[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE

Pinguinite You have mail..

What did Bill Clinton and Gavin Newsom talk about in Mexico? I have an idea


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: First of Its Kind ‘Food Sovereignty’ Law Just Legalized Local Food Trade WITHOUT Govt
Source: Free Thought Project
URL Source: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/fo ... overeignty-law-legalized-food/
Published: Jul 21, 2017
Author: Justin Gardner
Post Date: 2017-07-21 20:29:33 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 830
Comments: 12

Raw milk? Free Range Eggs? Organic Vegetables? No Problem. State's 'Food Sovereignty' Law just legalized their food trade once again.

Alternate text if image doesn't load

Maine has taken a bold step toward freedom, becoming the first state in the U.S. to enact a ‘food sovereignty’ law giving communities power to regulate their local food economy. The bill, titled An Act To Recognize Local Control Regarding Food and Water Systems, was passed unanimously by the state Senate and signed into law by Governor Paul LePage.

“LePage signed LD 725, An Act to Recognize Local Control Regarding Food Systems, Friday legitimizing the authority of towns and communities to enact ordinances regulating local food distribution free from state regulatory control…

Supporters of food sovereignty want local food producers to be exempt from state licensing and inspections governing the selling of food as long as the transactions are between the producers and the customers for home consumption or when the food is sold and consumed at community events such as church suppers.”

What this means is that neighbors can sell their eggs, milk, and other wholesome food to neighbors, without fear of state-level interference. This includes raw milk sales, a particular area where government has cracked down on those who dare engage in voluntary exchange.

Maine’s move is very welcome at a time when freedom is generally being chipped away by the police/surveillance state and the corporatocracy. Longstanding alliances between corporate food giants and government agencies have come to exert vast control over what we put in our bodies.

Almost every large food and beverage brand is controlled by 10 corporations, which pay off politicians to stifle smaller, more localized competitors. Regulatory burdens are created which do little or nothing to actually help the consumer or environment, but create enormous burdens that the little guy operating in a more localized area can’t handle.

The result is more unhealthy processed foods, massive factory farms poisoning humans and polluting the environment, more pesticide use from industrial monoculture which damages ecosystems, and loss of family farms.

The food and agriculture biotechnology Industry spent more than half a billion dollars over a decade to influence Congress for the privilege of feeding America. To politicians running DC, that kind of money makes the will of the people meaningless.

Betsy Garrold of Food for Maine’s Future summed up the simple, undeniable rationale behind food sovereignty.

We believe face-to-face transactions with your neighbors is safe and beneficial to both parties,” said Garrold, “They know you, you know them and, frankly, poisoning your neighbors is a very bad business plan.

Food freedom is certainly popular among the people, as 20 municipalities had already enacted food sovereignty ordinances prior to the bill being signed. Garrold said her phone “has been ringing off the hook” with townspeople who have every intention of using this freedom to build a thriving local, healthy food economy.

This demonstrates the hunger that likely exists all across the nation to take back control of our food supply, bringing a more localized, diverse approach which in turns provides health and environmental benefits.

“This is a great day for rural economic development and the environmental and social wealth of rural communities,” said Rep. Craig Hickman, D-Winthrop. “The Governor has signed into law a first-in-the-nation piece of landmark legislation [and] the state of Maine will [now] recognize, at last, the right of municipalities to regulate local food systems as they see fit.

“It’s been a long time coming,” Hickman said. “Food sovereignty means the improved health and well-being of the people of Maine by reducing hunger and increasing food self-sufficiency through improved access to wholesome, nutritious and locally produced foods.”

Maine’s move seems like an unusual and novel idea in these times, but food freedom has been around for most of humanity. Other states, including California, are considering similar food sovereignty measures.

Forces are undoubtedly mobilizing against the revolution, including the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) which is persistent and successful at getting lawmakers to do the bidding of corporate interests.

A big question is, what will federal government do? Lawmakers and corrupted agencies — acting on behalf of food giants and under the guise of “consumer safety” — could crack down on this newfound food freedom.

Or, when people in Maine create a thriving, healthy local food economy, it may prove too big for the forces of oppression to overcome. (1 image)

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Deckard, misterwhite (#0)

White will be here in a minute or two to tell us how the federal government should step in to save the children!

buckeroo  posted on  2017-07-21   20:46:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Deckard, buckeroo (#0)

What this means is that neighbors can sell their eggs, milk, and other wholesome food to neighbors, without fear of state-level interference.

Doesn't go far enough. Should be able to sell your products to the local storekeeper. This whole FDA thing has gotten way out of hand. When Sinclair Lewis wrote "The Jungle" knowledge of sanitation was still poor and food producers did not keep their facilities clean enough. Today knowledge of sanitation is much better and diagnoses and communication regarding any bacterial outbreak, like salmonella, is nearly instant.

Anthem  posted on  2017-07-22   1:29:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Deckard (#0)

I don't have a problem with my state allowing the actual consumer to purchase directly from the local producer.

Contamination problems can arise with third parties or long distances between producer and consumer. If the state (ie., my tax dollars) are going to be used to care for consumers harmed by bad produce, then I want a say on how it's distributed. However, if people agree to take personal responsibility for their actions, then we don't need any laws.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-22   10:23:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Deckard (#0)

Maine has taken a bold step toward freedom, becoming the first state in the U.S. to enact a ‘food sovereignty’ law giving communities power to regulate their local food economy. The bill, titled An Act To Recognize Local Control Regarding Food and Water Systems, was passed unanimously by the state Senate and signed into law by Governor Paul LePage.

The Maine law could be signed by Jesus Christ. Federal law is supreme and the doctrine of state nullification is still dead.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-22   10:59:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: nolu chan (#4) (Edited)

Federal law is supreme and the doctrine of state nullification is still dead.

The 10th Amendment has been rescinded? When did that happen.

You're not a big fan of states' rights, are you?

What this means is that neighbors can sell their eggs, milk, and other wholesome food to neighbors, without fear of state-level interference. This includes raw milk sales, a particular area where government has cracked down on those who dare engage in voluntary exchange.

How is this any different than selling any items to your neighbor? Maybe the Feds should crack down on all those church bake sales.

Oh - and lemonade stands.

I'm sure you would approve.

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul

Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.

Deckard  posted on  2017-07-22   11:07:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Deckard (#5)

State laws purporting to nullify federal laws or federal court opinions are like so many farts in the wind.

Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958)

Cooper at 18-19:

Article VI of the Constitution makes the Constitution the "supreme Law of the Land." In 1803, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for a unanimous Court, referring to the Constitution as "the fundamental and paramount law of the nation," declared in the notable case of Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177, that "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." This decision declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system. It follows that the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath taken pursuant to Art. VI, cl. 3, "to support this Constitution." Chief Justice Taney, speaking for a unanimous Court in 1859, said that this requirement reflected the framers' "anxiety to preserve it [the Constitution] in full force, in all its powers, and to guard against resistance to or evasion of its authority, on the part of a State . . . ." Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. 506," 524. No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it. Chief Justice Marshall spoke for a unanimous Court in saying that: "If the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery . . . ." United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch 115, 136. A Governor who asserts a power to nullify a federal court order is similarly restrained. If he had such power, said Chief Justice Hughes; in 1932, also for a unanimous Court, "it is manifest that the fiat of a state Governor, and not the Constitution of the United States, would be the supreme law of the land; that the restrictions of the Federal Constitution upon the exercise of state power would be but impotent phrases . . . ." Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U. S. 378, 397-398.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-22   15:40:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: misterwhite (#3)

I completely understand the logic in your conclusion. With that said, 51% of people can offer to "give you a benefit" that takes away the freedom of the 49% on a completely unrelated matter. As in since we pay for the progeny of sex between two unmarried people, the people should be able to control their fertility, which is a logical conclusion also. Although if we did this, Civil rights groups would raise holy hell.

Exercising rights is only radical to two people, Tyrants and Slaves. Which are YOU? Our ignorance has driven us into slavery and we do not recognize it.

jeremiad  posted on  2017-07-23   23:52:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: jeremiad (#7)

"With that said, 51% of people can offer to "give you a benefit" that takes away the freedom of the 49% on a completely unrelated matter."

Which is why we don't have a direct democracy. We have a representative republic, and they make the laws.

You're thinking of the system used by a referendum where the people vote directly on an issue -- like legal marijuana. I agree, that's a lousy system by which to pass criminal laws.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-24   11:28:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: jeremiad (#7)

"the people should be able to control their fertility"

Better to simply limit or eliminate the societal benefits to their progeny, no? We have no constitutional mandate to care for their children. As a society, we choose to do so.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-24   11:31:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: misterwhite (#9)

I totally agree, this is the basis of Conservatism in my view. Eliminate benefits or control fertility. If a woman has a child and wants the State to pay for it, after 1 year on the system, she either has used up her eligibility for life, or she submits to sterilization. That sounds like a reasonable compromise.

Exercising rights is only radical to two people, Tyrants and Slaves. Which are YOU? Our ignorance has driven us into slavery and we do not recognize it.

jeremiad  posted on  2017-07-27   11:43:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: jeremiad (#10)

Eliminate benefits or control fertility.

And that should be done at the state level. Benefits, it any, should be handled at the lowest level possible -- preferably through charity.

Get the federal government out of the daddy business.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-27   11:55:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Deckard (#0)

legitimizing the authority of towns and communities to enact ordinances regulating local food distribution free from state regulatory control…

As long as they can't ship it across state lines, I don't care what they eat...

And when they start suffering outbreaks of food poisoning, they'll reenact statewide regulations... the pendulum swings back-and-forth both ways... what goes around, comes around... no big deal.

Willie Green  posted on  2017-07-27   12:22:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com