Thank you for the interesting article. However, you only touched on the real problem. The "Laws of the Land" are given to be locally enforced when those laws do not extend without the state. This is why we have state police departments. Giving the FDA, ASIS, and USDA the authority to "act" on regulatory guidelines on purely intrastate matters is unconstitutional not only in most states constitutions but on the basic level of the US Constitution.
The Food Safety Bill (formerly The Safety Modernization Act) now goes beyond establishing the guidelines for Food Safety but establishes the enforcement of those guidelines , punitive fees for failure to comply, and establishes no funding for the increase in needed manpower to accomplish these tasks. In truth, the states already have a system in place that monitors and addresses oversight of existing food safety statutes. Now the Federal Govt. wants to create a redundent layer of beauracracy at the cost of states' rights. This is what Utah and New Hampshire are fighting.

Didn't we learn from the recent federal financial crisis that cutting back on regulation can have disastrous results. Did banking deregulation save us money, when now we see the cost in lost jobs and home mortgage under water.

Food safety regulations and their implementation may need improvement, but no regulation is guaranteed to lead to abuse, with the state's constituents bearing the cost, not in dollars but with their lives.

Perhaps if the FDA and FSIS could manage to regulate for safer food bills such as those from NH and Utah would not be necessary? Yet we see that the FDA still believes that GMO's are safe and that feeding cows chicken manure is a perfectly legitimate farming practice.

Feared government intrusion? Perhaps there is some foundation to that fear. Ever tried to sell raw milk?

Let's also not forget that this is the same Federal Government that is allowing agri-business to self regulate.

Most folks either forget or never learned that the commerce clause was never understood to allow the federal government to come in and regulate anything happening inside the states. Then FDR got elected and got his people into the courts and the commerce clause was used as an excuse for the federal government to do whatever it wants to do.

When the constitution means whatever you want it to mean then there is no constitution. If you don't believe that then go read the Chinese constitution. It actually reads quite nicely. Too bad there are a bunch sociopaths running their governerment.

I think there's a lesson in there somewhere. From a food safety perspective, some folks argue that states are incapable of regulating their own food industries. From what I've seen and heard about the USDA, I don't buy that for one second.

Next they'll be telling us we need one-world-government to have uniform food regulation in an environment where international trade is increasingly prevalent.

A declaration of "Made in Utah" or "Made in New Hampshire" becomes a solemn promise food has been haphazardly manufactured without regard for customer safety. What's so special about that? Don't shoppers in Utah and New Hampshire enjoy adequate access to foods labeled "Made in China" or "Made in Mexico"? Misguided is the only explanation for such bizarre behavior on the part of state legislatures. And much too full of themselves: "Made in New Hampshire", what a hoot!

Bill, once again great article and discussion! As a regulator here in Utah I've been tracking this bill quite intently since I could be prosecuted for not following it. Now, what most people don't understand, especially the sponsors of SB 34, is that the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food (UDAF), the agency most affected by this bill, already has adopted federal regulations. This means that the federal food safety laws this bill wants to take away, are now Utah food safety laws. They would have to also make state law invalid if they wanted to protect local farms from federal regulation. I had a recent conversation with an inspector from UDAF and they see this bill as dead on arrival.

Hmmmm, as a New Hampshire resident I don't like the idea of being called "full of ourselves" since we are nothing like that. I really have no idea why my state is doing this and I certainly don't agree with everything they do. But then again, most of the things any form of government be it state or federal don't make any sense to anyone but the persons benefiting from it. To understand it, I'd have to dig and look for who really introduced this bill and ask them why. Even then I may not get a straight answer but I don't see that happening in any state. NH is no different.

Going to the grocery stores in any state, including here has become a "buy at your own risk" thing to do. I feel like I don't even know what to eat anymore! Vegetables that kill over 30 people! Most of them in the store are moldy and gross and squishy. I buy all of my produce now at local farmer's markets. And as far as meat, it's a roll of the dice now isn't it.

Apple juice with arsenic, rice with arsenic, OJ with pesticides, on and on and on!!! Let's all just agree that our food is no longer doing what it's supposed to do for our bodies but the complete opposite. And it's because of man's constant need to take short cuts, make more money and not care who gets hurt from it. GREED has many definitions and it all impacts our safety and livelihood. No matter what area it's coming from. Especially these days.

Perhaps this is an 'in your face' attempt at enforcing states rights and the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? Maybe states with rather conservative constituents are concerned about how constitutional rights are being abrogated constantly and particularly by federal agencies instituting corporate governance, e.g., FDA mandating no labeling of GMO food products, that is getting out of hand and making life miserable for everyone. Ever think of that?

RE: Bill's " More to the point, what are Utah and New Hampshire farmers and food producers afraid of?........ Is it to curry favor with constituents, or stick a thumb in Uncle Sam's eye?"

The central question for more and more citizens who become active in the Good Food Movement is: whose interests does FDA/USDA/EPA and other food sub-agencies really represent, anyway? There is considerable evidence that the revolving door between government and the regulated businesses has filled our regulatory agencies with food industry boosters --resulting in a virtual corporate-centric cultural takeover of their functions. The non-political appointee apparatus of our federal bureaucracies have taken on a life of their own -- remaining in place, unelected, even in administrations that have tried to do something about it..

Akin to Woody Guthrie's songs about the rich and powerful robbing citizens "with a fountain pen" -- this also holds true for those who have worked their way into protected positions of power to wield regulations (in the name of public safety) to regulate smaller scale competitors out of business.

We should really be talking about this in terms of "food sovereignty" -- before all we are left with is a totally (instead of partially) captive food supply that only features a "choice" between beautified farmesque brand images that all produced by the same unidentified 4 or 5 vertically-integrated corporations, where most (instead of some) of the farmers are serfs under captive contacts and laborers are even more disempowered than they are now...

The growth of inherently self-serving industrialized agriculture and food systems has been going on since the 1950's -- only now are we becoming aware of the ramifications...

Seems like the hazy concept of "food sovereignty" portends isolationism, aiming to regress local farmers back into subsistence agriculture with the grueling manual labor and grinding poverty that accompanies it. This "restoration" might be acceptable for states like New Hampshire whose agriculture has long since been irreversibly decimated by reforestation, land development and real estate speculation. Not much of an option for states with meaningful agricultural economies. Those vocational farmers will not relish a reversion to peasant class at the hands of upstart suburban political monarchs who take it upon themselves to force a new doctrine of "sovereignty" upon their native yeoman neighbors.

I'd say that's an unsubstantiated, dim view, Frank. First of all look what's already happened to farmers under the present agribusiness consolidation regime where farmers are now under 1% of the population and the biggest -- in states with "meaningful agricultural economies" --are growing vast acreage of highly subsidized commodity crops -- for industry, ethanol and inedible food for humans.

Further, commodity farmers are essentially money launderers for the highly profitable agricultural input corporations -- their subsidy payments are quickly turned over to Agribiz to pay for all the land costs, seed, chemical fertilizers, insecticides, herbicides and other pesticides, mega equipment, etc. it takes under "production agriculture" to produce the crop. CAFO livestock "factory farm" farmers are no better than serfs under the yoke of oppressive corporate contracts.

Unless Big Ag succeeds in muscling it's way into local food systems, food sovereignty is protective -- creating a respectful partnership between eaters and farmers based on full choice-- and elevating the health and well-being of both.

"...serfs under the yoke of oppressive corporate contracts."

Golly gee willikers, somebody's been guzzling the Koolaid!

The NH bill was supported by the Raw Milk group. The FDA specifically has engaged in legal warfare on raw milk producers solely because they challenge the authority of the FDA. The FDA feeling threatened when people choose to consume a product that may have heath risks (unsubstantiated in this case).

Excellent piece. Will keep this one bookmarked for future "It's not Constitutional" arguments related to the commerce clause. The puppy millers also bring this one up. Repeatedly.

Michael, are you deliberately ignoring the many stories of people sick from raw milk and raw milk products?

No kool-aid here -- but it seems that somebody's had way too many Happy Meals...

Not modern serfdom? Check out Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) that have forced smaller operations out of business and now dominate hogs, poultry, beef and other livestock markets. CAFOs contracts require the farmer to construct the steel buildings to company specs -- the big loans are predicated on having signed corporate contracts but in ensuing years the terms in the contract renewals can change -- and the farmer's investment is worthless without continuing renewals. Once signed they can't divulge the terms to anyone. = ahhhh.... gothcha!

CAFOs are set up so the corporation supplies and owns the piglets/chicks and the (medicated) feed. The farmer/laborer/serf works to feed, raise and manage the livestock, but owns and is responsible for all the animals that die along the way in the cramped factory conditions as well as the odor problems and huge amounts of manure.

The Justice Dept held hearing around the country on these captive contracts last summer -- still no action forthcoming, however...

Here's a couple of quotes from an excellent paper, "Do We Need CAFOs" by economist John Ikerd who also calls CAFO farmers "serfs":
"So, hog producers are lured to CAFOs by the false promise of a higher total return to management, only later to realize that lower returns per head sold have erased any advantage."

"The fact of the matter is that CAFOs are an integral part of a corporately controlled food chain, in which producers have no power to bargain for a profit or even for an equitable return on their investment. Even in cases where producer-owned CAFOs are not yet under corporate contract, they soon will be. As is the case for poultry, and increasingly for hogs, CAFO producers who are not under contract will find they have no markets. And once under contract, they have no bargaining power to negotiate for fair and equitable treatment. In addition, contract producers make none of the important production and marketing decisions, take very little production or market risk, and thus, have little opportunity to realize profits. They are hog house landlords and contract “janitors,” but certainly are not farmers, in any traditional sense of the occupation."

http: web.missouri.edu/~ikerdj/papers/Kellogg-Taho-CAFOs.htm

How many pigs has John Ikerd ever raised? Sounds like he doesn't know any more about it than you do, Steve. This cannot possibly be what New Hampshire is afraid of. Maybe they should be a little cautious of your exaggeration, though.