and you'll receive our popular
newsletter with latest news,
videos, commentary & more.
Help Us Spread The Word!
HELP US GO VIRAL!!!!
We no longer have the
luxury of time.
Guest Users: 5
Regulatory Agencies FDA/EPA (14)
By Matthew Boyle
The Daily Caller
Sept 27, 2011
The Environmental Protection Agency has said new greenhouse gas regulations, as proposed, may be “absurd” in application and “impossible to administer” by its self-imposed 2016 deadline. But the agency is still asking for taxpayers to shoulder the burden of up to 230,000 new bureaucrats — at a cost of $21 billion — to attempt to implement the rules.
The EPA aims to regulate greenhouse gas emissions through the Clean Air Act, even though the law doesn’t give the EPA explicit power to do so. The agency’s authority to move forward is being challenged in court by petitioners who argue that such a decision should be left for Congress to make.
The proposed regulations would set greenhouse gas emission thresholds above which businesses must file for an EPA permit and complete extra paperwork in order to continue operating. If the EPA wins its court battle and fully rolls out the greenhouse gas regulations, the number of businesses forced into this regulatory regime would grow tremendously — from approximately 14,000 now to as many as 6.1 million.
By Dr. Mercola
The FDA has issued a proposed mandate that represents the greatest threat to dietary supplements since 1994. Back in the early 1990s, consumers were so alarmed by FDA bullying that they staged a massive revolt. The result was that Congress passed a law prohibiting the FDA from banning popular nutrients (as the agency had threatened to do).
There was, however, a loophole in the 1994 law. The FDA was given authority to regulate ingredients introduced after October 15, 1994.
It has been 17 years, but the FDA just issued draconian proposals as to how it intends to regulate what it now calls "new dietary ingredients". You can find the FDA Draft Guidance on New Dietary Ingredients (NDI's) here. If implemented, some of the most effective nutrients you are taking will be removed from the market. This includes many fish oil formulas and natural plant extracts. A detailed analysis of the FDA Draft Guidance is available here.
These oppressive rules are exactly what the 1994 law (DSHEA) sought to prevent. The FDA is using its authority in direct violation of Congressional intent.
In order for these ingredients you are using today to return to the market, the FDA will require manufacturers to conduct outrageously expensive studies using absurdly high doses, in some situations multiplied by a "safety factor" up to 2,000-times the recommended dosage on a per product basis.
The FDA defines dietary supplements as being "new" if they were introduced after October 15, 1994. That means that even certain nutrients that have been safely used over the course of three decades will be subject to the FDA's oppressive policies that mandate costly animal testing.
Here's a follow-up article to the one posted a few days ago about the Rawesome Food Club raid. Feast your eyes on the following statements released by the Food and Drug Administration regarding the raid.
Note: Below, 'Plaintiffs' refers to James Stewart, Rawesome's founder, Sharon Palmer, owner of Healthy Family Farms, and Victoria Bloch, the LA County liaison for the Weston A. Price Foundation. The trio were charged with the production and sale of unpasteurized goat milk, goat cheese, and other products without the proper permit; and with “mislabeling cheese.” They were also charged with four counts of conspiracy to commit a crime.
According to the FDA...
“Plaintiffs’ assertion of a new ‘fundamental right’ to produce, obtain, and consume unpasteurized milk lacks any support in law.
“There is no ‘deeply rooted’ historical tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds.”
“Plaintiffs’ assertion of a ‘fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families,’ is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish.”
I'm gonna say something real crazy here: if the above statements released by the FDA don't freak you out, you're clueless and a big part of the problem. The fact that they can state that all Americans don't have a "fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families" is downright dictatorial. If the Constitution doesn't protect us with respect to what we choose to eat or not eat, it's a useless document...
Billings, Mont. – During his presentation on the status of the nation’s new country-of-origin labeling (COOL) law, and on behalf of the R-CALF USA COOL Committee, R-CALF USA member and Kansas cattle feeder Mike Callicrate was asked a non-COOL question that set convention goers on their heels during the 12th Annual R-CALF USA Convention held August 26-27 in Rapid City, S.D.
“Has the Environmental Protection Agency declared hay a pollutant?” an audience member asked. Callicrate responded affirmatively and explained that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently initiated a formal enforcement action against his Kansas feedlot for, among other things, failure to store his hay in a pollution containment zone. “Now that EPA has declared hay a pollutant, every farmer and rancher that stores hay, or that leaves a broken hay bale in the field is potentially violating EPA rules and subject to an EPA enforcement action,” Callicrate said. “How far are we going to let this agency go before we stand up and do something about it?”
Callicrate is permitted to handle 12,000 cattle at a time in his feedlot, which is considered a small to mid-sized feedlot in an industry now dominated by mega-feedlots such as those owned by the world’s largest beef packer – JBS-Brazil – with a one-time capacity of over 900,000 cattle; or the other mega-feedlot that also feeds hundreds of thousands of cattle at a time and is owned by the nation’s second-largest beef packer – Cargill; or the other handful of mega feedlots with capacities of hundreds of thousands of cattle such as those owned by Cactus Feeders, Inc. and Friona Industries.
As I noted Tuesday, the EPA has suspended all heightened radiation monitoring, and will simply test and report every 3 months as if there were no nuclear crisis in Japan.
Bay Citizen writes:
That means that the agency will return to testing radiation levels in rainwater, drinking water and milk every three months. The next such tests are planned in August.
Additionally, the EPA said it is “evaluating the need” for additional radiation air monitors that were deployed around the nation after the nuclear accident.
The lack special monitoring efforts will make it more difficult for residents to assess the local hazards of the Japanese disaster. Critics lambasted the decision Thursday.
“I really am horrified,” said Daniel Hirsch, a nuclear policy lecturer at the University of California, Santa Cruz. “It’s quite staggering and it seems to be part of the pattern of the EPA trying to make sure that there are no measurements that could cause people to be concerned.”
By Marti Oakley,
Even as the FDA has for decades routinely given a seal of approval to toxic and deadly medications and vaccines, claiming they are safe, and as hundreds and thousands of people, if not millions, have died or have been permanently injured as a result of their incompetence and gross dereliction of duty, this agency continues its assault on natural remedies and aids claiming they need to be regulated by FDA.
While one toxic and deadly medication, such as Vioxx can claim 70,000 lives, the manufacturer is never shut down by the FDA. Merck Pharmaceuticals never pays any fines or penalties. While they may be sued in court for wrongful death, this is only AFTER they have sold enough of their toxin to exceed any long term risk assessment costs.
In other words: Merck knows its product is lethal. It weighs the long term risk. The questions are never those of public safety, possible harm or death from using their product, but rather:
Can we sell enough of Vioxx fast enough and at levels high enough to offset what we estimate will be the costs of lawsuits for the people we killed or permanently injured and still make a hefty profit?
And every pharmaceutical company operates their business under this model which is nothing short of pre-meditated murder in my opinion.
By Rady Ananda, Contributing Writer
A few hours ago, the Food and Drug Administration declared it no longer needs credible evidence to seize food that may be contaminated. Ignoring the Fourth Amendment entirely, the FDA claims that based on mere suspicion that a food product has been contaminated or mislabeled, and that serious illness or death will result, it can hold the food for 30 days while it then looks for evidence. It claims this power under the Food Safety Modernization Act, which President Monsanto, I mean, Obama, signed in January.
On May 4th, the FDA stated:
Previously, the FDA’s ability to detain food products applied only when the agency had credible evidence that a food product presented was contaminated or mislabeled in a way that presented a threat of serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals.
Beginning July, the FDA will be able to detain food products that it has reason to believe are adulterated or misbranded for up to 30 days, if needed, to ensure they are kept out of the marketplace. The products will be kept out of the marketplace while the agency determines whether an enforcement action such as seizure or federal injunction against distribution of the product in commerce, is necessary.
Credible evidence no longer applies, it seems.
The Fourth Amendment states:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
By David Gutierrez
In a response to a lawsuit filed by the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF), the FDA has articulated its belief that there is no such thing as a right to health or to purchase or consume any given food.
The FTCLDF has sued the FDA for banning the interstate shipment or sale of raw milk products, alleging that the policy deprives consumers and a food buying group owner "of their fundamental and inalienable rights of (a) traveling across State lines with raw dairy products legally obtained and possessed; (b) providing for the care and well being of themselves and their families, including their children; and (c) producing, obtaining and consuming the foods of choice for themselves and their families, including their children."
In a legal response, the FDA countered that "there is no 'deeply rooted' historical tradition of unfettered access to food of all kinds." As evidence for this position, the agency cites "the dietary laws of biblical times."
The FDA goes further, stating that "there is no absolute right to consume or feed children any particular kind of food [because] comprehensive federal regulation of the food supply has been in effect at least since Congress enacted the Pure Food and Drugs Act of 1906. ... Thus, plaintiffs' claim to a fundamental privacy interest in obtaining 'foods of their own choice' for themselves and their families is without merit."
This is how the psychopaths in power exert their will on all of us. They have set up these useless institutions in order to regulate their competition out of existence and to burden all of us with never ending degrees of control over our lives. IT MUST END!! The FDA was not established to protect us. It was established to institute incremental control in the name of protecting us, just like every other agency they have set up. These agencies were set up so they could bypass the legislate process so they could be free to just regulate the crap out of everything.
* * * * * * * * * *
A proposed law to bring farms more directly under FDA supervision could be the death of small organic farms, natural food advocates have warned.
"How do we trust that the FDA is going to know about things that the San Francisco Bay Area has been very progressive on -- the field to fork, fresh, grow local, buy local -- all of that?" said Rep. Sam Farr. "The organic people are feeling that the regulations the FDA may promulgate will be so safety oriented, it'll put them out of business."
Spurred by recent outbreaks of foodborne illness across the country, Congress has moved to give the FDA direct control over the production, storage, transport, inspection and recall of food products. A bill to that effect has already passed the House of Representatives, while another version is currently before the Senate.
First | Previous | 1 2