Inflation? What Inflation?

*

Food Irradiation

Food irradiation would save more lives than the proposed Food Safety and Modernization Act, S.510, and food irradiation will not make government bigger, it will not increase the deficit, and it will not drive small farmers out of business while large corporate farm companies cope with the increased government regulation.

The irradiation of food has been proven to be a safe and effective method to destroy microorganisms, bacteria, viruses, or insects that might be present in the food supply. Food irradiation is the process of exposing food to ionizing radiation, and it can be used to kill many food borne diseases while extending the shelf-life of many foods.

Irradiated food does not become radioactive and the food does not come into direct contact with a radioactive material. But in some cases there may be subtle chemical changes, ref. wikipedia. Food irradiation has been proposed as a means of making food safer to eat since the 1950s, however detractors of food irradiation have been effective in stalling it's widespread use by citing these subtle changes as posing undue health risks to the general public. These are the same people who manipulate so-called scientific data to support other alarmist claims like global warming. There has never been any correlation of their claims to any health effects.

Other food protection methods such as cooking, canning, and pasteurization also alter food chemistry subtly, but have been used routinely in modern times. If, for example, milk was irradiated it would retain many of the nutrients that are destroyed by pasteurization yet the milk's shelf-life would be extended significantly.

Several methods of food irradiation are available. They include irradiation using a gamma ray source such as Cobalt-60 (the radioactive source is sealed into a container that keeps it from contacting food), and X-ray devices (no radioactive material involved) similar to but more powerful than those used in diagnostic X-ray procedures.

Summary of "Roots of Obama's Rage" by Denish D'Souza

For those who were unable to see the September 29 and 30, 2010 episodes of the Glenn Beck show explaining why President Barack Hussein Obama would try to destroy United States capitalism, I have tried to summarize the main points below:

"Roots of Obama's Rage" by Denish D'Souza

Facts

Opinion

Returning the Winston Churchill bust

Lockerbie Bombing ltr from Obama to Scotland saying it ok to release the terrorist

Afghan War Iraq & Afghan R wars of imperilism & we have to get out

Nuclear Iran

US Energy Consumption

Tax the Rich - This is all stolen wealth; he thinks he's doing right; creating a better America

President Obama may or may not have been born in the United States, but it is certain that he was not raised in the United States. He doesn't share the values most Americans have who were raised here.

Letter from Senator Kay Hagan (D-NC) re. Border Security

     October 18, 2010

Dear Friend,

Thank you for contacting me regarding the security of our borders. I greatly appreciate hearing your thoughts on this important issue.

The problem of illegal immigration is a threat to our nation's security and economy, and we must prioritize strengthening our borders. I believe law enforcement and border security agents need additional resources and support in order to perform their important duties and to ensure our laws are being enforced adequately and equally in all situations. Increased technology -- including security cameras, unmanned aerial vehicles, and electronic sensors -- as well as fences along the border where appropriate, are critical components of maintaining security along our southern border. With fair and equal enforcement of our laws, and enhanced border security, we can more effectively combat illegal immigration.

I strongly believe in the need for comprehensive immigration reform. I oppose amnesty, and believe we need to hold employers accountable for their hiring practices and crack down on entities that knowingly employ illegal workers. This is why I support the E-Verify program as a tool to help employers ensure they are hiring legal workers. I am committed to achieving practical, bipartisan, comprehensive reform that will protect taxpayers and address the problem of illegal immigration at its core. With our economy in peril, it is more important than ever to ensure that we are protecting the jobs, wages and working conditions of American workers.

Again, thank you for contacting my office. It is truly an honor to represent North Carolina in the United States Senate, and I hope you will not hesitate to contact me in the future should you have any further questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

Kay R. Hagan

Please do not reply to this email. Instead, if you have further questions, please visit www.hagan.senate.gov and fill out my web form for your inquiry. Thank you.

Newsletter: A Message from Senator Richard Burr

Senator Burr on The Food Safety Act, S.510

About Senator Burr | Constituent Services | Contact Me | Share with a Friend We are in the final stretch of the 111th Congress.  Topping the list of unfinished items are bills funding operations of the federal government for the rest of the year and legislation that will ensure American families and small businesses do not face large tax increases on January 1. The Majority has yet to set a schedule for the remaining time in this Congress, and major issues like funding the government and preventing tax increases on all Americans have not been addressed.  In the absence of a clear agenda from the Majority Leader, on Tuesday, Senate Republicans sent a letter to Senator Reid urging him to make these issues the top priorities between now and the time the Senate adjourns.  It's time that the Majority bring the most critical legislation to the Senate floor for debate and a vote so we can get to work on the myriad of pressing issues on which Americans desperately need action taken.  Read the letter we sent to Majority Leader in its entirety here. One issue the Senate did vote on this week was the food safety bill. Our nation's food safety system was designed over a century ago and was appropriate for a world in which most of our food was grown and processed domestically. Recent outbreaks of food-borne illness and nationwide recalls of contaminated food from both domestic and foreign sources highlight the need to modernize and strengthen our food safety system.  This bill improves our capacity to prevent, detect, and respond to food-borne outbreaks and illnesses and increases safety standards on food imported from other countries.  I joined a bipartisan group of Senators to help shape the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act so that I could be sure it worked for North Carolina, improved the safety of our food supply, and included protections for small farms and producers from onerous regulation. To read a summary and full text of the bill click here. I have heard from many North Carolinians concerned that the bill will grant the FDA broader authority to regulate small, family farms.  This is simply not true.  The fact of the matter is if farms weren't required to register with the FDA prior to this bill, they will not have to register as a result of this bill. I encourage you to visit this page on my website that addresses many of these areas of concern and sets the record straight on what this bill means for farms and businesses. On Wednesday, the President's deficit commission issued its report outlining steps we can take to put our nation back on the road to fiscal sanity.  I am currently reviewing the report, and will likely not agree with everything included in it, but the drastic steps it recommends underscore the severity of our current situation.  We are spending ourselves into insurmountable debt, and unless we rein in this spending we will condemn future generations of Americans to a life with fewer opportunities than we enjoy today.  Wednesday marked World AIDS Day, a day for us to remember those whom have lost their battle to this disease and to recommit ourselves to providing life-saving treatment, care, and prevention to those affected by HIV/AIDS.  While we have made great strides in the treatment of this disease in recent years, we must recommit ourselves to the fight against HIV/AIDS here at home and acknowledge the work that remains to be done.  I am a strong supporter of the AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP), a life-saving program that provides treatment to low-income patients.  Sadly, nine states – including North Carolina – have ADAP waiting lists with thousands of individuals waiting for life-saving treatment.  Every day that a patient waits to enroll in these life-saving programs threatens their health and overall quality of life.  This is simply unacceptable.  I remain committed to ensuring that HIV/AIDS patients across North Carolina and our nation have access to the life-saving treatment they need.    I recently launched a new Facebook page.  On it, I will provide updates regarding what is going on in Washington and how the issues we debate in the Senate affect you and your family back home.  I encourage you to "like" my page on Facebook to receive updates and stay informed of my work in Washington and North Carolina. Sincerely, U.S. Senator Richard Burr *Please do not respond to this email.  To contact me, please click here or visit my website www.burr.senate.gov.  Asheville Federal Building 151 Patton Avenue, Suite 204 Asheville, NC 28801 Phone: (828) 350-2437 Fax: (828) 350-2439 Rocky Mount 100 Coast Line Street, Room 210 Rocky Mount, NC 27804 Phone: (877) 703-2087 Phone: (252) 977-9522 Fax: (252) 977-7902 Washington, DC 217 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Phone: (202) 224-3154 Fax: (202) 228-2981 Winston-Salem 2000 West First Street Suite 508 Winston-Salem, NC 27104 Phone: (800) 685-8916 Phone: (336) 631-5125 Fax: (336) 725-4493 Gastonia City Hall 181 South Street, Room 222 Gastonia, NC 28052 Phone: (704) 833-0854 Fax: (704) 833-1467 Wilmington 201 North Front Street Suite 809 Wilmington, NC 28401 Phone: (888) 848-1833 Phone: (910) 251-1058 Fax: (910) 251-7975

Home | Privacy Policy | Contact Me | Unsubscribe

Email to Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) re. S.510

Dear Senator Burr

Contrary to the statements in your newsletter, S.510, The Food Safety Act is punitive to small business and farmers, including produce stands. Below is a partial list of extracts from the bill that disputes your assertions. I will be posting this email and your newsletter on the Crystal Coast Tea Party web site. I will also continue to excerpt the bill where it shows how the bill is detrimental to small farmers in NC and throughout the US.

Page 4 [includes roadside stands by definition]
CON10
CERN.—If the Secretary believes that there is a rea11
sonable probability that the use of or exposure to an
12 article of food, and any other article of food that the
13 Secretary reasonably believes is likely to be affected
14 in a similar manner, will cause serious adverse
15 health consequences or death to humans or animals,
16 each person (excluding farms and restaurants) who
17 manufactures, processes, packs, distributes, receives,
18 holds, or imports such article shall, at the request of
19 an officer or employee duly designated by the Sec20
retary, permit such officer or employee, upon presen21
tation of appropriate credentials and a written notice
22 to such person, at reasonable times and within rea23
sonable limits and in a reasonable manner, to have
24 access to and copy all records relating to such article
25 and to any other article of food that the Secretary

Page 10
[small entity compliance guide]
20 (2) SMALL ENTITY COMPLIANCE POLICY
21 GUIDE.—Not later than 180 days after the issuance
22 of the regulations promulgated under section
23 415(b)(5) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
24 Act (as added by this section), the Secretary shall
25 issue a small entity compliance policy guide

[includes roadside stands]
Page 11
(1) RETAIL FOOD ESTABLISHMENT.—The Sec11
retary shall amend the definition of the term ‘‘retail
12 food establishment’’ in section in 1.227(b)(11) of
13 title 21, Code of Federal Regulations to clarify that,
14 in determining the primary function of an establish15
ment or a retail food establishment under such sec16
tion, the sale of food products directly to consumers
17 by such establishment and the sale of food directly
18 to consumers by such retail food establishment in19
clude—
20 (A) the sale of such food products or food

21 directly to consumers by such establishment at
22 a roadside stand or farmers’ market where such
23 stand or market is located other than where the
24 food was manufactured or processed;
continued on Page 12
[NOTE: any other sale and distribution as determined by the Secretary]
1 (B) the sale and distribution of such food
2 through a community supported agriculture
3 program; and
4 (C) the sale and distribution of such food
5 at any other such direct sales platform as deter6
mined by the Secretary.

Page 25 & 26
[NOTE: The Secretary has authority to make the 'size' determination]
23 ‘‘(B) SIZE.—The results of the study con24
ducted under subparagraph (A) shall include
25 the information necessary to enable the Sec26
† S 510 ES
1 retary to define the terms ‘small business’ and
2 ‘very small business’, for purposes of promul3
gating the regulation under subsection (n). In
4 defining such terms, the Secretary shall include
5 consideration of harvestable acres, income, the
6 number of employees, and the volume of food
7 harvested.

Page 36 & 37
[NOTE: The Secretary determines]
19 (d) SMALL ENTITY COMPLIANCE POLICY GUIDE.—
20 Not later than 180 days after the issuance of the regula21
tions promulgated under subsection (n) of section 418 of
22 the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (as added by
23 subsection (a)), the Secretary shall issue a small entity
24 compliance policy guide setting forth in plain language the
25 requirements of such section 418 and this section to assist

† S 510 ES
1 small entities in complying with the hazard analysis and
2 other activities required under such section 418 and this
3 section.

Page 42 & 44
[NOTE: during rule making The Secretary defines 'small and very small businesses]
22 ‘‘(F) define, for purposes of this section,
23 the terms ‘small business’ and ‘very small busi24
ness’

Page 46
[NOTE: This is not an exemption for small businesses & the flexibility is determined by The Secretary]
12 ‘‘(B) provide sufficient flexibility to be
13 practicable for all sizes and types of businesses,
14 including small businesses such as a small food
15 processing facility co-located on a farm;

Page 46
[NOTE: This does not exempt small businesses from any paperwork; it simply requires The Secretary to consider the impact]
16 ‘‘(C) comply with chapter 35 of title 44,
17 United States Code (commonly known as the
18 ‘Paperwork Reduction Act’), with special atten19
tion to minimizing the burden (as defined in
20 section 3502(2) of such Act) on the business,
21 and collection of information (as defined in sec22
tion 3502(3) of such Act), associated with such
23 regulations;

Page 47
[NOTE: Leaves open a requirement for any businesses to hire 3rd party consultants to resolve disputes. May be extremely expensive for small businesses]
3 ‘‘(E) not require a business to hire a con4
sultant or other third party to identify, imple5
ment, certify, compliance with these procedures,
6 processes, and practices, except in the case of
7 negotiated enforcement resolutions that may re8
quire such a consultant or third party;

[NOTE: grants usually come with strings attached]
Page 171
3 ‘‘(c) PRIORITY.—In awarding grants under this sec4
tion, the Secretary shall give priority to projects that tar5
get small and medium-sized farms, beginning farmers, so6
cially disadvantaged farmers, small processors, or small
7 fresh fruit and vegetable merchant wholesalers.

Letter to Senators Burr & Hagan on Gasohol

The genesis of my concern with the addition of ethanol to gasoline began some years ago when you could still find gas without ethanol. My personal observations was that I got fewer miles per gallon with gasohol than with gasoline. Now that all gasoline in NC has ethanol, no one seems to know there is a difference between the mileage performance of gasohol and gasoline. So not only does gasohol cost more per gallon than gasoline, gasohol costs you more because you get fewer miles per gallon! What some might call a double-whammy. 

Later, I discovered that even though car manufacturers have replaced many fuel components with those that are more resistant to gasohol, many other gas-powered engines on boats, lawn mowers, trimmers, etc. are not gasohol resistant. Within a couple of years these components degrade and have to be replaced at the owners expense. Yet another cost in addition to the higher cost of gasohol. 

Now the EPA wants to boost the amount of ethanol in gasohol to 15%. That will further reduce fuel mileage, increase costs, and deteriorate fuel components faster.  Then there's the concern of the use of corn to produce ethanol for the gasohol and the impact that may have on food prices.

The is yet another example of the government creating a program that has unintended consequences. This is yet another example of why big government is bad. This is another example of why big government fails and should fail.

Below is an email I sent to Senators Burr and Hagan of NC:

"Government interference always has unintended consequences. In the case of the federal government mandate to add biofuels to gasoline there are many negative consequences. In this article "AP sources: EPA expected to OK more ethanol in gas" (http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=21&sid=377155) the out-of-control EPA may allow higher percentage of ethanol to gasoline. I already can't buy gas without ethanol. Why might I want to do that? Ethanol reduces miles per gallon, it costs more, and it damages fuel lines on boats and power equipment (the fuel lines actually begin to dissolve). We need to reel in the EPA and start to decrease federal regulation. Enough of this big government stuff!"