Lynn Swearingen (c) copyright 2010 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

The Testor Amendment.  – It’ll free my direct sales to consumers. Or so the “opposition” to S. 510 seems to be saying now.

Once I started reading this,  “shock kept me up all night” would be an understatement.

Attempting to understand the logic behind the argument that somehow Legislators and AgriBusiness lobbyists are now “backing down” from the onerous control methods that have been written, fought for, and negotiated since the introduction of S. 510 in March of 2009 – I became even more confused.

Why suddenly would Sally Sunshine be allowed to sell her Strawberries to Safeway with no “involvement” under S 510?

The answer in short is she won’t. The “Grocery Store” will be required to keep records of Sally Sunshine. And in the event of “reasonable belief” or  “reasonable possibility” – Sally Sunshine is going down first.

The language is included here below (partial pages 122 and 123):

(G) GROCERY    STORES.—With    respect to a
17 sale of a food described in subparagraph (H) to
18 a grocery store, the Secretary shall not require
19 such grocery store to maintain records under
20 this subsection other than records documenting
21 the farm that was the source of such food. The
22 Secretary shall not require that such records be
23 kept for more than 180 days.
24      (H) FARM     SALES TO CONSUMERS.—The
25 Secretary shall not require a farm to maintain
1       any distribution records under this subsection
2       with respect to a sale of a food described in
3       subparagraph (I) (including a sale of a food
4       that is produced and packaged on such farm),
5       if such sale is made by the farm directly to a
6       consumer.

In essence DownsizeDC has done more harm than good with its recent “call to action” no matter what good intentions they may have held. As unpopular as this viewpoint might seem, this is why I believe it to be true:

Although S.510 should still be opposed, we should also encourage Congress to retain the good changes that have been made to the bill, just in case it passes.

Excuse me? Less bad legislation just indicates it is less bad – it does not confer “acceptable” or “good” status. In communicating to ones Legislator the above statement, in effect the conversation reads “Yes. As a small farm I know that I am about to be screwed by this overreaching Legislative process, just pass the KY jelly so it doesn’t hurt so much.”

* Only foods already regulated by the FDA will be subject to S.510 — the firewall between the FDA and USDA-regulated foods will be maintained.

This statement assumes that it is reasonable and sensible for the US Federal Government to oversee all aspects of our lives. The purchase, sales and consumption of food are not the responsibility of an entity that is sited in Washington, D.C. – that responsibility lies within our own control.

* The compliance burden for small producers has been minimized

A chain no matter how light is still a chain. Either be willing to accept the possibility that the regulatory process will limit your freedom or reject it outright. Remember, the “compliance burden” still exists no matter how “minimized” it appears. The underlying issue here (that one is allowing that freedom to be returned through an Amendment) supports “that which is granted can also be revoked”.

After all, isn’t the purpose of S. 510 to modify and expand what is already being regulated?

Revocation in legislation can now be done with the delete key and strike out font – I’d prefer not to have to monitor the issue and attempt to change the size of chain required for my compliance.