This is a new segment where I bring up bills or laws that are meant to have good intentions in theory, but in reality will do the opposite and result in unintended consequences. As we all know, good intentions are not enough to guarantee that something will actually work, it needs to be thought out and the actual results need to be analyzed and considered. A lot of these bills seem like a good idea on the surface but if you analyze them more closely you’ll find some ugly facts (and discover some powerful lobbyists who know exactly what advantage the laws will bring to the companies they represent).
Bills in question:
HR 875: “Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009” and S 425: “Food Safety and Tracking Improvement Act”
The good intentions: To protect the public health by preventing foodborne illness, ensuring the safety of food, improving research on contaminants leading to food-borne illness, and improving security of food from intentional contamination, and for other purposes.
- Effectively criminalizes organic farming, but doesn’t actually use the word ‘organic.’
- Affects anyone growing food, even if they are not selling it but consuming it.
- Requires that the state’s Agriculture department act as the food police and enforce the federal requirements. This takes away the states power and is in violation of the 10th amendment.
- Destroys farmer’s markets (unregulated producers of food)
Those who benefit: Agri-business giants including Monsanto. The threat of the new standards is that only approved seeds, fertilizers, and farming methods could be used, and if Monsanto gets their way, all farms and gardens will be growing their plants and using their products.
In conclusion, this is what regulation ultimately leads to: greater monopolies by big business and destruction of the little guy, all in the name of safety for the “good of the public.”