Wil,

Take the time to read the constitution again sometime as a refresher. As you probably surmise, I read a heck of a lot.

www.billofrights.com/

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Since you have read somewhere that the government is to regulate food, drink, guns, drugs, land use, education, etc. I am sure you will have no problem at all directing me to the relavent sections of the US constitution. Since article 10 shown above states that any authority not directly granted to the feds in the constitution is reserved to the states, that may be hard to do without covering one eye and squinting real hard. I will agree fully that as it pertains to interstate trade, the constitution does allow legeslative oversight. I do not see anything about babysitting and protecting people from themselves from cradle to grave. Without the feds to watch industry and levy fines, we would have to do things the old fashioned way: sue for damages and harm when a company provided a harmful product that we purchased in 'good faith'.

This is where we differ, you desire to see the safety imposed by decree from above, I prefer to see it imposed from below. I SCUBA dive. That is an industry the is largely self regulated, except where air cyclinders are concerned: those fall under Dept. of Transportation, Bureau of Explosives. Somehow we do just fine and have safe, dependable equipment to use.

If you now say something like, but the average person can not....<insert statement here relating to keeping the food industry honest>.... I would remind you that McDonalds had to pay $millions in damages because someone once forgot that coffee was somehow brewed hot. Once government gets involved in the equation you have silly abuses where, as one example, tobacco companies get sued for $billions, states spending those $billions on things other than tobacco related illlnesses, and government continuing subsidies of tobacco growers. Remember Al Gore was 'proud to have grown tobacco' long before he was against it during those company lawsuits. I also think in instances like tobacco, my diet coke habit (and ice cream), and in any other case where a person takes into their body something they know to be harmful (warning lable or not), that they are the ones who should be held financial responsible for health effects related to them. In other words, if you insists on playing marbles on the interstate at rush hour, you morally shouldn't sue the driver of the milk truck for hitting you, or sue the marble company for not putting on warning label that marbles in traffic may be dangerous.

The regulation (taxation) of food stuffs led to the first use of US Millitary force against our country's own citizens in the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794. The former Secretary of Agriculture of the Eisenhower administration had some interesting things about government and it's 'proper role'. I also recommend a reading of his speech as it was well thought out and presented, although from a religious perspective. Even then, Sec. Benson's reasoning is clear:

libertyetc.org/

As far as 'grasping for straws', as you say; let's suppose for sake of discussion, that you are correct that this legeslation does not violate a strict constructionist interpretation of the US Constitution, you still have not shown that we need another food agency. (See my previous post and comments on 'mad cow' test banning and how even now the watchdogs at the federal level aren't watching.) And the peanut butter company was NOT obeying laws already in place. eg. They were involved in criminal fraud and activity. So why then do you think the solution is more laws and regulation instead of starting to enforce of those already in place currently being ignored by the feds and producers alike? I do thank you for conceding that this legeslation could be used to regulate a peanut butter factory since in a previous posting in another thread I think you may have stated it would only be meat producers affected, in which case we are still no safer from salmonella.

It even turns out that those eagle eyed feds were not doing their jobs either in the peanut butter-salmonella outbreak. As one related story states, "Until recently, federal food-safety inspectors had not been to the Georgia plant since 2001. The Associated Press found that Food and Drug Administration interest in the facility was renewed, at least temporarily, after a shipment of peanuts from the plant was seized at the Canadian border." Full article this quote is from at:

www.azcentral.com/arizonare...a0131.html

and see a summary of the investigation at:

www.chron.com/disp/story....6233601.html

And Wil, as for your flaming remarks, let me remind you of something I have already posted in a different link/thread to which you have replied. Here is what I said:

".... I agree that people need some protection from tainted food. I might disagree on the best methods to achieve that end. Especially since governments in general have done very poorly in this regard.... " (tribes.tribe.net/permacult...ff3bc320b)

And Wil, if it is your desire to get profane and enter into a more heated argument, I suggest that we take it to private e-mail so others do not have to read such things as, "That's absurd that it violates the 9th and 10th amendments. You really grasping at straws. The government has not only a right but a clear responsibility to keep salmonella out of kid's peanut butter. You are spreading absurd lies and groundless fear for what reasons i do not know. You seek to conflate every green issue together in a great big ball of emotion so you can slip your uncomposted shit...."

On the other hand, if you can provide links to articles, reasoning and such that support your view point; or even lay out your thinking in a clear and logical manner, we can have a reasonable debate on the issue. I will not force you to my opinion as 'he who is convinced against his will is of the same opinion still', as my grandmother would say. I will try to show how I arrive at my opinion and my thought processes to getting there. That is why I did mention my Libertarian leanings so people would know that those views would also tend to color how I look at issues and could better understand how I come to my conclusions, even if they do not agree. I even pointed out that people who are more 'activist' in their political leanings may enjoy the Flores' permaculture book, "Food Not Lawns", which I admittedly did not care for.

Historically, it is interesting to note that the viewpoints from which we are each espousing where foreseen during the ratification process of our government's founding document, The Constitution. If you want some really boring reading on top of everything else I have suggested and are a real glutton for punishment, read the two volume collection of Federalist and Anti- Federalist works titled, "The Debate on the Constitution" published by The Library of America and edited by Bernard Bailyn. If nothing else it gives an appreciation of those who set up a republic that has resisted the apathy of people 200 years latter to muck it up.

And Wil, believe it or not, I prefer discussing issues with someone like yourself who is passionate about their viewpoints instead of the majority of apathetic people who don't even get off their butts to go out and vote every two years, much less take an interest in current legeslative issues. Even if I strongly disagree, I would rather deal with someone that at the least lets me know where he is coming from, if nothing else. Nothing disgusts me more than 98% of politicians of negotiable virtue, whose views seem to differ before and after each election and depending on which group they happen to be addressing at the moment. And also, believe it or not, I hope that you are correct that if this bill passes, nothing will come of it except we will all live happily ever after in the new socialist paradise that is the USA, today. Because if I am right and it lends itself to abuse and mis-application 5, 10, 50 years from now, we could conceivably have unintended food production problems like the soviets have experienced for much of their existence.

And food for thought (or at least a snack) on regulation:

www.hillsdale.edu/news/impr.../issue.asp

And food for thought when a government (New Zealand) cut back:

www.hillsdale.edu/news/impr.../issue.asp

So farewell, at least until 'Atlas Shrugs'.......