FDA vs. Our "Right" to Real Food

[BendtheBar]

FDA says you have no right to real food unless they give you permission first

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."

In other words, the agency has stated that because Congress has given FDA the authority to regulate food, there is no such thing as a right to acquire any given food.

Furthermore, the FDA says, "there is no generalized right to bodily and physical health."

"Finally, even if such a right did exist, it would not render FDA's regulations unconstitutional because prohibiting the interstate sale and distribution of unpasteurized milk promotes 'bodily and physical health.'"

[MC]

Oh really? I'd figure that eating and consuming would fall under "expression" as covered by the First Amendment.

But, I must say that using the Bible to uphold legality is never a good thing and IMO, downright dangerous..

[BendtheBar]

Originally Posted by *MC*

Oh really? I'd figure that eating and consuming would fall under "expression" as covered by the First Amendment.

But, I must say that using the Bible to uphold legality is never a good thing and IMO, downright dangerous..

I would agree.

I think this issue boils down to a basic human right. if we are allowed to eat crap all day, then we should be allowed to eat pure foods.

Do we really think that processed milk is inherently better than pure milk?

I guess that's the big question.

[MC]

Originally Posted by BendtheBar

I would agree.

I think this issue boils down to a basic human right. if we are allowed to eat crap all day, then we should be allowed to eat pure foods.

Do we really think that processed milk is inherently better than pure milk?

I guess that's the big question.

I guess if by "better" most people think, "lasts longer" than yes, most people would probably think that processed milk is "better."

Same with heavily processed breads. Real bread gets stale after a day or so.

[bamazav]

Originally Posted by *MC*

Oh really? I'd figure that eating and consuming would fall under "expression" as covered by the First Amendment.

But, I must say that MIS-using the Bible to uphold legality is never a good thing and IMO, downright dangerous..

Sorry MC, I had to fix your statement. Their quote to justify and set precedent was dangerous because it was a poor interpretation and a misapplication of the Bible. The Bible, when properly applied, has much to teach us about law.

[BendtheBar]

Very good point. There is a huge difference with use and mis-use.

[MC]

Then the debate becomes: When and how do we determine use versus misuse?

Isn't it relative to that which it is applied?

(but that would likely be whole other thread).

[BendtheBar]

Originally Posted by *MC*

Then the debate becomes: When and how do we determine use versus misuse?

Isn't it relative to that which it is applied?

(but that would likely be whole other thread).

Good conversation for a new thread.

If anyone has an understanding of the Pharisees, then I think misuse is easier to spot.

[5kgLifter]

Originally Posted by *MC*

I guess if by "better" most people think, "lasts longer" than yes, most people would probably think that processed milk is "better."

Same with heavily processed breads. Real bread gets stale after a day or so.

"Real" bread, sourdough style, lasts for a good week. The mass produced bread is made to a recipe that wil go smoothly through the machines so that they don't lose much in terms of dough sticking to the machine and grinding the production to a halt; they also rely very heavily on higher quantities of yeast which means the bread is ready a lot faster...that's their big mistake. The breads that have less yeast added, or none, sourdough, last longer because they have taken longer to develop etc.

With mass produced bread you can smell the yeast, though with a good bread you should not be able to smell the yeast.

A bit off track, but I figured it worth a mention in terms of real" food.