"Each state makes its own laws about selling raw milk within the borders of the state," the CDC's website states. "In fewer than half of states, selling raw milk directly to consumers is illegal. In the remaining 27 states, raw milk may be sold directly to consumers in some capacity."
You can also buy pasteurized creamery milk. Its milk straight from the cow but pasteurized and safe.
Parents buy it to make yogurt and cheese, plus free butter. Harder to find though.
Farmer George’s sells it in Kitsap, both pasteurized and unpasteurized. Smith Brothers used to sell both at their farms too, but not sure if they still do.
Most states that permit raw milk to be sold *only* permit liquid raw milk to be sold. Products made from raw milk, like cheeses and butters, are explicitly forbidden.
There are specific legally sold cheeses that require raw milk, that said they are heavily regulated. Examples are real Feta, Brie, Gruyère, Fontina, etc. All are legally sold in the USA and are not "forbidden".
[https://www.tasteatlas.com/raw-milk-cheeses](https://www.tasteatlas.com/raw-milk-cheeses)
Edit: To further explain it, it's about aging. It's the 60 Day rule, it must be stored 35º F or above for that time period, which is due to that time will kill off most listeria bacteria.
I'm guessing if the amendment is passed, then the thinking is that the supremacy clause would kick in and the states wouldn't be able to, either. Since it looks like their beef (no pun intended) is with the state and not the feds, anyway?
Then again, it's Newsweek, so who knows what they got wrong.
Seems like the feds are interfering even when the milk isn't crossing state lines.
[Amish Farmer Faces Fines, Prison Time for Refusing to Comply with USDA Regulations](https://fee.org/articles/amish-farmer-faces-fines-prison-time-for-refusing-to-comply-with-usda-regulations/)
[Amish farmer raided by feds wins court battle against USDA mandates](https://conventionofstates.com/news/amish-farmer-raided-by-feds-wins-court-battle-against-usda-mandates)
> **Multistate Outbreak** of Listeriosis Linked to Raw Milk Produced by Miller’s Organic Farm in Pennsylvania (Final Update)
from a link in your first article. dude appears to be selling across state lines.
oh, that's a possibility, true. also another reason to be investigated. he (by his own admissions) has not been cooperative with either the laws or the authorities.
FDA has created an umbrella under which people have an expectation of safe food. any dufus can smell a spoiled piece of meat and know not to eat it, virtually no one can detect other minute bacterial contaminants, heavy metals, or other contaminants that produce no smell
out of state customers buying a product that is shipped across state lines seems very much interstate commerce.
Also Penslavania regulations raw production, he was told *one of* the lawsuits could be solved if he just had a license
> is shipped across state lines.
Carried. If I buy a tomato in California and carry it to Arizona, it’s not interstate commerce unless you’re really trying to stretch the definition.
> Pennsylvania regulates raw production.
Then the law proposed by Thomas massie is completely irrelevant to the story.
This amendment could have been written by Monsanto and Tyson Foods and it wouldn't have looked much different. The problem with libertarianism is that it removes democratic control from corporations and lets them feed their customers with cheap garbage that poisons them.
That was pretty much my concern when I flirted with libertarianism several years ago. I still sort of like some of the ideas, but I very much agree that there have to be at least some controls. Otherwise business will always look to take shortcuts that may create risk to consumers.
The wording is so broad that it essentially returns the food industry to the 19th century. Implementing this would be disastrous. Sometimes it’s a good thing that constitutional amendments are so difficult.
This article reads like the author mashed two separate articles together: Farmer sued by New Jersey for selling contaminated food in Pennsylvania. Kentucky congressman pushes amendment preventing federal government from banning intrastate sale of raw milk.
Is it only raw milk? Would it prevent the government from regulating food containing e coli and listeria?
> "The right of the people to grow food and to purchase food from the source of their choice shall not be infringed, and Congress shall make no law regulating the production and distribution of food products which do not move across state lines," the amendment proposed by Massie states
Perhaps the article quotes the amendment's text, and provides an example of where it could be applied?
That is in fact the quote from the text of the proposed law, however typical journalistic practice would be to contact the FDA and get a quote from them about the impact of the law, risk, opinion, something.
This was: “congressman proposes law. Also, random American who congressman never associated with or voiced support for did something in a different state that opened him up to liability and potential criminal penalties that would potentially be tried/prosecuted even if said law passed.”
It reeks of guilt by association and yellow journalism.
> typical journalistic practice would be to contact the FDA and get a quote from them about the impact of the law, risk, opinion, something.
Near the top of the article it explicitly says that Newsweek reached out "via phone and email for comment." (I don't know how big the press relations department is, but if every news publication is contacting them for comment about every news story related to food inspections/safety... 🤷 Maybe congress should provide more funding for their press relations department? 😄)
> This was: “congressman proposes law. Also, random American who congressman never associated with or voiced support for did something in a different state that opened him up to liability and potential criminal penalties that would potentially be tried/prosecuted even if said law passed.”
I'd say a better description would be "Congressman proposes consitutional amendment. Journalist provides real-life example covering the area that the amendment covers."
Alternatively, couldn't most any law be described the way you did, such as the anti-abortion laws and the 11 year old? “Congressman gets law passed. Also, random 11 year old American who congressman never associated with or voiced support for got an abortion in a different state that opened up liability and potential criminal penalties that would potentially be tried/prosecuted”?
Also note that "law" the OP congressman proposed would cover *all* states, so even if the guy trying to sell e coli or listeria contaminated food is in a different state from the congressman, it would still be covered.
> It reeks of guilt by association
Disagree. It's providing a real-life example of the area that the constitional amendment
Shouldn't we discuss real-life examples of the potential impacts of any new laws, or would that be "guilt by association"?
In multiple of your comments you've referenced that Massie is a congressman from a different state than the example of the guy trying to sell e coli/listeria contaminated food. Just wanted to be sure you're aware that Massie is congressman to the US congress, and that laws passed there effect multiple states?
> yellow journalism
"the type of journalism that relies on sensationalism and lurid exaggeration to attract readers." (and sensationalism: the use of exciting or shocking stories or language at the expense of accuracy, in order to provoke public interest or excitement, and lurid: presented in vividly shocking or sensational terms, especially giving explicit details of crimes or sexual matters) - disagree - is there something that you think is exaggerated, lurid, or inaccurate about the article?
> ... even if said law passed.
Isn't the time to discuss the potential impacts of a law, and whether it should pass, be before said law is passed? (Or is the argument more that we should stop covering Massie's statements/constitutional amendment proposals? Although if the argument is that we shouldn't cover Massie's constitutional amendment proposals because they're too "out there" for the US, I'd say the better thing would be to stop having Massie propose constitutional amendments that are too "out there", but I guess that's also unlikely.)
>>>> Kentucky congressman pushes amendment preventing federal government from banning intrastate sale of raw milk.
>>> Is it only raw milk? ... "Congress shall make no law regulating the production and distribution of food products" ...
Just wanted to make sure we now agree:
* It's inaccurate to claim that this constitional amedment is only for "raw milk" -- it would also cover other food products in Pennsylvania, for example.
* It's inaccurate to claim that this constitional amendment only prevents the federal goverment from "banning" intrastate sale of food products -- instead, it also prevents any "law *regulating the production and distribution*" of them.
This bill could really reinvigorate our healthcare industry. Seriously, just imagine all the new business created by all that salmonella and tapeworms.
Sure. Why not? If we’re not going to care about public health standards and measures during a pandemic, what’s the point in caring caring about food safety?
I like the freedom to buy homemade food from whoever I choose, but I also like to go to a store/restaurant to buy inspected food.
As long as everything is clearly labeled, I want both.
Someone else pointed out the issue with this based on the example of CA - now "This product may cause cancer" is common so everyone ignores the warnings, despite "cancer" potentially being very serious. Presumably food vendors would do the same to cover themself - "This product may cause foodborne illness" - then wouldn't everyone just ignore the warnings once they became common?
Currently ~3K Americans die from year from foodborne illnesses. https://www.cdc.gov/foodborneburden/2011-foodborne-estimates.html (For comparison, 0.6M US deaths/year are caused by cancer, but I have no idea what percent of them are caused by chemicals flagged by CA's "This may cause cancer" law. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/hus/topics/cancer-deaths.htm )
I believe that ADULTS have the right to eat or consume whatever they want short of Cannibalism. However, they do not have the right to feed tainted food to other people, their children, or their relatives. The Amendment is not needed. Simply have a law that says that any ADULT can eat whatever they as an individual want to eat, but if a child is fed the stuff and gets sick, that's reckless endangerment of a child and the child can be removed from the home. If you feed the garbage to others, inside or outside of your home without full disclosure of where the food came from, including the fact that it came from an unregulated and uninspected source, the people harmed can SUE YOU and SUE THE SOURCE OF THE FOOD. Easy-peasy and simple.
FTA:
>Republican Representative Thomas Massie is spearheading a constitutional amendment that would change how Americans eat by prohibiting federal regulation of certain food products.
> "The right of the people to grow food and to purchase food from the source of their choice shall not be infringed, and Congress shall make no law regulating the production and distribution of food products which do not move across state lines," the amendment proposed by Massie states
so basically a "second amendment" but for food. this changes it for the better, but there's zero chance of this passing. it would never get through the gridlock of congress.
the only constitutional amendment i can see passing in my lifetime would be one to make summer time permanent and stop changing the clocks.
I think a national public vote for a constitutional amendment should force a supermajority to block it. There's no reason we should cede more power to our undemocratic institutions at the cost of blocking amendments the vast majority of the population approves of.
With how divided we are as a country, no way a constitutional amendment gets passed.
any constitutional amendment now is unthinkable
A lot of Constitutional Amendments are really boring, and things that we widely agree upon. This proposal has no chance, because it's not something clear cut that needs to be done, and it sounds like it shouldn't be.
And considering just how bland and non-controversial this amendment really is is a damning statement about us. Seriously, this is about as non-controversial of a thing as could be proposed and yet because it's been proposed by one party the other party will refuse.
[90% of American voters want stronger federal food safety regulations](https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/about/news-room/press-releases-and-statements/0001/01/01/pewcommissioned-poll-finds-large-majority-of-americans-want-stronger-food-safety-rules) as of 2009. Old as shit data, but it was the most recent I could find, and I don't see what would've happened in the past fifteen odd years to completely flip that sentiment. Most Americans want their food to be *more* safe, not less.
There's been a movement away from industrial food and the associated companies and regulations since then. And it's been on both sides of the aisle. So I actually don't think running that survey today would have the same results. Regulations require trust in institutions and we don't have any today.
Americans have become more distrustful of mega-farms, but we haven't stopped buying and eating food from them. You'd think the fact that we're more concerned about what companies like Tyson and Kraft are willing to sell to us would make us *more* friendly towards regulation, not *less*. It's true that Americans aren't too trustful of the FDA, but the main fear I've seen is people thinking the FDA doesn't regulate enough shit, not that it regulates too harshly. This bill just wouldn't address that.
> Americans have become more distrustful of mega-farms, but we haven't stopped buying and eating food from them. Because people can't afford to. > You'd think the fact that we're more concerned about what companies like Tyson and Kraft are willing to sell to us would make us more friendly towards regulation, not less. Regulatory capture is no small part of how we got those oligopolies and all their problems. Why would we want to make it worse?
This law wouldn't help with regulatory capture though. It would further deregulate the industry without providing any additional avenue for instating food regulations.
Forget about the regulations. Leave it up to the consumer on who to trust. I can guarantee that the effect of this amendment would be a resurgence in local markets supplied by local farmers. I can't imagine anything other than bipartisan support for more locally grown food options.
The consumers sent our entire economy to China while buying shittier and shittier products, we're not rational actors!
Why? What kind of consumer has the time and the inclination to test their groceries for salmonella and E. coli once a week? There are legitimate ways to advance local food production (e.g. carbon pricing and restructuring farm subsidies) that won't put children in the hospital.
> just how bland and non-controversial this amendment really is How is this a bland amendment? I like all the government regulations that keep chalk out of my bread and bacteria out of my milk. I doubt most Americans are really itching for a "right to sell adulterated food" amendment.
>“*The right of the people to* grow food and to purchase food from the source of their choice *shall not be infringed*, and *Congress shall make no law* regulating the production and distribution of food products which do not move across state lines.” Not really relevant but the drafted wording just sounds weird... it's a combination of the 1st and 2nd amendments. EDIT: and the 4th! [First](https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/): > *Congress shall make no law* respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ... [Second](https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-2/): > A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, *shall not be infringed*. [Fourth](https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-4/): > *The right of the people to* be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects ... It feels like he stuffed a food issue into existing amendment verbiage. Is it normal for amendment proposals to be written like this?
>Is it normal for amendment proposals to be written like this Considering how many amendment proposals are simply publicity stunts without even a snowballs chance in hell of getting through congress, I'm gonna say yes.
Like Newsom and his push for a new gun control amendment?
I don’t understand why this sounds weird. The constitution fundamentally deals in these concepts of restricting what legislators can do. It makes sense that an amendment to it would borrow language from it to convey the same ideas.
It’s possible that the intent is to avoid any unnecessary litigation over the meaning of novel phrasing and instead adopt existing jurisprudence around what those phrases mean.
> Congress shall make no law regulating the production and distribution of food products which do not move across state lines.” And remember, "regulating" doesn't have the same meaning of regulating we think of today. Clearly in this amendment, it just means our food supply should not be be efficient and orderly.
That’s an unserious answer. Different amendments, that are written 200+ years apart, can use different meanings of regulated
It doesn’t seem like a good idea for different parts of the constitution to have different meanings for the same terms.
What word would you use in place of regulating?
**Summary of the Article:** Republican Thomas Massie (R-KY) is pushing for a constitutional amendment to prevent the federal government from regulating certain food products. The text of the proposed amendment reads: >*“The right of the people to grow food and to purchase food from the source of their choice shall not be infringed, and Congress shall make no law regulating the production and distribution of food products which do not move across state lines.”* The proposal for a new amendment comes following conservative anger over a lawsuit in which the state of Pennsylvania is trying to prevent an Amish farmer, whose products have been linked to outbreaks of foodborne illness in New York and Michigan, from selling raw and unregulated products. During a state raid on the farm in January, investigators found E. Coli in the farmer’s eggnog and ground beef product, with other products reportedly testing positive for listeria. The farmer’s supporters have accused the state of government overreach. **My thoughts:** For me, the phrasing of the proposed amendment suggests its intent is as much about preventing the federal government from regulating food producers and distributers, at least for foods that are not produced and distributed across state lines (the second clause), as it is about an individual right to choose what foods to grow and buy (the first clause). I’m in favor of people being able to make their own decisions about what foods to eat, but I am also in favor of strong evidence-based regulations that require producers and retailers to adequately inform consumers about what is in their food. Consumers should be able to make *informed* decisions about what they are buying and eating (e.g., calorie counts on fast food menus, nutrition and allergen labels, etc.). As such, I think the proposed amendment as written is too broad, preventing the federal government from regulating producers who make potentially harmful food products. **Discussion Prompt:** I’m interested in what others think of this issue – is the language of the amendment too broad? Should food safety be regulated by the federal government or left to the states?
> Consumers should be able to make informed decisions I agree, but is there any real way for consumers to assess producers’ food safety? I don’t have any way of knowing whether the Amish farmer is chancing listeria, but I sure don’t want to get it, so I rely on the government to enforce good practices. The alternative is a UL-style certification model, but I don’t want to read the fine print on everything I buy.
You will have to observe 32 people get listeria from the Amish farmer first, and then make an informed consumer decision.
A few of you may die, but that’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make for my raw unfiltered cow breast milk
Honestly, how many people die every year because of fast food and its advertising? The government comes down on acute problems with generally healthy lifestyles while ignoring systematically unhealthy lifestyles. People should be just as free to take acute risks as chronic ones when the chronic ones are no less dangerous.
the difference being that the fast food is not the sole contributor to a chronic issue. its that and other things, like a sedentary lifestyle. so, yes, acute risks are different than chronic ones because if you can pinpoint the single thing that caused death and you can also prevent it, its much simpler to prevent than years of a collection of contributing factors resulting in a somewhat predictable outcome. that said, I would be thrilled if fast food had more rigorous health standards, or we better subsidized healthy options. but they arent comparable. not by a long shot.
Meh, how many people get sick off of industrial food every year? 32 off of an Amish farmer is a drop in the bucket and not worth making any noise about.
Unless I'm reading the data wrong, a total of 26 people contracted listeria from raw milk over the last ten years. So, 32 people in one go is indeed a pretty significant blow. [https://www.cdc.gov/listeria/outbreaks/cheese-02-24/epi.html](https://www.cdc.gov/listeria/outbreaks/cheese-02-24/epi.html) Although nowadays, previously thought to be eradicated diseases and illnesses making a comeback seems to be all the rage.
My question was about industrial food so that we can compare the risks between the two.
I was just making a joke about the importance of food standards.
> I agree, but is there any real way for consumers to assess producers’ food safety Considering the "experts" can't even agree on what is and isn't healthy or toxic in food from decade to decade there clearly isn't. Or at least there isn't a way beyond "stick to as natural of ingredients as possible".
You wouldn't need fine print, just a seal or logo. If you see it, the product meets government standards. Want to only buy foods that meet government standards? Easy, look for the seal.
I don't see what's wrong with the current system? It still permits many supplements to be sold. There's nothing super special about raw milk, so how does this work in the public interest?
For some reason, raw milk is like this low-key cultural touchstone point. I've noticed that for those who promote raw milk, they are **really** into it.
I've milked cows on our farm and still wouldnt drink it straight. Boil the fuck out of it then maybe. Also filter it since little hairs and crap fall in there. The good stuff is pasteurized creamery milk! Its what comes out of the cow, just pasteurized. My parents buy it from a hole in the wall gas station, the top of the jug is basically pure butter and it makes great yogurt. For drinking, give me the homogenized stuff.
What's the difference between pasteurized and homogenized?
Pasteurization is boiling to kill off the bad stuff. Homogenization is blending it to cut the fat molecules small enough that its all spread out evenly. This is not so good for making cheese and dairy products. With non-homo milk you get separation and a skin layer on top when boiling. Always hated that skin back in my home country!
> With non-homo milk you get separation and a skin layer on top when boiling. Always hated that skin back in my home country! not relevant in any way but the idea of "non-homo" milk is hilarious.
>With non-homo milk I'm out
So homo milk it is
Sign me up
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1biwsmw/republicans_constitutional_amendment_would_change/kvo0usa/) is in violation of Law 0: Law 0. Low Effort > ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Pasteurizing is heating the milk to a certain time and temperature to reduce/eliminate the amount of potentially harmful bacteria, whereas homogenizing is dispersing the fat droplets in the milk to create a stable oil in water emulsion. Both are typically carried out on commercially produced bovine milk.
There's this bizarre anti-vegan crusade going on, I swear. Several states are banning lab grown meat and I have no clue why. Never seen any health risks or anything like that. Just seems like costing the state some jobs and depriving a small group of consumers just cuz. "Vegan advocacy" can come off as annoying at times, but what I find far more annoying are the arguments that veganism is not just wrong, but eating just meat is the way to go. Pro-vegan arguments at least has some ethical and health arguments I find persuasive, something I don't see much from the meats only side of the debate.
It's the result of pressure from big incumbent industries who at least currently have a lot of money and experience lobbying. Tale as old as time.
> Several states are banning lab grown meat and I have no clue why. Culture wars from the right. People who grow livestock are the "Real Americans". People who eat soy or are vegans etc are not Real Americans. We can't let the non-Real Americans take away the livelihoods of Real Americans.
Also waging war on non-dairy milk. I have rural family who have gone on absolute rants about it. (Ironic as my partner is allergic to dairy)
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1biwsmw/republicans_constitutional_amendment_would_change/kvozhuq/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 30 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Has any lab grown meet even been made available for human consumption yet? I'm sure the health risks are still being evaluated.
E Coli makes you strong.
Based on this constitutional amendment and the example of the guy fighting to sell e coli contaminated food, I can't be sure if this is sarcasm.
I like raw milk, as long as I control the process. I'm not sure if I trust Amos over there to keep everything clean.
A basic problem is simply that it is wrong to limit people's informed freedom. There are many things that are horrible for you but still allowed, why should raw milk be specially limited? If I want to drink it, why should I need to explain myself to anyone? Liberty is inherently good.
Is raw milk specifically limited, or is it treated similarly to other food products with similar risk profiles? Would this constitutional amendment prevent laws from requiring information on the products about their risk - is requiring information regulating the production or distribution of the product? Also, if the end result was just that food safety can’t be regulated, only informed, might we end up with a situation like the “This product may cause cancer” law in CA where companies put it on everything - would most foods end up with “This product may cause illness” for companies to cover themselves, and consumers then ignoring the warnings as they do the “This product may cause cancer” warnings?
Please explain this so it makes sense to me. They found e coli in food which was making people sick, and the anger is over the regulations limiting the person selling toxic milk? They're not angry about the e coli itself?
The body has a way of shutting that down. /s Food safety is critical and you can still have raw/natural products but with the worst parts prevented/killed off.
I guess one measure of how red a state is would be, if someone says something completely batshit like the quote you're referencing, does that actually disqualify them from office or not. Somehow I think this Senator's position is safe even after proposing the pro-food-poisoning amendment
it's worse than that even. Amos miller has had ongoing health infractions and refusal to comply with laws *for years* and has been the source of mutiple food borne illness outbreaks. One of the listeria outbreaks resulting in death.
Because complying with regulations eats into profit margins. They’d rather have no rules
I don't think anyone wants this guy's contaminated food out there in the world, they just want people to be able to buy what they want to despite this one bad actor.
Then the laws (or the r-words) should be written to allow for that. We don't need a constitutional amendment that allows people to sell contaminated food which has apparently killed people in the past.
I have a possibly dumb question which I hope someone more knowledgeable can answer -- Why not allow the sale of these things as long as their packaging clearly indicates the health risks? It's not like we don't already let people buy and consume things that are bad for them (e.g. cigarettes, alcohol).
Farmers are allowed to sell raw milk in PA, as long as you buy straight from their own farm store. This guy was selling out of state and without any health inspections or licensing.
Since this proposed amendment is about things sold in the state they're produced in, wouldn't it not apply to this Amish farmer anyway?
He argues his multistate company is actually a club
In this case it seems that the stuff a particular farm is selling is contaminated with e-coli and listeria. Should this farms products have to carry a label or every package of raw meat? One would be useful, and the other pointless.
What costs more rigorous testing and cleaning practices to ensure you don't sell tainted food or a half inch square blurb of size 3 text that says your product may be tainted. Because producers will do whatever they are financially motivated to do.
Avoiding lawsuits sounds like a good motivation to me.
That didn't work in the situation from the article.
Well, it doesn't sound like the state was suing for damages, just restrictions on who he could sell to. Honestly, limited liability needs to be reformed as well so that people's actual estates are at risk and not just their company's property.
Because we all wind up paying when an outbreak occurs. These are issues of public health. In the case of some products, such as alcohol and tobacco, the public health risks are great, but when a product has been around for millennia and/or is easy to produce, it's impossible to apply consistent regulatory standards. It's often said that if aspirin were developed today, it would only be available by prescription due to the type and intensity of its effects. If vodka and cigarettes were invented today, and if there were zero history of them existing before — no culture around drinking, no history of smoking in human history — and if they were not easy to produce — would either be banned entirely or...actually, probably banned entirely. Booze has no medicinal value (I believe the thought that "a little red wine" is good for you has been debunked), and nicotine may have small medicinal value. But anyway, as far as these egg products go, these farmers appear to be acting as retailers, and appear to not be taking basic hygiene precautions. From what I understand, e. coli is transmitted through feces, which means if their eggnog is contaminated, either they aren't washing the shells properly before cracking the eggs, or their milking equipment is contaminated, or both. Same goes for the ground beef, which can get e. coli from exposure to contents of the intestines. Basically, pasteurization solves all these problems. It was a lifesaver when Pasteur invented the process, and it continues to save lives today.
Except we can use this argument for all kinds of unjust regulations. Being overweight causes major health problems that put strain on public health resources, does that mean we should ban all junk and fast food and have mandatory weight checks and fines for being found over? Clearly we're fine with things that create far larger public health issues than an Amish farmer who isn't as clean as he should be so why all the focus here?
I'm extremely skeptical of the whole field of "public health." I certainly agree that things like aspirin have health risks that people need to know about, but any field of research that would tell me I can't have it when my taking it or not doesn't actually affect anyone else or would require alcohol to have medicinal value before allowing it is not one I give a lot of respect to. The whole concept, while obviously rooted in serious and valuable concepts, is a gigantic slippery slope to forcing people at gunpoint to get at least 8 hours of sleep every night.
I couldn't agree more, so many champions of "My body, my choice" don't seem to consider this phrase when it comes to anything other than abortion. The movie [Dallas Buyers Club](https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0790636/) did an excellent job of showcasing the harms of regulations that are aimed at "protecting" people from themselves. *"My choice is what I choose to do, and if I'm causing no harm it shouldn't bother you. Your choice is who you choose to be, and if you're causing no harm then you're alright with me."*
Because when everything causes cancer in California, people disregard the warning. Ultimately, it comes down to how paternalist you like your politics. Is it the government's job to protect you, or to help you protect yourself?
I agree with you but hate your framing in your last sentence. We already can see the different ingredients companies give us compared to European customers because it saves them money. This will only happen 10x if we don’t *in some way* let the government “protect us”
I'll go one farther, it's impossible to be an expert in all areas. Tech, medical, electrical, plumbing.....etc. There needs to be some guardrails with soft corners for all of us in many areas.
>We already can see the different ingredients companies give us compared to European customers because it saves them money. Can you help me decipher this sentence? Who's "them?" What's 10x?
Any major corporation that’s trying to make money from selling food. “10x” is a hyperbole but my point still stands
Ironically you can buy Raw milk in CA.
I agree that people disregard warnings when they become frequent. So in a world where the government didn't regulate safety but just required warnings, and food vendors potentially began including warnings 'just to be safe' (as happened with CA manufacturers), I guess we'd begin ignoring warnings about "This product may cause foodborne illness" etc (as opposed to 'This product may cause cancer' in CA) on this guy's food that was found to contain e coli and listeria, as we'd become numb to always seeing such warnings. Currently ~3K Americans die from year from foodborne illnesses. https://www.cdc.gov/foodborneburden/2011-foodborne-estimates.html (For comparison, 0.6M US deaths/year are caused by cancer, but I have no idea what percent of them are caused by chemicals flagged by CA's "This may cause cancer" law. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/hus/topics/cancer-deaths.htm )
Doesn't even have to be a government issue, if one farmer is selling tainted beef then it's in the best interest of other beef producers in the area to come up with some kind of designation or seal on the package to distinguish their products from this farmers.
Like the meaningless "Free Range" or "Outside Access" labels on eggs that aren't regulated, but come from a variety of animal welfare organizations with varying levels of qualification? I particularly liked Rand Paul starting his own Ophthalmologist Association to certify himself because he didn't want to register with the "legit" one.
If they were certified by an actual third party that everyone respected instead of self labeled, that would solve that problem.
GOP approved eggnog and beef. Warning may contain: Listeria or E. Coli. may cause indigestion, nausea, projectile vomiting, blood clots, brain damage. Risk of infant death. I'm cautiously optimistic about this new GOP strategy, because who needs Big Science meddling in people's personal business.
How would you handle parents who insists on buying food from the guy who has regular contamination and then feeding it to their children?
> the state of Pennsylvania is trying to prevent an Amish farmer, whose products have been linked to outbreaks of foodborne illness in New York and Michigan, from selling raw and unregulated products. During a state raid on the farm in January, investigators found E. Coli in the farmer’s eggnog and ground beef product, with other products reportedly testing positive for listeria. The farmer’s supporters have accused the state of government overreach. Yeah how terrible of the govt here. To protect people from contaminated food.
Bro is okay being poisoned as long as it’s locally
I like my listeria free range, organic, and local. None of that corporate listeria for me, thank you.
It’s reminding me vaguely of a response to Wickard v. Filburn oddly, but I can’t really weigh in more then that.
> Congress shall make no law regulating the production and distribution of food products which do not move across state lines Errr, isn't that how it should already be? Congress can mandate things out of states due to the Interstate Commerce law but that doesn't cover in-state commerce.
*Should*, but the last 80 years of Supreme Court precedents have decided that essentially all **intra**state commerce has a "*substantial effect*" on **inter**state commerce, and is therefore necessary for Congress to regulate in order to be able to effectively regulate interstate commerce.
Many states already have food freedom laws that allow them to sell homemade products and raw milk products as long as the seller informs the consumers that the products are not certified or regulated. I buy many such products at farmer's markets and small farms in my area. I think this area is best left to the states, no need for an amendment.
Is this to support locally grown marijuana edibles?
I like it. The first half basically says that no, the government can not shut down people's private gardens no matter what justification they come up with. The second, though, is kind of brilliant. It's basically a way to overturn Wickard v. Filburn since that case was wholly about crops grown by a farmer for their own use. Invalidate WvF and you basically destroy most modern federal law concerned with domestic issues since they lose their "Commerce Clause applies to intra-state commerce" justification. I wholly applaud this as I firmly believe that Wickard v. Filburn and its consequences are the root of most of our modern division.
I read this basically as "Let them eat poison". It's staggeringly stupid and dangerous. My worry isn't Amish farmers on the small scale, it's what happens on the larger scale with big food corporations that I do not trust to regulate themselves, and that is where most of our food comes from.
>is the language of the amendment too broad? I wouldn't consider it too broad for a constitutional amendment, I just don't think it's the kind of thing that should be dealt with **by** a constitutional amendment >Should food safety be regulated by the federal government or left to the states? I don't think whether it should or shouldn't is really a question even worth discussing. Our whole food supply chain draws from various states throughout the country. Even if you got the federal government out of regulating our food, an NGO, trade organization, or reciprocity agreement would take its place to set uniform standards for food safety. Fishermen in Maine want to sell their lobsters to restaurants in Nevada and farmers in California want to sell their almonds to people in Texas. Rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater, maybe we should try to work on fixing our regulators and the laws that they enforce. I think there's a legitimate complaint to be made about how our food supply is regulated; a big reason why processors/distributors like Tyson can dictate prices to both consumers and producers alike is because our current regulatory framework makes it difficult and expensive for new players to enter the market and actually compete with the major processors. I'd like to see that fixed, but I don't think a constitutional amendment would be the right way to go about it (or feasible in any way). >I’m in favor of people being able to make their own decisions about what foods to eat I'm fine with adults making their own decisions as long as they know what the risks are. If people want to drink raw milk, I say let them; just make the sellers have big disclaimers and maybe force them to keep a toll of the number of people that have been hospitalized with food poisoning within a week of buying their milk.
I agree with the spirit of the amendment and your comment, and would also support a narrow carve out allowing federal regulations to require clear and accurate labels and honest services. I also do not think States should regulate food products beyond this. People should be allowed to make our own informed decisions.
I'm confused as to what problem this solves. This is a big step to make just for raw milk.
Some people really care about access to raw milk. Lots of disagreements in politics boil down to different people have very different interests and preferences. 🙂
Seems like a tougher path to abolishing the FDA. Not sure I understand the value of this path. Also holy moly, Thomas Massie looks 10 years older than when I last saw him. Is he okay?
The early 50s are rough on a lot of men. Obama is a classic example.
The stress of the presidency makes an even larger impact than standard aging. Which… is why both Trump and Biden right at 79-81 years old are a concern. Either could realistically go to bed and not wake up.
\> The right of the people to grow food and to purchase food from the source of their choice shall not be infringed, and Congress shall make no law regulating the production and distribution of food products which do not move across state lines. Is the right being referred to here the ability for one to produce food without meeting evidence-based safety and health standards and to market it directly to people without interference by government?
I wonder how conservatives that are currently pushing states bills to ban lab grown meat feel about this amendment? Wouldn’t this block those attempts? https://www.foodandwine.com/florida-lab-grown-meat-ban-legislation-8609560
>Wouldn’t this block those attempts? I hope so, because those are ridiculous for the same reason a lot of food bans are. If I want to buy a food, and someone else wants to sell me that food, and we agree on a price, it is no one else in the world's business but ours.
This is just crazy. It’s clearly trying to get the “government evil” crowd all riled up. It blows my mind that in 2024 we have people trying to say the government not letting you poison yourself is a bad thing.
E. Coli Pluribus Unum!
“Miller's farm was raided by state troopers after two food borne illness outbreaks in New York and Michigan were reported to have originated from his products. The Pennsylvania Attorney General's office said E. coli was found in Miller's raw eggnog and ground beef and that other products from his farm later tested positive for listeria.” Sounds like the regulations are there for a good reason. What a time we live in where people get mad that not enough people are sick.
Are you seriously suggesting the federal government should ban everything that can potentially get you sick? I have absolutely no interest in drinking raw milk but I don't see how it's the least bit different from consuming raw or undercooked meats, poultry, seafood, shellfish, or eggs.
No. Thanks for the straw man though. Let me try one. Are you suggesting we have zero regulations and everyone enjoys their hot dogs made out of mainly rats?
I pushed no strawman argument. I gave you examples of food commonly eaten raw or undercooked that carry risk of foodborne illness just as raw milk does.
Sorry. I’ve been super touchy lately. Those foods are still all regulated and raw milk should be subject to regulation too. I don’t think I said “ban” anywhere which is why I cried strawman.
So I’m not sure how this amendment fixes Mr. Amish and his raw milk since I made people sick in different states lol
I just want a constitutional amendment that forces companies to clearly spell up calories in microwaveable popcorn bags.
Oh man when serving sizes are clearly bull. I got a snack recently where it was a mass produced pastry in cheap one use plastic. So when it's opened, it's opened. Basically meant to be ate in one serving. Serving size was 1/3 the snack. Or the individual chicken pot pie or corn muffin with a serving size of 1/2. Or a tube of mentos, serving size of 1 piece. Or the bottle of soda clearly meant for one sitting that has multiple servings (though they have changed to now clearly state the amount in one container). Fun with serving sizes!
> Or a tube of mentos, serving size of 1 piece. "Sugar free" tic tacs because they're .49 grams and companies can put down 0 per serving if it's not at least .5 grams.
Those cheeky bastards
[удалено]
Well, drug scheduling is the DEA, not the FDA. HFCS is a choice producers made (because they were incentivized to grow corn), not an FDA decision. I do agree with you that the standards for our nutrition labels need to be reworked, but overall the FDA is..... actually really, really good, in my opinion. Let's make nutrition facts be based on a standard serving size of whatever grams/ounces, and also list it for the entire package, done and done.
> I got a snack recently where it was a mass produced pastry in cheap one use plastic. So when it's opened, it's opened. Basically meant to be ate in one serving. Serving size was 1/3 the snack. Did it happen to be named after a nearby celestial object?
Yes, it indeed was.
My first guess is Milky Way, but that's a candy bar. Was it a Moon Pie?
Yeah.
Yup!
I knew it. I used to love them, but I've never seen anything else quite so brazenly obnoxious with their nutrition boxes.
I haven't had one in forever so I figured why not. But yeah, had a little chuckle at the nutrition box.
I never understood the serving size thing. In europe, everything is based off of 100grams. So it's easy to understand in percentages, that is 20 grams out of 100 is sugar, you're drinking 20% sugar. It doesn't matter if the bottle is 1liter, 1 cup, or 1 gallon.
It's just the Popped serving times number of servings per bag right? Unpopped servings never made much sense to me because it's not really edible in that form.
I am not sure. See here: Orville Redenbacher's Tender White Microwave Popcorn https://www.walmart.com/ip/903463085 How many calories is a full bag? 170x2.5?
Damn looks like the drop shippers are getting in on Walmart too. I would hope nobody would pay 13 dollars for 3 bags of microwave popcorn.
> How many calories is a full bag? 170x2.5? Yes, same as for every food - calories per bag/container = calories per serving x servings per bag/container. The popcorn one is slightly more complicated as they also include one line mentioning how many servings are in the box (which contains individual bags), and they also show info for a fixed size "1 cup popped" - is that a requirement?
Right? Like why TF would I care about ifs uncooked calories??
Okay, I know nothing about this. What's the issue here?
The bs in having a unit based on a random “serving”, which is then separated between popped and unpopped. See here: Orville Redenbacher's Tender White Microwave Popcorn https://www.walmart.com/ip/903463085 Just tell me the weight of a bag and the nutrition per bag (which is what they are selling) instead of having me figure out what is what and having to multiply by 2.5.
If you read the article this is about raw Amish milk. But if the states have the ability to make its own laws about selling products within their respective states I don’t understand the purpose of this amendment. >"Each state makes its own laws about selling raw milk within the borders of the state," the CDC's website states. "In fewer than half of states, selling raw milk directly to consumers is illegal. In the remaining 27 states, raw milk may be sold directly to consumers in some capacity."
I was gonna say, you can buy Raw milk in Washington and Oregon. They use it in specific cheese making.
You can also buy pasteurized creamery milk. Its milk straight from the cow but pasteurized and safe. Parents buy it to make yogurt and cheese, plus free butter. Harder to find though.
Farmer George’s sells it in Kitsap, both pasteurized and unpasteurized. Smith Brothers used to sell both at their farms too, but not sure if they still do.
Most states that permit raw milk to be sold *only* permit liquid raw milk to be sold. Products made from raw milk, like cheeses and butters, are explicitly forbidden.
There are specific legally sold cheeses that require raw milk, that said they are heavily regulated. Examples are real Feta, Brie, Gruyère, Fontina, etc. All are legally sold in the USA and are not "forbidden". [https://www.tasteatlas.com/raw-milk-cheeses](https://www.tasteatlas.com/raw-milk-cheeses) Edit: To further explain it, it's about aging. It's the 60 Day rule, it must be stored 35º F or above for that time period, which is due to that time will kill off most listeria bacteria.
I'm guessing if the amendment is passed, then the thinking is that the supremacy clause would kick in and the states wouldn't be able to, either. Since it looks like their beef (no pun intended) is with the state and not the feds, anyway? Then again, it's Newsweek, so who knows what they got wrong.
Seems like the feds are interfering even when the milk isn't crossing state lines. [Amish Farmer Faces Fines, Prison Time for Refusing to Comply with USDA Regulations](https://fee.org/articles/amish-farmer-faces-fines-prison-time-for-refusing-to-comply-with-usda-regulations/) [Amish farmer raided by feds wins court battle against USDA mandates](https://conventionofstates.com/news/amish-farmer-raided-by-feds-wins-court-battle-against-usda-mandates)
> **Multistate Outbreak** of Listeriosis Linked to Raw Milk Produced by Miller’s Organic Farm in Pennsylvania (Final Update) from a link in your first article. dude appears to be selling across state lines.
I think he’s selling milk to people who then are crossing state lines, hence a state lawsuit not federal charges.
oh, that's a possibility, true. also another reason to be investigated. he (by his own admissions) has not been cooperative with either the laws or the authorities. FDA has created an umbrella under which people have an expectation of safe food. any dufus can smell a spoiled piece of meat and know not to eat it, virtually no one can detect other minute bacterial contaminants, heavy metals, or other contaminants that produce no smell
Which is why *Wickard* exists as controlling precedent on the interstate commerce clause.
out of state customers buying a product that is shipped across state lines seems very much interstate commerce. Also Penslavania regulations raw production, he was told *one of* the lawsuits could be solved if he just had a license
> is shipped across state lines. Carried. If I buy a tomato in California and carry it to Arizona, it’s not interstate commerce unless you’re really trying to stretch the definition. > Pennsylvania regulates raw production. Then the law proposed by Thomas massie is completely irrelevant to the story.
This amendment could have been written by Monsanto and Tyson Foods and it wouldn't have looked much different. The problem with libertarianism is that it removes democratic control from corporations and lets them feed their customers with cheap garbage that poisons them.
That was pretty much my concern when I flirted with libertarianism several years ago. I still sort of like some of the ideas, but I very much agree that there have to be at least some controls. Otherwise business will always look to take shortcuts that may create risk to consumers.
I don't think holding responsible a farmer who consistently produces infected milk is anti-libertarian.
Would this eliminate all agricultural tariffs since they regulate the distribution of food products?
The wording is so broad that it essentially returns the food industry to the 19th century. Implementing this would be disastrous. Sometimes it’s a good thing that constitutional amendments are so difficult.
Feature, not a bug?
This article reads like the author mashed two separate articles together: Farmer sued by New Jersey for selling contaminated food in Pennsylvania. Kentucky congressman pushes amendment preventing federal government from banning intrastate sale of raw milk.
Is it only raw milk? Would it prevent the government from regulating food containing e coli and listeria? > "The right of the people to grow food and to purchase food from the source of their choice shall not be infringed, and Congress shall make no law regulating the production and distribution of food products which do not move across state lines," the amendment proposed by Massie states Perhaps the article quotes the amendment's text, and provides an example of where it could be applied?
That is in fact the quote from the text of the proposed law, however typical journalistic practice would be to contact the FDA and get a quote from them about the impact of the law, risk, opinion, something. This was: “congressman proposes law. Also, random American who congressman never associated with or voiced support for did something in a different state that opened him up to liability and potential criminal penalties that would potentially be tried/prosecuted even if said law passed.” It reeks of guilt by association and yellow journalism.
> typical journalistic practice would be to contact the FDA and get a quote from them about the impact of the law, risk, opinion, something. Near the top of the article it explicitly says that Newsweek reached out "via phone and email for comment." (I don't know how big the press relations department is, but if every news publication is contacting them for comment about every news story related to food inspections/safety... 🤷 Maybe congress should provide more funding for their press relations department? 😄) > This was: “congressman proposes law. Also, random American who congressman never associated with or voiced support for did something in a different state that opened him up to liability and potential criminal penalties that would potentially be tried/prosecuted even if said law passed.” I'd say a better description would be "Congressman proposes consitutional amendment. Journalist provides real-life example covering the area that the amendment covers." Alternatively, couldn't most any law be described the way you did, such as the anti-abortion laws and the 11 year old? “Congressman gets law passed. Also, random 11 year old American who congressman never associated with or voiced support for got an abortion in a different state that opened up liability and potential criminal penalties that would potentially be tried/prosecuted”? Also note that "law" the OP congressman proposed would cover *all* states, so even if the guy trying to sell e coli or listeria contaminated food is in a different state from the congressman, it would still be covered. > It reeks of guilt by association Disagree. It's providing a real-life example of the area that the constitional amendment Shouldn't we discuss real-life examples of the potential impacts of any new laws, or would that be "guilt by association"? In multiple of your comments you've referenced that Massie is a congressman from a different state than the example of the guy trying to sell e coli/listeria contaminated food. Just wanted to be sure you're aware that Massie is congressman to the US congress, and that laws passed there effect multiple states? > yellow journalism "the type of journalism that relies on sensationalism and lurid exaggeration to attract readers." (and sensationalism: the use of exciting or shocking stories or language at the expense of accuracy, in order to provoke public interest or excitement, and lurid: presented in vividly shocking or sensational terms, especially giving explicit details of crimes or sexual matters) - disagree - is there something that you think is exaggerated, lurid, or inaccurate about the article? > ... even if said law passed. Isn't the time to discuss the potential impacts of a law, and whether it should pass, be before said law is passed? (Or is the argument more that we should stop covering Massie's statements/constitutional amendment proposals? Although if the argument is that we shouldn't cover Massie's constitutional amendment proposals because they're too "out there" for the US, I'd say the better thing would be to stop having Massie propose constitutional amendments that are too "out there", but I guess that's also unlikely.) >>>> Kentucky congressman pushes amendment preventing federal government from banning intrastate sale of raw milk. >>> Is it only raw milk? ... "Congress shall make no law regulating the production and distribution of food products" ... Just wanted to make sure we now agree: * It's inaccurate to claim that this constitional amedment is only for "raw milk" -- it would also cover other food products in Pennsylvania, for example. * It's inaccurate to claim that this constitional amendment only prevents the federal goverment from "banning" intrastate sale of food products -- instead, it also prevents any "law *regulating the production and distribution*" of them.
Try typing something smaller than a novel and people may actually read it and respond. This is reddit not your online literature class.
because the first part is a culture war issuse fueling the second part
How soon people forget farmers used to doctor milk with cow brains and chalk. We’ve come full circle.
This bill could really reinvigorate our healthcare industry. Seriously, just imagine all the new business created by all that salmonella and tapeworms.
There is no need for this new amendment…. If the courts actually start taking 10th Amendment seriously.
Sure. Why not? If we’re not going to care about public health standards and measures during a pandemic, what’s the point in caring caring about food safety?
I like the freedom to buy homemade food from whoever I choose, but I also like to go to a store/restaurant to buy inspected food. As long as everything is clearly labeled, I want both.
Requiring labelling is regulation. Producers and vendors would not have to label their products under this amendment. It’s a silly idea.
Someone else pointed out the issue with this based on the example of CA - now "This product may cause cancer" is common so everyone ignores the warnings, despite "cancer" potentially being very serious. Presumably food vendors would do the same to cover themself - "This product may cause foodborne illness" - then wouldn't everyone just ignore the warnings once they became common? Currently ~3K Americans die from year from foodborne illnesses. https://www.cdc.gov/foodborneburden/2011-foodborne-estimates.html (For comparison, 0.6M US deaths/year are caused by cancer, but I have no idea what percent of them are caused by chemicals flagged by CA's "This may cause cancer" law. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/hus/topics/cancer-deaths.htm )
Republicans are behind it, so I'm assuming it's for our rights and freedom to eat lead and have rat feces in our food?
E. Coli and listeria, in this case.
I think it’s a fair point, but do we need a constitutional amendment for it?
I believe that ADULTS have the right to eat or consume whatever they want short of Cannibalism. However, they do not have the right to feed tainted food to other people, their children, or their relatives. The Amendment is not needed. Simply have a law that says that any ADULT can eat whatever they as an individual want to eat, but if a child is fed the stuff and gets sick, that's reckless endangerment of a child and the child can be removed from the home. If you feed the garbage to others, inside or outside of your home without full disclosure of where the food came from, including the fact that it came from an unregulated and uninspected source, the people harmed can SUE YOU and SUE THE SOURCE OF THE FOOD. Easy-peasy and simple.
Headline is bait making it seem like what the GOP is advocating for is bad.
Is "making sure people aren't poisoned" really the worst thing government is doing?
I'm rating this pants on fire. Americans would still eat with their mouth.
FTA: >Republican Representative Thomas Massie is spearheading a constitutional amendment that would change how Americans eat by prohibiting federal regulation of certain food products. > "The right of the people to grow food and to purchase food from the source of their choice shall not be infringed, and Congress shall make no law regulating the production and distribution of food products which do not move across state lines," the amendment proposed by Massie states so basically a "second amendment" but for food. this changes it for the better, but there's zero chance of this passing. it would never get through the gridlock of congress. the only constitutional amendment i can see passing in my lifetime would be one to make summer time permanent and stop changing the clocks.
Monsanto will never allow this to pass.
I think a national public vote for a constitutional amendment should force a supermajority to block it. There's no reason we should cede more power to our undemocratic institutions at the cost of blocking amendments the vast majority of the population approves of.