It’s Official- The FDA Believes we Are Too Dumb to Eat

©Doreen Hannes

The Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF- http://www.farmtoconsumer.org) has achieved a tremendous coup in their suit against the FDA regarding the FDA’s abuses over transport of privately owned fresh (unpasteurized) milk. In a brief the FDA filed requesting that the case against them be dismissed for lack of standing, the FDA has shown that they truly think we cannot decide what we want to eat or drink without their permission. It’s amazing. One would think that we could not have possibly lived prior to the formation of the FDA just over one hundred years ago.

The legal brief by the FDA actually has the audacity to proclaim in the table of contents such things as :

There is No Right to Consume or Feed Children Any Particular Food (pg25)

There is No Generalized Right to Bodily and Physical Health. (pg26)

There is No Fundamental Right to Freedom of Contract (pg 27)

FDA’s Regulations Rationally Advance The Agency’s Public Health Mission (pg27)

Let’s have a look at the first citation above… (emphasis added) beginning on page 25…

…… there is no “deeply rooted” historical tradition of unfettered access to
food of all kinds….To the contrary, society’s long history of food regulation stretches back to the dietary laws of biblical times…. Modern food safety regulation in the United States has its roots in the early food laws of the American colonies, which themselves incorporated “the tradition of food regulation established in England.” …(-citing a Virginia statute passed in 1873, that “made it an offense . . . [to] knowingly, sell, supply, or bring to be manufactured . . . milk from which any cream has been taken; or milk commonly known as skimmed milk”). Comprehensive federal regulation of the food supply has been in effect at least since Congress enacted the Pure Food and Drugs Act of 1906, and was strengthened by the passage of the FDCA in 1938. Thus, plaintiffs’ claim to a fundamental privacy interest in obtaining “foods of their own choice” for themselves and their families is without merit.

If this weren’t so horribly serious it would be hilarious.

The FDA is fighting a case that builds on the desire and right to consume fresh (unpasteurized) milk, which the FDA maintains is a lethally dangerous practice, by citing a law that prohibits any change of the nature of fresh milk!

But wait, there’s more….we haven’t begun to scratch the surface yet:

There is No Generalized Right to Bodily and Physical Health.

Plaintiffs’ assertion of a “fundamental right to their own bodily and physical
health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for
themselves and their families” is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish
. (Emphasis added)

I almost can not believe they were so overt in their complete and total disregard for the most fundamental human right of all, yet their own words convict them. If you cannot decide what food you wish to eat, you certainly cannot even entertain the idea that you are free! The FDA has seemingly vaunted itself to the level of parenthood over the entire nation simply by being created via an act of Congress. Like a parent telling a four year old, “Eat it! It’s good for you!” Right…..Never mind the fact that the FDA has refused to do any real testing on genetically modified foods, or that they say aspartame is fine for you to drink when it becomes toxic at 85 degrees. Don’t even mention that they have refused to regulate nanofoods (smaller than a molecule technologic creations) that your body cannot assimilate. Yet since you don’t have any “generalized right to bodily and physical health” they can allow you to be poisoned with the continued blessing of Congress. And the likely passage of new powers to be given to the FDA will surely be helpful in giving us all “food safety” and healthful food. Right. Sorry, my sarcasm should be palpable.

According to the FDA, you don’t have a right to bodily and physical health by deciding what you want to eat or don’t want to eat. They know better than you, even better than God Almighty and don’t you forget it. Just wait until they have expanded powers under S510 and HR2749. They will almost certainly extrapolate that authority to do home refrigerator checks on whomever they want.

In their final sentence under this section of the FDA’s motion to dismiss, they really hit it out of the park:

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.”

So you don’t have a right to it and they are promoting your non-right by their illustrious actions……Please. There are a myriad of studies attesting to the healthful benefits of fresh milk. Yes, there are concerns associated with it as well, and people should do the best they can to become educated on the subject before making a decision for themselves, but this hyperbolic ‘public good’ claim is farcical at the least. Particularly when the FDA has so miserably failed in their charge to inspect processing facilities and imports. A recent Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report revealed that the FDA has inspected less than 25% of the facilities they are charged with inspecting in five years. They inspect LESS than 1% of imports and allow the aforementioned biotech and nanotech foods to enter the food supply without the slightest flinch on their part. All the while they proclaim they are performing a public good.

The final affront to all that is decent in this FDA legal brief follows:

There is No Fundamental Right to Freedom of Contract
In arguing that FDA’s regulations violate substantive due process because they
interfere with plaintiffs’ “contract rights” by “restricting the use of an agent to accomplish what the principal herself ought to be free to do,” plaintiffs ask this Court to resuscitate long-dead, Lochner-era jurisprudence. See Ferguson v. Skrupa,372 U.S. 726, 729 (1963) (“There was a time when the Due Process Clause was used by this Court to strike down laws which were thought . . . incompatible with some particular economic or social philosophy,” but that doctrine “has long since been discarded ). Plaintiffs anachronistic invitation should be rejected.

The excerpt above has deeper implications than one might realize at a glance. In my estimation it has a terrific amount to do with many of the obtuse rulings the state and federal courts have delivered. We are being told that we do not have the right to make agreements. Evidently, all agreements have been made for us by our superiors.

Historically, the only people without the right to contract are minors, felons and slaves. Obviously, we cannot be minors because we can never reach the age of majority wherein we are free to decide what we eat for ourselves. So we are either felons or slaves. Which category we have been relegated to is open for discussion, but we certainly are not free. To boldly state that we have no right to freedom of contract is an astonishing, and revealing, admission.

To boldly state any one of the cites above is astonishing. We have no right to decide what we eat or don’t eat, we have no right to bodily and physical health, we have no right to contract, and the FDA is ‘rational’. So saith the FDA…. in Case 5:10-cv-04018-MWB, Document 11-1 filed on 04/26/10.

The FDA believes that we are too stupid to swallow. Yet we are supposed to swallow that they are interested in securing a safe food supply for us, and that the FDA needs more power to regulate food on farms and we should give it to them by passing S510 or HR2749.

They’ll take care of us…you betcha.

=====================

This article should be on http://www.newswithviews.com and have the pdf of the FDA motion to dismiss attached. I will make certain it is accessible and post an update when it can be downloaded easily. Meanwhile, if anyone has any idea how to get pdfs loaded onto blogspot—PLEASE let me know!

Advertisements

8 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. Joanne Unleashed
    May 01, 2010 @ 00:56:36

    Okay, so I have the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness but not to health? Have I got that right? Bless the FDA.

    Reply

  2. Inalienable Rights
    Jul 24, 2010 @ 12:51:25

    Dittos! The FDA is also shutting down Daniel Chapter One. For some unknown reason they have left Joyce Riley alone for the time being.“Everything I want to do is illegal” How government is purposely bankrupting your farm.http://jtittiger.blogspot.com/2010/06/everything-i-want-to-do-is-illegal-how.html

    Reply

  3. ryan.close1
    Nov 19, 2010 @ 12:28:43

    SOLEMN DECLARATION OF HEALTH FREEDOMWe all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men's labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name – liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names – liberty and tyranny. – Abraham LincolnPREAMBLE1.1 Two hundred and thirty-six years ago our nation began by declaring that all men are created free and equal. Being free, each man or woman has the right to live, to govern his or her own affairs, and to determine his or her own choices without outside compulsion or coercion. Being equal, no man has a superior right to coerce, oppress, or do as they please with other men as if some people were inferior to others. It is therefore unjust to take away a man or woman's life or deprive them of their self-determination and self-government without their consent.1.2 Liberty is both the absence of unjust restraint and also the security of living under commonly recognized rules of conduct that apply equally to all. In order to secure for themselves and their descendents an ordered liberty, or free civil society, free men and women institute governments. Governments derive their power to govern from the people. Any government that fails to protect these liberties, does not derive its power from the consent of the people, or becomes destructive to these ends is unjust and illegitimate. It is the right of the people, their duty, to throw off such government and to provide new guardians for their future security.1.3 But now from that noble beginning we have run down to the other declaration: that men are not created equal, that rights and laws do not apply equally to all, that some men have the power to deprive others of their health and therefore their lives. Let us call this what it is: Tyranny. Let us re-adopt the Declaration of Independence, and with it, the practices, and policies that harmonize with freedom. If we do this, we shall not only have saved the Union: but we shall have saved it so as to make, and keep it, forever worthy of the saving.

    Reply

  4. ryan.close1
    Nov 19, 2010 @ 12:29:29

    HEALTH FREEDOM IS OUR FRIST FREEDOM2.1 We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.2.2 Health Freedom is our First Freedom. If a man, or a committee, or an agency, or any cooperation has the power to coerce and force an individual person or members of his family to become ill or diseased against his will for the political or capital profit of others then that person is deprived of his liberty, his power of self-determination.2.3 And this depravation is not of little consequence as if health was a trivial thing and loosing his health a man or woman still possessed the full sum of his or her remaining rights. On the contrary, deprivation of health is deprivation of all rights. When someone becomes ill he may of necessity need to purchase medicine with money that derives from his labor or the sale of his property. By becoming ill he not only looses his health and his money, he also looses his safety, and his happiness. As a self-evident consequence of being deprived of his health he may also loose his life.2.4 As Thomas Jefferson wrote: “Liberty is to the collective body what health is to every individual body. Without health no pleasure can be tasted by man; without liberty, no happiness can be enjoyed by society.” In short, without health no one can enjoy his freedom and is actually deprived of every other liberty. Therefore, Health Freedom is the most fundamental freedom and must be protected in order to secure all other freedoms.2.5 Health Freedoms are so fundamental in fact that the framers of our constitution said nothing about them because they could not have conceived of a day when a man or woman would or could be deprived of the rights to eat food that he or she believed to be healthy, to prevent disease and pursue a course of medicine that he or she believed to be most beneficial, and to refuse such foods, medicines, interventions, scans, or other medical procedures that he or she believed to be harmful.2.6 These are therefore fundamental rights that no just and lawful government can restrain a man or woman from exercising.

    Reply

  5. ryan.close1
    Nov 19, 2010 @ 12:32:25

    ENUMERATION OF GREVENCES & THREATS TO HEALTH FREEDOM3.1 Such has been our patient suffering that now necessitates us to petition for a redress of grievances. The history of the present government is a history of repressive agencies, corporate favoritism, suppression of truthful free speech, raids, unjust loss of property, punitive regulation, coercion, and repeated injuries and usurpations of our health freedom. [We are facing the suppression of the sovereignty over our own bodies.]3.2 To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.1. We are subject to mandatory drugging with untested, unproven, and demonstrably toxic psychiatric and cancer chemotherapy drugs for ourselves and our children despite the lack of safety, science, or constitutionality of such assaults.2. We are subject to mandated vaccinations when vaccination has never been rigorously tested or shown to prevent or to cure a single disease, but is well documented to induce massive multi system damage.3. In all states, healthy children are required to receive an unprecedented number of vaccines – 70 doses of 16 vaccines, as a requirement for daycare and school admission. This occurs in the complete absence of any public health emergency and where government has not demanded the scientific research to prove their assertions of herd immunity and the “greater good.”4. We are subject to invasive and repressive governmental agencies who, instead of regulating dangerous industries, deprive the income from them and oppress the economically challenging options that we, the People, seek for our own health maintenance and recovery, turning safe and effective therapies into illegal substances and devices.5. We are subject to oppressive and punitive government assaults and abuses of power in which safe and effective devices are seized, and their purveyors jailed, healing modalities and products are arbitrarily deemed “untested drugs and devices” when use as remedies for personal health strategies that do not pour profits into the pockets of the multinational drug and industrial food interests.6. We are subject to intentionally degraded food whose toxic and dangerous nature, both chemically and genetically, is kept hidden from us as an industrial secret so that we, as consumers, cannot make health conscious choices [with full informed consent] about our food and that of our children.7. We are subject to an abusive regulatory system through which natural substances, although un-patentable, can be withdrawn from the market if a drug company expresses interest in future exploitation of that nutrient as a possible drug.8. We are subject to extra-legal, absurdly arbitrary, and capricious re-definitions of nutrients as unlicensed, and therefore illegal, drugs if so much as a single scientific study has ever looked at the substance for any purpose or if no scientific study has ever looked at the substance for any purpose.9. We are subject to the harmonization of US regulatory standards and guidelines with those of international bodies in direct violation of US law and regulatory practice therefore delegating the authority of lawful representative government to make food and health related decisions to un-elected international committees.10. We are subject to the selective enforcement of gag rules on truthful scientific speech to limit access to health benefits consumers might reasonably expect from natural substances and helpful devices.11. We are subject to the un-elected officials of government agencies with conflicting vested interest in supporting the will and agenda of some men over and against other men, namely the will of Corporate Pharmaceutical and Industrial Agriculture Businesses over and against the growers, makers, purveyors, and consumers of natural, non-industrial, non-synthetic, non-degraded whole foods and homeopathic integrated health remedies.

    Reply

  6. ryan.close1
    Nov 19, 2010 @ 12:33:03

    12. The Food and Drug Administration has stated publicly: "There is no absolute right to consume or feed children any particular food." "There is no 'deeply rooted' historical tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds." The Administration denies that we the people have a " 'fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families' is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish."13. Furthermore, the President of the United States has the power to suspend human and civil rights in the case of a Health Emergency Declaration. This gives the un-elected Health and Human Services Secretary the power to suspend our rights to:· Habeas Corpus (freedom from unlawful detention)· Informed consent· To make one's own health decisions· Leave a health care facility if one so desiresThere is no redress or appeal built into this power so that, once taken to a distant holding facility, a "patient" has no way out of that facility until he or she is released at the determination of the State or until they die. Hospitals will have the ability to designate citizens as "patients" and hold them at a distant facility. Therefore, our rights are suspended under the Health Emergency Declaration. This Declaration uses people's fears of an epidemic to "justify" and "legitimize" abuses of power that have historically been used by fascist and totalitarian states that declared war on their own people using existing legal structures as an assault on the life, location (mobility), and liberty of their citizens.This happened when the honorable President Barack Obama signed the Health Emergency Declaration on Friday, October 23, 2009. Though this emergency has now expired, nothing prevents the President from signing a new Health Emergency Declaration in the future.14. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons” including their health, are part of the rights reserved to the people in the Constitution. The Federal Government has through legislation repeatedly attempted to annex for itself alone the power to secure people in their persons including their health. Furthermore, the Federal Courts have erected restrictions on the “standing to sue” in health cases and controversies leaving the People without a recourse to petition for a redress of grievances.3.3 Health Freedom is our First Freedom. It is continually under attack through attempted control over or sabotage of our nation’s safe, reliable, and local food supply and the criminalization of natural health alternatives. This continued and systematic erosion of our first freedom has as its direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over the individual bodies of the American people.3.4 We feel that our time is short before we face the complete criminalization and elimination of all meaningful autonomy over our own bodies and those of our children. Since the process of domination of our health choices by the State is accelerating rapidly we believe that we have a last opportunity to reclaim sovereignty and dominion over our bodies by a:

    Reply

  7. ryan.close1
    Nov 19, 2010 @ 12:35:07

    SOLOMN DECLARATION OF HEALTH FREEDOM4.1 We, therefore, solemnly publish and declare our health freedom today for ourselves, for our children, and for all our decedents in order to ensure and protect, now and for the duration of these United States and forever, the right of each individual person to make his or her own health choices unencumbered, unrestrained, and un-circumscribed by corporate or State interference.We believe in the rights to life, liberty, and personal security for ourselves and our children.We demand the universal human rights standard of informed consent for all medical interventions. Compulsory vaccination cannot be legally and morally justified.We affirm the sanctity of personal space, the right to be left alone, and the freedom to make personal health care decisions guided by the professionals of our choosing.4.2 As free men and women under the laws of these United States, we solemnly assert and demand the right to make our own health decisions.4.3 No individual (including a minor through his or her parents) may be denied, by any person or agency acting under color of law:1. Access to any desired health care services, including those known as standard, conventional, alternative, advanced or complementary health care services, with fully informed consent;2. Access to all health care information for which there is at least a scintilla of evidence.3. Access to food, food components, contents or substances, including vitamins, minerals, amino acids, herbs, pro-biotics, pre-biotics, their precursors and metabolites; such components, content and/or substances may be offered with, or associated with, claims for their health benefits, without prior government approval and without limit as to mode of application.4.4 No individual (including a minor through his or her parents) shall be exposed to genetically modified or degraded food without his or her consent. Such protection shall take the form of mandatory detailed labeling declaring significant alterations in the nature and composition of the food including, but not limited to, genetic modification of any sort, introduction of foreign DNA of any sort, irradiation in any amount, all pesticides, herbicides and fungicides and similar chemicals used at any stage in the production of such food.4.5 No individual (including a minor through his or her parents) shall be subject to involuntary medication (including vaccination) or any other involuntary medical treatment. [We assert and demand the right to shelter in our own homes rather than face any type of punishment or incarceration should we refuse to submit to vaccines or other treatments which we believe to be detrimental to our well being or contrary to our system of belief.] Any individual, if exposed to a public health hazard that poses a bona fide contagious public threat has the right to self-shield at home with appropriate material support to make such self-shielding effective. Such self-shielding shall be carried out for the minimum period of time necessary to control the public health hazard or contagion.

    Reply

  8. ryan.close1
    Nov 19, 2010 @ 12:35:58

    4.6 No person shall be prevented from saving his own seeds from his own crops for planting in the next season therefore guaranteeing the freedom of persons, families, and communities to feed themselves without being beholden to patent seed companies. Only those who have specifically contracted with patent seed companies should be held responsible for maintaining the terms of such contracts, which includes not saving seeds. The mere presence of patented DNA alone does not establish the existence such a contract. Nor is the presence of patented DNA alone a criminal act but rather evidence of contamination and therefore represents real damages incurred by the owner of non-patented, non-GMO, or heirloom seed DNA. Inadvertent or accidental cross contamination or cross pollination of patented DNA with non-patented, non-GMO, or heirloom seed DNA shall not be misconstrued as theft on the part of the owner of non-patented, non-GMO, or heirloom seeds. Rather, such cross contamination is pollution on the part of the owners of patented seeds or those who contract with the owners of patented seeds when the patented DNA is considered an serious, unwanted, and toxic adulteration of a valued genetic asset. Such pollution carries with it the responsibility to rectify all damages done to non-patented, non-GMO, or heirloom seed DNA. If a criminal lawsuit is brought against any person for copyright infringement or steeling patented seed DNA, the prosecuting attorney must establish that the defendant had an intent to commit the crime by showing that the defendant values the assets of said patented seed DNA and wanted those assets for himself without paying for them. If such is the case the defendant is responsible for destroying such assets and paying damages to the patent holder. But if the defense attorney establishes that the defendant considers the genetic assets to be a pollutant then theft or copyright infringement cannot be established and the patent holder shall be held responsible for removing the unwanted genetic assets from seed DNA and restoring the defendant’s assets from all damages.4.7 We are willing to accept for ourselves and our children the risks and benefits of either taking or refraining from taking any remedy, medicine, vaccine, or course of treatment. That choice lies solely in our own hands based on our own wishes. 4.8 Any contravention of this freedom to chart our own health course is a violation of our inalienable rights under the Constitution of these United States and the individual States that are our homes. [Any implementation of novel, untested, and experimental medical or pharmaceutical interventions forced on freedom men and women without their fully informed consent is a violation of our basic human rights under the Nuremberg Code and other international declarations of human rights.]4.9 We herby petition for a redress of grievances against health freedom and demand equal protection under the law that will secure our liberty and end the right of the State to make our health determinations and set our personal health courses for ourselves since we, and our children, are slaves to no man or corporate person! "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."We invite all people, families and organizations committed to protecting these fundamental rights to stand with us and to work with us after the event to support grassroots advocacy, education, and leadership in defense of our personal – individual, parental, legal, moral, religious, civil, and human – rights.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

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

%d bloggers like this: