Yes!

[talon]

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6B16M220101203

I have lost all respect for the Cattleman's Association over this though, as they say food regulations should be uniform "no matter the size of the producing entity.". I think that's wrong because the problems facing large commercial food manufacturers is different from what faces the small food producers.

And yes, I did use a different term because once you reach a certain size and are adding all sorts of adulterants into food products and changing them from their natural state, you're no longer a food producer. You're taking food produced by someone else and rendering it into something else. In my opinion, that "something else" is often inedible because of all the processing and adulteration.

Food manufacturers should be highly regulated to prevent the toxic adulteration of the food products they manipulate. Every step of the artificial process should be documented, tested, regulated, and tested again.

Food producers should also be regulated, but under entirely different terms and methods. The regulation they already impose upon themselves is often sufficient, perhaps more openness about that would ease some of the governmental fears, because it's not their customers demanding regulation - it's the food manufacturers trying to cover for their own greed and lack of internal regulations.

I'm glad the bill stalled on a technicality, and hope it continues to do so until the end of the session. It needs to be written without riders and written so it supports food production while regulating food manufacturing.