This bill has NOTHING to do with socialism and EVERYTHING to do with capitalism. The profits of big agriculture are written all over this bill. I've spent weeks 'dissecting' every word in the bill and researching the co sponsors and the wretched politicians that wrote it , you should do the same. It does in fact impact farmers markets or any vegetable that is sold or meant for human consumption. It makes all growers comply with industry regulations ie insect control/pest nematodes,bacterial disease control and on and on. It hardly impacts the current agriculture monopolies and impacts the small farmers that don't have the resources to comply with regulations. Tom Vilsak (one of the bills authors) is heavily in favor of large industrial farms and genetically modified crops. Political spin confuses people, it is not about socialism per say , if we want to be intellectually honest HR 875 was born out of corporate monopolies infiltrating Washington with their money and influence. This bill is capitalism out of control,paradoxically the profit motive of corporate monopolies is behind this bill. They see the threat of small farmers and back yard growers and they want to stop it. This is all about $ business $....thats capitalism for you.

There is absolutely no reason for this or any other food type law. It is so extremely rare for someone to die from any food---from a fresh farm market or storefront type food business, that the odds are better that you will see a dog fly!! I would hope as bad as things are now with jobs and other pressing issue,s such as illegal immigration enforcement they could think of something to get this country back going strong, instead of siding with huge grocery chains and industrial farms to put little farmers and farm market growers in a world of hurt and worry! Just my opinion,what do I know. Nick k

I haven't commented yet and had tried to stay away from it as I try to avoid politics and policies on garden forums. Also till recently I hadn't studied it a lot. I did know most of the farmers here were against it. I have some concerns. Not about what will happen immediately but in the future. One of my concerns is why Monsanto and a few others lobbied so hard for it and also spent a fair amount in support of some legislators. I don't feel it will impact the small garden grower saving seeds for a long time if ever. Another concern is it may in time affect small seed vendors. I remember when Cargill and a few others got laws passed that eventually forced many of the small locker plants out of business. I was good friends and did business with several of them and know what happened. The initial law didn't do it but allowed the means to gradually tighten the screw till many were forced out. I can remember in the 70's when there were 8 locker plants within 60 miles. For the last 10 years there has been 2. Now with the increase in demand of people wanting either to fatten their own or buy meat they know how it was raised and also some easing of a few regulations there has been another open up. The goal of any corporation is too obtain a bigger share of the market. Whether that be a packing plant or a seed business. One way to eliminate competition is by legislation. And one way to get laws passed is too say it is for food safety. I have emailed one of my legislators asking questions. Other than that not a lot I can do but keep informed and watch how it plays out. Personally I try not to get too worked up over things I have no control of. Jay

Wow, Mojavean, that's really interesting about the founder of CR and its schism with CU. Or maybe schism isn't the right word, they were perhaps more sequential. Anyway, the reaction to the communist and union threat is really interesting. I, too, chewed on CU a bit in their recent "survey". I have done so in the past, though, and heard nary a thing. I know many, many who have criticized them in this way over the years. I think I even read an interview with the director responding to this sort of criticism a few years back. ("We can't release our findings because that would jeopardize our objectivity"... blah blah blah - nonsense. I suspect they won't release their findings to minimize that which specific companies can complain about, but of I course I don't really know). It really is a crying shame for CU not to morph into more open accountability. I should think the take-home lesson of wikileaks and this whole modern internet era is that more transparency is vital. If it hasn't happened already, sites like GW will leach CU's support as people take stock of their bomb-purchases and find other ways to supplant the "research" provided by CU. Trouble is, the aggregate summation of information provided by CU is unique, and the right, really the only way to provide useful information. I am really valuing GW, but at the end of the day, these are all just individual anecdotes, provided by strangers with varying degrees of reliability and their own often-unacknowledged sets of filters and biases. It's always been something of a transcendental and frankly, political question the degree to which one values anecdotes. But I should think this internet era ought to be pushing at least one forum (e.g., CU) to more thorough and open accountability, not less (which would be the inherent realm of a anecdote-site such as this). But it's always frustrating trying to tell another how to run their business! From salesmen who could actually *make* the sale if only they ever smiled, just once, to mega-testing firms that instill presumed filters onto their analysis without disclosing their makeup. I suppose there might be more hope of tilting at this windmill than at some others, in deference to their inherent or at least stated 'democracy' (I think they give a nod to such theory, do they not?). But I think, truthfully Mojavean, it is a lost cause. CU knows full well their value would be enhanced by open reporting, and they have consciously chosen, long ago, not to do so. They have variously defended the decision over the years, but I am unaware of them ever wavering. I think nothing short of a flat-out full stakeholder's revolt will force any such change of policy. I hope I'm wrong and if you'd like to direct this particular footsoldier, lemme know how. I'll sign whatever you suggest or write an individual letter if you think it worthwhile. Feel free to contact me offlist if you'd like to strategize. :)