Oldtimer said:Tam said:PORKER said:Necessary to achieve the desired national level of protection Porker? You bloody hypocrite. ***YUP and were going to as fast as we can!!!
Remember FDA 2002 LAWS start in DEC.this year and those animals will have records that match their ear tags and the premises they have traveled in their lifetime at any point between the field and the grocery if you are a foreign person who transport ,sell
food in the United States, should include
typical fresh produce post-harvest farming operations such as packing/
packaging, washing, grading, waxing, sizing, cooling, application of
inventory control items (e.g., price lookup stickers (PLUs) or
universal product codes (UPCs)), conventional storage, controlled-
atmosphere storage, transportation from the fields, transportation to
storage or processing facilities, and transportation from the farm.
According to the comments, these activities should be included in the
definition of ``farm'' whether they are conducted in the field or in a
packinghouse. *****SO ,the FD&C Act
is consistent with the language of section 306 of the Bioterrorism Act.
Section 306 Recordkeeping ,does not contain language qualifying the meaning of food.
Furthermore, section 414(b) of the FD&C Act authorizes the Secretary to
require certain records to identify the immediate previous sources and
recipients of ``food, including its packaging.'' In addition, section
306(b) of the Bioterrorism Act amended section 704(a) of the FD&C Act,
governing factory inspections, to provide that in the case of persons
engaging in covered activities with regard to ``foods, the inspection
shall extend to all records and other information described in section
414* * *.'' The inspection referenced in section 306(b) of the
Bioterrorism Act is one of ``any factory, warehouse or establishment in
which [food] is manufactured, processed, packed or held* * *.'' FDA's
longstanding interpretation is that ``food'' in section 704 of the FD&C
Act has the same meaning as in section 201(f) of the FD&C Act.
I see that you are not ready like most of us in the US are not.
“The importing country cannot be more trade restrictive than necessary to achieve the desired national level of protection, and that it’s measures must not be different from those applied to products within the domestic market”
Why is it that the US keeps missing this high lighted part of the OIE statement.
Where in your statement does it say the domestic person who transport ,sell food in the United States..... ? All I see is a statement about a foreign person who transport ,sell food in the United States!!!!! DOESN'T THAT MAKE THIS IN VIOLATION OF THE OIE RULES ON TRADE?
Homeland Security and food safety should take precedence over any international trade laws--already many countries are having to adapt to the US standard for passports and other travel regulations....US citizens have had to face many restrictions and invasions of our rights because of the war with the Muslim extremists-ex the Patriot Act-- about time Canada and all the nations that want to profit from importing into the land of milk and honey did too.....
OT, when there is so much confusion and anger over import/export trade, it might serve us all better if the words were not used interchangeably. Why not say what you are apparently meaning: "about time Canada and all the nations that want to profit from EXPORTING into the land of milk and honey did that too...."?
I don't intend this as criticism, but urge ALL those who have done this in the past (and there have been many) to be sure to say it the way you mean it.
There obviously are nations that EXPORT to the US.
There are INDIVIDUALS from other nations who EXPORT to the US.
And there are individuals IN the US who IMPORT products to the US (and they may be citizens of the USA or of other nations).