The dangerously ambiguous language of the food safety bill

By Michael Geer
American Thinker

This is an extract from a much larger piece that cites various positions on food safety legislation, many of which have been posted here. But his analysis makes a point not stressed enough. ~Ed

“You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered. ~Attributed to Lyndon B. Johnson

Taking off from Lyndon Johnson’s observation, the ambiguity of language in S.510 provides a giant opportunity for empowered authorities to make up both the intent and meaning of these proposed regulations and interpret this law as they see fit when they should be constrained by specifics.

Legislators can be amazingly specific when they want to be. But a law that is couched in terms and phrases open to interpretation is exactly what leads to cascading unintended consequences. And many believe that’s exactly why ambiguous language is used. Along the lines of “better to ask forgiveness than permission.” Or, more bluntly, we’ll do as we please, see you in court, and we’ll let a judge sort it out.

This is exactly why so much distress and anger permeates the internet over S.510: the possibility of slowly eroding the natural rights of home gardeners and their valued seed stocks in the face of the sweeping changes genetically patented seed lines represent. Attorneys for multinational corporations making these GMO seeds are ruthless in pursuing lawsuits to enforce what they claim is patent infringement — even when it is nature spreading these seeds into fields and farms, and not by consent or intent of farmers who find GMO patented seeds suddenly among their crops. The what-if scenarios of ambiguous language coupled to a corporatist-Statist administration are frightening, and the people raising an alarm about home gardens and seed stocks are probably not Chicken Littles. Not if recent history is any indication.

Read full post at American Thinker

4 responses to “The dangerously ambiguous language of the food safety bill

  1. “…the ambiguity of language in S.510 provides a giant opportunity for empowered authorities to make up both the intent and meaning of these proposed regulations and interpret this law as they see fit when they should be constrained by specifics.”~Michael Geer

    This is the same valid critique of the original PATRIOT Act, and the Miitary Commissions Act–the purposelful ambiguity of the language.
    We are all familiar with how far it has gone beyond the retoric used to propagate them.

    And of course this then must be analysed as simply a continuation of the central policy of Full spectrum Dominance. Our forte on this very site.
    bon

    • you know what freakin amazes me? All those “foodies” who now support food safety legislation, as if they have forgotten all the former Monsanto employees in Obama’s Administration.

      It’s as if they puked out the red pill and took a whole bottle of blue pills

  2. Pingback: World Spinner

  3. Pingback: The Progressive Mind » Food Freedom | Decentralize, Grow Your Own, Buy Local.

What do YOU think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s