August 3, 2009

What is wrong with HR2749 after reading it

The following is an excellent analysis of HR2749.

Written in response to a blog elsewhere that states the latest version isn't so bad...

I believe I have the last copy of HR2749 in my lap; it was “ordered to be printed” yesterday. I have a number of concerns still.
1. It gives the Federal government jurisdiction over interstate commerce, still, which violates the Constitution. There is no exemption for farmers, homesteaders or small processors who sell only in their own states.
2. The exemption for those who sell over 50% direct to the public will of course require some of us to PROVE the mix of our business, which means government inspection of our paperwork, farms, etc anyway. I own a small local food store. I am the sole owner and the sole employee and currently have nothing of my own in the store other than tomatoes and cucumbers, but will have goat meat within the month and eggs and bread as soon as my egg processing room and kitchen are licensed. Now you’d THINK since I am sole owner, this would be direct to the public, but since I have a storefront instead of a farm stand, it is not. Complying with HR2749 would make my tiny 9 acre farm cost me more money and heartache than it is worth. Those folks who sell at a farmers market and at a retail store or establishment will have to watch their sales very, very carefully and keep their records for years, just in case. I know someone who underreports farm market sales because the market takes a percentage and he thinks that is so unfair even though he signed a contract. This person will pay eventually, but to the Feds rather than to the market he’s cheating, because he also sells to a restaurant. There goes his more than 50% direct!

Read the rest here at Localvore Oregon


No comments:

Post a Comment

Comments are moderated, but I usually get to them in a few hours.