Comments about ‘Imposing federal law on food grown and sold in Utah would be a crime, bill says’

Right. We don't need safe food.

what in the world? how did this man become a senator with such a poor understanding of how our government works? the state attorneys where only being kind saying it would likely be found unconstitutional. this will be nothing more then another waist of tax payer dollars to defend the indefensible.

So let me see if I have this straight he wants to make it a state law punishable under criminal codes to enforce a federal law? does anyone else see the flaw in this logic?

So, if this were to pass into law, my sister from Wyoming would not be able to come down and go to the Farmer's Markets with me, buy the same produce I buy and take it back to Wyoming with her for her family...

unless the farmer marks the stuff he sells her differently than the stuff he sells me and has subjected it to the federal guidelines....

It is great that some small farmers support this bill because boogeyman federal government restrictions may come at some point in the future - but do small farmers really want to have to turn away prospective customers because the produce may cross state-lines and become contraband?

Am I really going to be interested at shopping at farmer's markets if I have to keep the produce I buy there separate from other produce I may have bought so that I don't accidentally transport it across state lines?

Am I going to have to stop at the port of entry to declare my produce and have it inspected?

(Okay - I realize that last one is a little slippery slope awfulization - but it is no more ridiculous than this proposed legislation.)

Re: one old man | 4:56 p.m. Jan. 10, 2012
"Right. We don't need safe food"

Your argument would hold more water if the federal government didn't sanction the use of tobacco products that kill 443,000 Americans a year. Until they get their act together I'll continue to support state's rights.

This article reminds me of three similar cases:

1. Montana passed a law declaring that firearms manufactured and sold within state boundaries were not subject to Federal gun control laws. Texas and Utah have also considered such a move. Chances are you won't find local law officers enforcing the Federal laws and the Feds are mad.

2. Oregon is a pretty safe haven for marijuana growers. Chances are you won't find local law officers enforcing the Federal laws and the Feds are mad.

3. Utah, Arizona, Georgia, and Alabama WANT to help the Feds enforce Federal laws regarding illegal immigration and the Feds are mad.

Go figure!

The critics simply fail to recognize that myriad federal regulations add costs to every product. It is in a farmer's interest to ensure his products are safe, and they would still be liable for defective or dangerous products. This bill just eliminates the bureaucratic BS imposed by the feds.

What may be acceptable for a corporate mega farm operation with a single crop, and able to hire all the necessary inspectors, paper shufflers and make any required reports, it is simply an unreasonable burden for a small time local farmer, or even your neighbor who might want to sell (or even give away) some produce that is excess.

Not all federal regulations are worthless, but not all are necessary.

Congress has used the "Commerce Clause" as an excuse to regulate every aspect of our lives, and that is clearly not the founders intent, or necessary for public safety, only for perpetuating government meddling in every aspect of our lives.

This is a good bill, and mirrors the Utah Firearms Freedom Act passed in 2010, and now tied up in a lawsuit as the feds try to justify jurisdiction over all products made, retained and used within a state.

@phred

one big difference there phred, none of your examples makes it a crime to actually enforce the federal law. local officers ignoring the federal law is hardly the same as making enforcement of a federal law illegal.

@DN subscriber

Since you bring up the commerce clause do you care to actually address Sorry Charles post?

How many deaths and health care costs have jumped because the Federal government has been lax and not enforced the laws? With the large increase of food borne diseases and contamination across the country, it doesn't seem that reducing food safety at any level of government doesn't seem to be safe or wise.

Yea we don't need no stinkin' fed-ral gubbermitn in here messin' with us! We're the united state of Utah circa 1890!

I like to know where my food comes from and if it is labeled from Utah I am more inclined to buy it. De-labeling food source is like opening the flood gates to all food not being labeled for source.

Why should the state even want to not have food labels to support Utah farmers and ranchers? Until you get to the point, cheap labor of illegal mexicans and other foreign nationals for the farmers and ranchers and the tens of thousands of other businesse in Utah that break the federal labor laws and immigration laws.

This "change" is about Utah enforcing "any" federal law and remaining a state. If you read the law carefully there is nothing in it that targets food, it targets and bars Utah from enforcing immigration laws, the real target law of this senator. It's backdoor legislation to make Utah a safe haven for illegal mexicans and other foreign nationals to live off the taxpayers. Per-capita, I think Utah tax paying Ratio is 70/30, 30% pay taxes for the other 70% of citizens and 100% of welfare for illegal foreign nationals.

"...Legislative attorneys attached a note to the bill saying there is a "high probability" that a court would find it unconstitutional...".

"...I think we're trying to deal with a perceived problem that's not a problem...".

"...We don't have much federal regulation now on our local farm, but I assume it's there and could come...".

Ok.

Let's do something unconstitutional that addresses a perceived problem that's not a problem but could be a problem...you never know...

@ ParkCityAggie. This law is for the stupid people who can't live their own lives without a nanny state to take care of them from cradle to grave. For the rest of us, we can govern ourselves just fine!

Another senator with a limited vision of what's truly important for the state of Utah. My judgement is that his proposal will bring down on us, more control and regulation - not less! How much do these guys make anyway? Whatever it is, for him, it's simply too much!

This is a fine example of why we need the federal government to protect us from the state government. There's no way I want food safety in the hands of the state.

As a life-long Republican, I will make a prediction. The probability of this proposed bill has two chances of making out of Committee and on to the Utah Senate floor for a vote.

None, and next to none.

Two thoughts:
is the utah legislator also going to ban federal subsideies to farmers in Utah?
If we are going to take federal funds, we need to follow federal law.
Are the farmers willing to accept liablity if their food makes someone sick or kills them?

Actually, many Federal "food-safety" laws are unconstitutional, but they were found to be so by an over-reaching court that, of course, put such things under the "interstate commerce" clause by saying that one person growing crops, even for their own consumption, prevents them from buying crops produced by another farmer, thereby reducing interstate commerce.

See Wickard v Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)

Also, look up the Agriculture Adjustment Act. Any surprise these happened under FDR? Only if you haven't been paying attention.

Broadly interpreted, Filburn could be interpreted to mean that you can't grow a tomato plant on your patio.

DN Subscriber
Congress has used the "Commerce Clause" as an excuse to regulate every aspect of our lives, and that is clearly not the founders intent, or necessary for public safety, only for perpetuating government meddling in every aspect of our lives.
LDS4
AMEN!!! This law tells the feds that the 9th and 10th Amendments actually exist and that they have NO business sticking their nose in this area. Washington feels it can do anything it wants and ignore the Constitution. This tells them, and us, that the Constitution matters.

VIDAR
is the utah legislator also going to ban federal subsideies to farmers in Utah?
If we are going to take federal funds, we need to follow federal law.
LDS4
If the Feds link subsidies to being subject to federal inspection,sure.

VIDAR
Are the farmers willing to accept liablity if their food makes someone sick or kills them?
LDS4
Having your crops federally inspected does not shield you from liability anyway.

Interesting concept, enforcing the Interstate Commerce Clause the way the Founders intended!! If this works out it also means that petroleum drilled/produced within Utah could be sold, even as gasoline, without the interference of the EPA or fuel tax.

Can anyone say $1.50 per gallon gas??