S 510.... Putting Lipstick On A Pig

[Warph]

Tester Amendment to food 'safety' bill puts lipstick on a pig

"The FDA is the single most deadly agency that has ever existed in the history of the United States. Over the last 20 years the FDA has killed more Americans than the total number who died in World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War and even the Civil War — combined!"

Consider the title of S 510: "Food Safety Modernization Act." By modernize, the FDA intends to force everyone to adulterate the entire US food supply with drugs (like antibiotics), chemicals (like chlorine), genes from other organisms, and whatever new profit-making adulterant that corporations create. Food producers will be forced to use pesticides, which we then ingest to our detriment. Forced irradiation and pasteurization will be the "safe" standard under which all producers must comply.

S 510's traceability requirements suggest foods can be injected with nano-tracers and other technologies to follow food back to its source. Even if that dystopic scenario isn't immediately implemented, the paperwork for food tracing will wipe out medium sized producers and distributors. Imagine having to turn over your private food club client list to your competitors (represented by the FDA). How easy will it be for acts of sabotage from multi-billion dollar corporations to wipe out your small business?

Natural, normal food will be criminalized by S 510, and we know this because of all the current food raids on natural producers and distributors, while allowing giants like Wright County Egg to sell contaminated food for decades. This war on normal food is ongoing– even before giving the FDA an additional $1.6 billion and complete control over all food.

Rest of story at: http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2010/11/23/tester-amendment-to-food-safety-bill-put

[Warph]

HAVE SOME SENATORS BEEN PAID OFF TO SUPPORT S.510 - THE 'FOOD SAFETY MODERNIZATION ACT'?

11-18-2010 11:16 pm - John W. Wallace

The following is a list of U.S Senators and the Bribes (I mean campaign contributions) that these Senators received from Special Interest Groups to either support or oppose S.510 - The FDA Food Safety and Modernization Act. I have listed the names of the Senators, the Party and State, and the amount of Special Interest Bribes (I mean campaign contributions) that they received:

Name of Senator - Party & State - Bribe For S.510 or Bribe Against S.510

Daniel Akaka - D HI - Bribe For: $27,690 - Against: $700

Lamar Alexander - R TN - Bribe For: $190,421 - Against: $4,850

John Barrasso - R WY - Bribe For: $31,350 - Against: $27,500

Max Baucus - D MT - Bribe for: $123,803 - Against: $55,980

Evan Bayh - D IN - Bribe For: $45,200 - Against: 8,250

Mark Begich - D AK - Bribe For: $23,050 - Against: $2,000

Michael Bennet - D CO - Bribe For: $38,509 - Against: $22,050

Robert Bennett - R UT - Bribe For: $105,530 - Against: $10,000

Jeff Bingaman - D NM - Bribe For: $31,498 - Against: $8,450

Christopher Bond - R MO - Bribe For: $49,550 - Against: $5,200

Barbara Boxer - D CA - Bribe For: $120,000 - Against: $13,650

Sherrod Brown - D OH - Bribe For: $57,800 - Against: $6,600

Samuel Brownback - R KS - Bribe For: $20,950 - Against: $13,500

Jim Bunning - R KY - Brobe For: $20,700 - Against: $2,000

Richard Burr - R NC - Bribe For: $328,086 - Against: $32,292

Roland Burris - D IL - Bribe For: $0 - Against: $0

Maria Cantwell - D WA - Bribe For: $93,541 - Against: $2,750

Benjamin Cardin - D MD - Bribe For: $72,200 - Against: $0

Thomas Carper - D DE - Bribe For: $83,150 - Against: $0

Robert Casey - D PA - Bribe For: $80,576 - Against: $4,600

Saxby Chambliss - R GA - Bribe For: $557,694 - Against: $108,041

Thomas Coburn R OK - Bribe For: $64,400 - Against: $14,200

Thad Cochran - R MS - Bribe For: $50,144 - Against: $22,000

Susan Collins - R ME - Bribe For: $157,438 - Against: $7,800

Kent Conrad - D ND - Bribe For: $41,650 - Against: $29,612

Bob Corker - R TN - Bribe For: $298,639 - Against: $8,850

John Cornyn - R TX - Bribe For: $286,648 - Against: $254,730

Michael Crapo - R ID - Bribe For: $64,199 - Against: $14,350

Jim DeMint - R SC - Bribe For: $149,935 - Against: $5,000

Christopher Dodd - D CT - Bribe For: $36,400 - Against: $4,500

Byron Dorgan - D ND - Bribe For: $28,200 - Against: $6,000

Richard Durbin - D IL - Bribe For: $151,050 - Against: $19,000

John Ensign - R NV - Bribe For: $76,297 - Against: $10,500

Michael Enzi - R WY - Bribe For: $87,394 - Against: $21,450

Russell Feingold - D WI - Bribe For: $53,854 - Against: $2,200

Dianne Feinstein - D CA - Bribe For: $168,189 - Against: 25,314

Kirsten Gillibrand - D NY - Bribe For: $98,210 - Against: $10,650

Lindsey Graham - R SC - Bribe For: $101,272 - Against: $5,700

Charles Grassley - R IA - Bribe For: $112,150 - Against: $25,500

Judd Gregg - R NH - Bribe For: $26,000 - Against: $0

Kay Hagan - D NC - Bribe For: $36,250 - Against: $3,500

Thomas Harkin - D IA - Bribe For: $138,135 - Against: $40,600

Orrin Hatch - R UT - Bribe For: $102,215 - Against: $11,600
(See comment received from Senator Hatch's Office below)

Kay Hutchison - R TX - Bribe For: $127,811 - Against: $103,386

James Inhofe - R OK - Bribe For: $66,744 - Against: $36,430

Daniel Inouye - D HI - Bribe For: $26,350 - Against: $11,200

John Isakson - R GA - Bribe For: $280,995 - Against: $10,100

Mike Johanns - R NE - Bribe For: $159,259 - Against: $59,785

Tim Johnson - D SD - Bribe For: $26,850 - Against: $15,000

Edward Kaufman - D DE - Bribe For: $0 - Against: $0

John Kerry - D MA - Bribe For: $14,406 - Against: $250

Amy Klobuchar - D MN - Bribe For: $149,778 - Against: $16,250

Herbert Kohl - D WI - Bribe For: $300 - Against: $0

Jon Kyl - R AZ - Bribe For: $363,660 - Against: $58,906

Mary Landrieu - D LA - Bribe For: $73,622 - Against: $2,250

Frank Lautenberg - D NJ - Bribe For: $37,883 - Agqinst: $3,550

Patrick Leahy - D VT - Bribe For: $13,800 - Against: $2,750

Carl Levin - D MI - Bribe For: $49,900 - Against: $2,000

Joseph Lieberman - I CT - Bribe For: $121,075 - Against: $0

Blanche Lincoln - D AR - Bribe For: $347,526 - Against: $125,297

Richard Lugar - R IN - Bribe For: $153,579 - Against: $21,000

John McCain - R AZ - Bribe For: $118,070 - Against: $21,525

Claire McCaskill - D MO - Bribe For: $48,950 - Against: $7,650

Mitch McConnell - R KY - Bribe For: $439,593 - Against: $42,244

Robert Menéndez - D NJ - Bribe For: $183,850 - Against: $250

Jeff Merkley - D OR - Bribe For: $27,350 - Against; $3,300

Barbara Mikulski - D MD - Bribe For: $52,165 - Against: $1,000

Lisa Murkowski - R AK - Bribe For: $164,713 - Against: $5,800

Patty Murray - D WA - Bribe For: $136,500 - Against: $3,150

Ben Nelson - D NE - Bribe For: $254,906 - Against: $44,950

Bill Nelson - D FL - Bribe For: $205,471 - Against: $35,748

Mark Pryor - D AR - Bribe For: $115,550 - Against: $16,565

John Reed - D RI - Bribe For: $29,350 - Against: $0

Harry Reid - D NV - Bribe For: $133,985 - Against: $10,000

James Risch - R ID - Bribe For: $56,750 - Against; $36,050

Pat Roberts - R KS - Bribe For: $167,294 - Against: $65,186

John Rockefeller - D WV - Bribe For: $21,250 - Against: $1,000

Bernard Sanders - I VT - Bribe For: $7,800 - Against: $4,200

Charles Schumer - D NY - Bribe For: $175,185 - Against: $14,200

Jefferson Sessions - R AL - Bribe For: $65,303 - Against: $16,800

Jeanne Shaheen - D NH - Bribe For: $17,090 - Against: $7,300

Richard Shelby - R AL - Bribe For: $73,616 - Against: $10,000

Olympia Snowe - R ME - Bribe For: $78,136 - Against: $2,000

Arlen Specter - D PA - Bribe For: $209,124 - Against: $9,400

Debbie Ann Stabenow - D MI - Bribe For: $84,941 - Against: $14,482

Jon Tester - D MT - Bribe For: $21,250 - Against: $61,550

John Thune - R SD - Bribe For: $218,900 - Against: $55,625

Mark Udall - D CO - Bribe For: $34,435 - Against: $45,050

Tom Udall - D NM - Bribe For: $27,102 - Against: $51,900

David Vitter - R LA - Bribe For: $188,225 - Against: $8,500

George Voinovich - R OH - Bribe For: $103,850 - Against: $185

Mark Warner - D VA - Bribe For: $116,450 - Against: $8,600

Jim Webb - D VA - Bribe For: $25,300 - Against: $7,700

Sheldon Whitehouse- D RI - Bribe For: $27,025 - Against: $1,500

Roger Wicker - R MS - Bribe For: $147,650 - Against: $16,250

Ron Wyden - D OR - Bribe For: $58,700 - Against: $4,900

Here's a list of the Special Interest Groups that support S.510 and how much they bribed (I mean donated) to Senators:

Restaurants & drinking establishments $3,217,767
Food and kindred products manufacturing $1,753,503
Milk & dairy producers $1,717,687
Food stores $1,473,532
Beverages (non-alcoholic) $744,551
Vegetables, fruits and tree nut $709,238
American Veterinarian Medical Association $551,750
Beverage bottling & distribution $289,725
Food wholesalers $284,900
Food & Beverage Products and Services $281,137
Fishing $277,984
Chambers of commerce $219,234
Manufacturing $207,740
Food catering & food services $171,835
Confectionery processors & manufacturers $96,438
Consumer groups $6,100
Farm bureaus $0

Here's a list of Here's a list of the Special Interest Groups that sopposed S.510 and how much they bribed (I mean donated) to Senators:


Milk & dairy producers $1,717,687
Livestock $1,561,207
Farm organizations & cooperatives $412,976
Consumer groups $6,100
Farmers, crop unspecified $0

I wonder how the Senators will Vote when the bill reaches the floor of the Senate?

[srkruzich]

I gotta say that Saxby chambliss and johnny isakson both supported the original bill but it has been modified since they first cosponsored it and both have voted against this current version.  I got a letter from both stating this.  It has changed so much from the original bill which only was supposed to reign in the agencies responsible for our food quality.

[redcliffsw]

Well, you know that campaign contributions to Senators could be eliminated by abolishing the 17th Amendment.
With abolishment of the 17th, we would no longer be electing the Senators by popular vote.  That way, the States,
instead of certain people and groups, could be re-established as having the "special interests" just like the founding fathers intended.

[jerry wagner]

Well, you know that campaign contributions to Senators could be eliminated by abolishing the 17th Amendment.
With abolishment of the 17th, we would no longer be electing the Senators by popular vote.  That way, the States,
instead of certain people and groups, could be re-established as having the "special interests" just like the founding fathers intended.

The state governments and legislatures have proven to be even more corrupt than our current Senators, I doubt that would remove the money from the system and would help to disenfranchise the masses even more.  Typical neocon hot button issue.

[srkruzich]

The state governments and legislatures have proven to be even more corrupt than our current Senators, I doubt that would remove the money from the system and would help to disenfranchise the masses even more.  Typical neocon hot button issue.

Maybe so but you can control the states much easier locally than you can the feds in dc. 

[redcliffsw]

Repeal of the 17th Amendment would mean much more local control and certainly Senators
would be much less beholden to out-of-staters and special interest groups.

DiLorenzo speaks about it in this short video: