What is the solution to stopping government tyranny when it comes to food freedom?

What is the solution to stopping government tyranny when it comes to food freedom? I suppose this is a timeless question. I believe it comes down to freedom. So in order to have true food freedom in this country/the world, what do we have to do? Is true food freedom even possible?

For as many of us to exercise our food freedom in as many ways as possible wherever we are and to promote food freedom as a given, an inalienable right, as much as we are able. To fight for our rights and not give up.

Here's an example that bugs me; the recent event at Quail Hollow Farm where the owners just assumed some dumbass martinet from who knows what agency had the authority to come on their land without a warrant and demand they destroy food. That American citizens have so much forgotten their origins and rights as to even for a moment think it is ok for someone to come onto their land and order them around PISSES ME THE HELL OFF!

tiny rant over!

Well said. I'm a firm believer in the second amendment, very firm. HOWEVER, I don't believe that a violet confrontation is the answer. I'm friends with a former Polyface Farm apprentice, and he spoke of an indecent when he was there. The story goes that some food police Nazi came to Polyface and was going to come back to do something (who knows, a seizure of product?). Anyway, Joel Salatin and some friends/neighbors/customers got together with all their guns and just waited. Keep in mind this is Virginia, and it's a different place. On the other hand, I recently herd Joel making the point to build a good relationship with your local government/governor/politicians because they have to power to send in the people with the guns, and if they really wanted to, they could remove you and your family from your land at anytime. An interesting contradiction if I've ever herd one. We certainly do live in interesting times.

They can only remove you if you let them and then perhaps only your corpses. How much do we value our freedom? Not much, it seems.

Yes. There are some interesting arguments. The American Revolution was violent. Not many people would make the argument that winning our freedom was a bad thing. I recently herd a few people from other westernized European countries that think America is very lucky. Why? Because we have the right to freedom of speech, but more importantly, we have the right to keep and bear arms to assure all of the other amendments are upheld. Are we really using our right to keep and bare(sp?) arms to uphold the others?

We're "lucky" only because a lot of other people were willing to die to give us this "luck." Europe could have had the same "luck" as they also have had revolutions and changes in the form of government.

Wow, I'm sounding so right-wingy tonight!

I often times have "discussions" about the 2nd Amendment and why it is placed second. I agree that it is there to defend the 1st and all of the others against all enemies both foreign and domestic. Some of my more liberal friends think it is odd that I staunchly defend the 2nd Amendment and am what some consider a "leftie." It's all about We The People preventing tyrannical government. I do think we are heading in that direction at present. I fear that there will be violence and I mean real violence. The food police are as much as part of that tyranny as the police departments beating up Occupy people. I do believe that the violence will come from the police. I am trying as hard as I can to not sound political and it is difficult at best but the food police represent government tyranny at the grandest scale. Party affiliation makes little difference these days anyway. I am not opposed to making a profit and business in general but I am opposed to our government being owned lock, stock, and barrel by corporations and banks.

"What is the solution to stopping government tyranny when it comes to food freedom?"

No politics please. You cannot paint a portrait with one color because there is plenty to blame all round, people (cheaper and more food mentality), corporations (profits), governments (money talks).

Put seeds in peoples hands and ideas in their heads.

The government is following the demands of Monsanto, Monsanto the demands of McD's, and McD's, the (unconscious) demands of the people. Satisfy the real needs of the people and the whole thing unravels. It's just a numbers game, we need to unplug more & more people. The system is in it's death throes... it will exhaust itself. Demonstrating a viable alternative must be the bulk of the work, as Mollison pointed out.

I'm not opposed to political action at state or local levels, the federal level is too far gone. For example, a citizen-initiative ballot measure demanding labeling of GMO in California would be a hugely strategic move - It is doable, and it is a big enough market that it would have effects far beyond CA.

The solution to stopping the government in their "food wars" is have them visit www.permies.com

This will awaken them....

Then, point out that Michael Taylor is now the US Food Safety Czar, prefaced by being a VP at Monsanto, prefaced by working in the FDA to "approve" GMO foods, and prefaced by being a lawyer at Monsanto...

<kinda rant over> booooya

Note: Fixed some grammatical errors

MODERATOR NOTE:
I moved this thread from Farm Income as it not concerned with farm income. This subject is pushing the envelope of being political which often results in volatility.
These days there is much unrest concerning the direction the world is heading. I Thank You in advance for not suggesting violence as a means to an end.


The history of food is replete with examples of working people producing the food and the people in charge locking it up. Food is a key resource, with wars fought over it since before recorded history. Our world has developed an interdependency on food: wheat and corn grown in the US feeds hundreds of millions around the world. The US economy is dependent on those food exports. This means the US is dependent on BigAg to produce more food, hence BigAg and its methods are tolerated and promoted by the gubmint. BigAg is seeking control of the food, the gubmint is happy to help them. A people that are self-sufficient in their own food production are less dependent on the government. More food production by the people for their own use decreases government control over those people. While our backyard food production should be welcomed for freeing up more food for export, it is the loss of control that gains a gubmint's attention. Locking up the food is the tactic of choice used to maintain control of the people.

The task at hand is to remove outside influence on the food we eat and the food we produce ourselves. The solution must be found in education. Inform the people: what's in the food, where is the nutrition, how are their kids being affected, what impact do the methods have upon the Earth. Armed with information, people will make choices which will be heard and felt by McBurgers and BigAg. This would translate to a change in policy and legislation, but it won't be overnight. We can have our freedom, but we have to take it. Inaction as a result of ignorance will promote Business as Usual. Remove the ignorance with education.

Very well stated Ken and right on the money. I have been working at educating the "people about the evils of industrialized petrochemical farming for over two decades. The process is worse than having a root canal. The propaganda machine that was established a very time ago by BigAgra has been an effective tool in maintaining complacency among the population while lobbyists buy legislation that has literally become repressive bordering on tyrannical. The issues are more insidious as this incident in Nevada bring to light. The continual assault on small family farms and legislation designed to prevent small producers from viably competing in the marketplace is a serious problem that needs to be addressed in a much more forceful manner. I have been very careful about fomenting any debates about this since joining permies.com. It hasn't been an easy task to say the least. I am militant when it comes to protecting the food chain and have been discovering information for some research papers I wrote on the decline in the general health of the American population back in the 70's even before the GMO's appeared. Doing my best to follow the rules here has certainly tempered my vitriolic rants against the likes of the king of poison food Monsanto. I do agree with you about foreign exports with the exception of corn which only provides a minuscule percentage as human food. This discussion is one that will only see some daylight if we as consumers demand labeling from our legislators. Then we can regulate what we choose to put in our bodies as nourishment. Until that happens we are at the mercy of BigAgra and laws continually being passed further destroying the biodiversity that the earth depends upon. In my less than humble opinion the survival of our species and a whole host of flora & fauna depend upon us to stop the insanity as quickly as possible. Just because geneticists can splice Shrimp Genes into a corn plant doesn't mean that they should for any reason. This is an area where I have spent much study but the thread began with the question of stopping the food police. It does have the overall effect of the protection of private property from such government tyranny by forceful means if necessary. The Revolutionary War was a very long time ago but was a result of a tyrannical empire literally forcing people to colonize this continent by expatriation of "undesirables" in Great Britain. Somewhere along the way complacency allowed such repression to be entrenched in laws that allow such draconian actions as happen in Nevada.

Don't forget water as an instrument of control. I've seen it first hand hungry thirsty people are easy to control or direct. But hungry thirsty people can do unspeakable things to others. We're not within a castle's keep but it appears that we are coming under a governmental seige limiting our access to food and in the future water.

I note that the public outcry regarding specific instances of regulatory heavy-handedness has resulted in strategic retreats.

There is no "one thing" that can be done. And I don't like the gut response of getting a gun. It is inherent in democracy that the will of the majority as expressed in law is in tension with individual autonomy - every law or regulation ever made cramps *someone's* style, laws are made specifically to constrain behavior. As times and attitudes change, so do laws and regulations. Unfortunately, you can't turn a juggernaut on a dime. Just keep in mind that this juggernaut is composed of your fellow citizens, including your friends, relatives, and neighbors. No matter how frustrating and even unfair democracy can be, it's still better than the alternatives.

Things we know that work on the local level are publicity and ordinance amendment, as is being done for city chicken and front yard gardens. At the state level, it requires getting to know your legislators and learning how to work with them. The smaller the state, the easier this is. It's a good deal more difficult at the federal level, and unfortunately some of the worst abuses arise from there, as the raw milk and medical marijuana folks are experiencing.

The two things that I do are 1) keep up with the implementation of the organic standards law - the Organic Consumer's Association and the Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund are great resources for this and 2) learn about the farm bill, which should really be called the federal food policy bill - it is renewed about every five years, and is incredibly important, as evidenced by the millions of dollars spent in lobbying fees - I posted an educational link a couple days back in this forum.

I'd never suggest grabbing the gun first, but I would suggest having a gun.
Government needs direction from the people, apathy has placed us in this position we are in now. We have allowed the weeds to take over the garden and it's time. Time to invest the effort and sweat needed to get rid of the weeds.

Robert Ray wrote: Don't forget water as an instrument of control. I've seen it first hand hungry thirsty people are easy to control or direct. But hungry thirsty people can do unspeakable things to others. We're not within a castle's keep but it appears that we are coming under a governmental seige limiting our access to food and in the future water.

I have been adding my voice to stop Keystone XL and the Fracking of the Marcellus Shale because of the poisoning of those watersheds and gigantic aquifers. It seems as if the goal is to poison all of the land and water in a majority of the US.

jacque greenleaf wrote:I note that the public outcry regarding specific instances of regulatory heavy-handedness has resulted in strategic retreats.

There is no "one thing" that can be done. And I don't like the gut response of getting a gun. It is inherent in democracy that the will of the majority as expressed in law is in tension with individual autonomy - every law or regulation ever made cramps *someone's* style, laws are made specifically to constrain behavior. As times and attitudes change, so do laws and regulations. Unfortunately, you can't turn a juggernaut on a dime. Just keep in mind that this juggernaut is composed of your fellow citizens, including your friends, relatives, and neighbors. No matter how frustrating and even unfair democracy can be, it's still better than the alternatives.

Things we know that work on the local level are publicity and ordinance amendment, as is being done for city chicken and front yard gardens. At the state level, it requires getting to know your legislators and learning how to work with them. The smaller the state, the easier this is. It's a good deal more difficult at the federal level, and unfortunately some of the worst abuses arise from there, as the raw milk and medical marijuana folks are experiencing.

The two things that I do are 1) keep up with the implementation of the organic standards law - the Organic Consumer's Association and the Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund are great resources for this and 2) learn about the farm bill, which should really be called the federal food policy bill - it is renewed about every five years, and is incredibly important, as evidenced by the millions of dollars spent in lobbying fees - I posted an educational link a couple days back in this forum.

I do not want to get in a debate about this. I have been a member of OCA for a long time along with FCLD. My references about defending my property has everything to do with the 2nd Amendment. It is not a "gut response" a get a gun. I have owned firearms all of my life. These "judgments have nothing to do with my family, friends and neighbors. The policies people are fighting against have nothing to do with local level "ordinances" and everything to do with corporate controlled federal policy.

Sorry Dave, I didn't mean to imply anything about your response. I live with guns, and I know that owning them does not necessarily lead to the when-you-have-a-hammer-everything-looks-like-a-nail issue. Still, I think the first reaction to these kinds of problems should be who can we talk to, why is this the way it is, and what can I do to change things. A look around as to what can happen when people give up on talking makes me super-nervous. The food freedom issues that we see in the media are infuriating, but talking about weaponry is way premature, in my opinion.

I am beyond super nervous. I am terrified. As I mentioned in my first post I have been doing my best not to make political comments here at permies until this topic was presented. The politics in play are very dangerous indeed and can easily lead to violence but it is also true that military style tactics have been used by federal agencies against family farmers for no valid reason other than to instill fear. On that note they have been successful. I have absolutely no trust in any legislative body from federal to local. They are all doing the bidding of those with the money to reelect them and care little if at all for We The People. These are very scary times.

Oh yes, as the reaction to the OWS protests show, we're getting to "them" alright, and there will be more reaction. Gandhi would say that now is exactly the time to continue being more reasonable people than "they" are.

It's the "getting to them" part that makes me suggest real violence is coming to a neighborhood near all of us. The oligarchs will not give up without a stiff fight.

H Ludi Tyler wrote:Wow, I'm sounding so right-wingy tonight!

I just want to look at Ludy's right turn one more time. ----------------------------- The problems I've seen discussed in this thread so far could be largely dealt with with one important change in American farm policy.---- But it's a huge one.---- Farm subsidies need to be completely abolished. All of the lobbyists, chemical companies, financiers and other parasites rely on the system of subsidies to keep things going. Eliminate the subsidies and you eliminate the lifeblood of everything that's wrong with American agriculture.

I often see reference to American farms somehow feeding the world. In fact cheap American produced food does more harm than good when sent abroad. It has made agriculture a nonviable enterprise in places which don't have subsidies. Other than during famine relief it would be better if American grain were not shipped abroad.

As a function of population and quantity of farmland Canada, Argentina and Thailand are much greater contributors to world food security. The one grain where the US is far ahead of everyone else in exports is corn. The production of all of this corn is destroying American farmland while destroying the livelihood of many small foreign farmers. And this is accomplished at the expense of the American taxpayer.

The mythology that America's farmers are saving the world from famine is simply untrue. They are contributing to the break down traditional farming practices throughout the third world thus perpetuating a culture of dependence.

Dale, I agree. Nearly three decades ago, when I was in grad school, I attended a small seminar featuring a noted food researcher and participant in the Green Revolution. A serious thinker, he was coming to grips with the effects that his life's work was having on indigenous food systems and poor people. I'll never forget him saying that when he was in grad school in the early 50s, he and his cohorts were on a mission to feed hungry people, and if someone had tried to convince them that growing more crops could destroy communities and would not alleviate hunger, they would have thought that person was actively evil.

At the time, I am sure all of us in the room were focussed on less-developed countries, but the indigenous food systems in the US have been decimated as well.

Read the current issue of Permaculture Activist (#82) if you want to hear about young commercial farmers who are fully aware of what they are up against and are still undaunted.

Dale Hodgins wrote:
The mythology that America's farmers are saving the world from famine is simply untrue. They are contributing to the break down traditional farming practices throughout the third world thus perpetuating a culture of dependence.

100% super agree!

It only takes one generation to completely destroy traditional farming knowledge.

It might be interesting to note where the corn we export winds up. It is not directly food. It is fed to cattle just like here. I agree that ending farm subsidies would be an excellent start but it won't fix the problems associated with petroleum based monoculture. Not by a long shot. The amount of grain produced is counter productive in many ways including the fact that it is an unhealthy food choice. Humans are built to digest grains. The suggestion that ending farm subside will suddenly save family farms is just not a complete picture. Farm subsides were a bad idea from the beginning but so are open pollinated GMO plants. Merely ending the subsides won't get them out of our fields. The system is broken and it goes way beyond the subsides.

It would level the playing field considerably. And it would drain the financial coffers of the enemy. In any war you want the high ground and you want your enemy to exhaust their resources. This will not guarantee success to every small farm but it would certainly allow the better ones to prosper.

They say that in order to replace something, a viable alternative must be present. It would create a situation which would allow a better model to be created.

I guess it is not just me, just found info on the CA ballot initiative for mandatory labelling of GMO. As stated earlier, I believe this is one of the most powerful political actions we can possibly take right now on the food tyranny front, at least for those of us in the US.

It bypasses corrupt legislators and lobbyists, as they are not representing the will of the people. Public opinion overwhelmingly supports labeling of GMO and California citizens are way ahead of much of the nation in education on GMO issues. And the california market is big enough to force the hand of food manufacturers.

I intend to work towards this initiative locally through the election in 2012, and also asking people out-of-state to support the initiative, as it will surely have a ripple effect outside the state.

http://lakeconews.com/content/view/22299/919/

California ballot initiative to require labeling of GE foods submitted to attorney general
Written by Lake County News reports
Saturday, 12 November 2011
This week the grassroots Committee For the Right to Know, a wide-ranging coalition of consumer, public health and environmental organizations, food companies, and individuals submitted the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act to the State Attorney General for title and summary, prior to circulation as an initiative measure for the November 2012 election.

The initiative would require genetically engineered foods (also known as genetically modified organisms, or GMOs) and foods containing GMO ingredients to be clearly labeled, similar to current labels with other nutritional information.

Genetically engineered food is usually plant or meat product that has had its DNA artificially altered in a lab with genes from other plants, animals, viruses or bacteria, in order to produce foreign compounds in that food. This genetic alteration is experimental, and is not found in nature.

The risk of genetically engineered foods is unclear, and unlike the strict safety evaluations required for the approval of new drugs, the safety of genetically engineered foods for human consumption has not been adequately tested, the group said.

Recent studies show that genetically engineering food can create new, unintended toxic substances and increase allergies, cancer risks and other health problems, especially for children.

Experts agree that by labeling genetically engineered food, we can help identify foods that cause health problems, the committee said.

“Because the FDA has failed to require labeling of GMO food, this initiative closes a critical loophole in food labeling law. It will allow Californians to choose what they buy and eat and will allow health professionals to track any potential adverse health impacts of these foods,” says Andy Kimbrell, Director of the Center for Food Safety.

The two most common genetically engineered traits are the expression of an insecticide in the tissue of “Bt Corn” and the expression of a compound in “Roundup Ready Soy” which enables high doses of Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer to be sprayed while the plant survives.

As much as 85 percent of corn in the U.S. is genetically engineered. BT Corn is currently regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency as an insecticide.

Robyn O’Brien, author and founder of the Allergy Kids Foundation says, “I support labeling genetically engineered foods because allergy-sensitive people can exercise caution with essential information to make informed decisions about what they eat.”

Fifty countries including the European Union and Japan have laws mandating that genetically engineered foods be labeled, but the United States does not have such a requirement.

Public opinion polls indicate that over 90 percent of California voters support the labeling of genetically engineered foods.

Efforts to enact labeling laws in Congress and the California legislature have been blocked by big food and chemical company lobbyists. This measure will take the issue directly to the people to decide whether genetically engineered foods should be labeled.

“These genetically engineered foods have been allowed into our food supply without warning, and they aren’t labeled,” said Pamm Larry, founder of the grassroots movement and the Committee For the Right to Know. “The bottom line is Californians have a right to know what’s in the food we eat and feed our children. It’s time to send a strong, direct message to those who govern us, whether they be agency or elected, that we want genetically engineered foods labeled.”

The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act was carefully and specifically written to avoid any unnecessary burden or cost to consumers or producers. California voters are expected to have the chance to vote on the initiative in November 2012.

The full text submitted to the attorney general can be read below.

Follow Lake County News on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LakeCoNews, on Tumblr at www.lakeconews.tumblr.com, on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/pages/Lake-County-News/143156775604?ref=mf and on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/user/LakeCoNews .

I agree that ending the farm subsidies would level the playing field. Conventional Ag farmers are barely making it, WITH the subsidies. Sure, all conventional ag is based on petroleum, but unless we find some benign source of energy, conventional ag will continue to suffer. However, the farm subsidies, under our current practices, will never be eliminated. One of the main problems is how the farm subsidies are financed. Tom Vilsak (Ag Secretary) likes to say that the American tax payer doesn't really contribute that much to the subsidies. Well, the money is created out of thin air by the Federal Reserve, and then loaned to US Government, and then given out as farm subsidies. With "free money" there is no incentive to end the subsidy, therefore in my opinion, it will continue indefinitely until our monetary policy is fixed. I know this is a whole different ball of wax, and I've simplified the issue, but these issues are all interconnected. I've gained a lot of insight into this problem with the responses from everyone. It won't be a simple solution, but I do think that education is the best thing I've herd of. Knowledge is power after all. After listening to Paul's podcast with Geoff Lawton, Geoff believes education is also the fundamental problem. At least that's what I got out of it.

Chris Stelzer wrote:I agree that ending the farm subsidies would level the playing field. Conventional Ag farmers are barely making it, WITH the subsidies. Sure, all conventional ag is based on petroleum, but unless we find some benign source of energy, conventional ag will continue to suffer. However, the farm subsidies, under our current practices, will never be eliminated. One of the main problems is how the farm subsidies are financed. Tom Vilsak (Ag Secretary) likes to say that the American tax payer doesn't really contribute that much to the subsidies. Well, the money is created out of thin air by the Federal Reserve, and then loaned to US Government, and then given out as farm subsidies. With "free money" there is no incentive to end the subsidy, therefore in my opinion, it will continue indefinitely until our monetary policy is fixed. I know this is a whole different ball of wax, and I've simplified the issue, but these issues are all interconnected. I've gained a lot of insight into this problem with the responses from everyone. It won't be a simple solution, but I do think that education is the best thing I've herd of. Knowledge is power after all. After listening to Paul's podcast with Geoff Lawton, Geoff believes education is also the fundamental problem. At least that's what I got out of it.

The National Debt is the interest We The People pay for the money created by the Fed. It does cost us money and lots of it. That doesn't include the deficit. Tom Vilsack is a Monsanto Man and trusting anything that comes out of his mouth is folly. The problem has nothing to do with energy. It has everything to do with farming methods. The entirety of the industrial farming model is based on petroleum. Suggesting that we need a benign energy source suggests that the industrial farming model is the only option. Perhaps I am misinterpreting your statement. Industrial Monoculture is how we got to this point from a farming standpoint. Subsidies were originally started because some European countries were subsidizing their farmers to compete with our gigantic agriculture. Those days are over unless Monsanto et al makes further headway in getting more GMO crops introduced in Europe. Once the giant food corporations began getting subsidies the flood gates were opened and shutting them will take a monumental effort but it can be accomplished with perseverance. There are already benign fuels available that require no petroleum whatsoever.

Dave Bennett wrote:The problem has nothing to do with energy. It has everything to do with farming methods. The entirety of the industrial farming model is based on petroleum. Suggesting that we need a benign energy source suggests that the industrial farming model is the only option. Perhaps I am misinterpreting your statement.

Yes, you are misinterpreting my statement. You contradicted yourself. You say the problem has nothing to do with energy, and the industrial farming method is the problem. The two are synonyms. Industrial farming only exists because of the cheap energy we have access to (petrol). Energy is the biggest limitation on any farm, human, solar, petrol, wind, heat, whatever. So yes, energy is a huge part of the problem. Without our cheap petroleum, industrial farming wouldn't be possible. I didn't suggest that we need a benign source of energy. I said that UNLESS we do find one, then industrial Ag will not exist in 20,30,40,50 years.

Dave Bennett wrote:Those days are over unless Monsanto et al makes further headway in getting more GMO crops introduced in Europe. Once the giant food corporations began getting subsidies the flood gates were opened and shutting them will take a monumental effort but it can be accomplished with perseverance.

Subsidies are not over. The 2012 farm bill will have just as many subsides, not structured in the current way they are now, but subsidies will be abundant.

Dave Bennett wrote:There are already benign fuels available that require no petroleum whatsoever.

What would those be?

Chris Stelzer wrote:

Dave Bennett wrote:The problem has nothing to do with energy. It has everything to do with farming methods. The entirety of the industrial farming model is based on petroleum. Suggesting that we need a benign energy source suggests that the industrial farming model is the only option. Perhaps I am misinterpreting your statement.

Yes, you are misinterpreting my statement. You contradicted yourself. You say the problem has nothing to do with energy, and the industrial farming method is the problem. The two are synonyms. Industrial farming only exists because of the cheap energy we have access to (petrol). Energy is the biggest limitation on any farm, human, solar, petrol, wind, heat, whatever. So yes, energy is a huge part of the problem. Without our cheap petroleum, industrial farming wouldn't be possible. I didn't suggest that we need a benign source of energy. I said that UNLESS we do find one, then industrial Ag will not exist in 20,30,40,50 years.

Dave Bennett wrote:Those days are over unless Monsanto et al makes further headway in getting more GMO crops introduced in Europe. Once the giant food corporations began getting subsidies the flood gates were opened and shutting them will take a monumental effort but it can be accomplished with perseverance.

Subsidies are not over. The 2012 farm bill will have just as many subsides, not structured in the current way they are now, but subsidies will be abundant.

Dave Bennett wrote:There are already benign fuels available that require no petroleum whatsoever.

What would those be?

I was hoping to not have to spell out every little detail but apparently not. I meant that it has nothing to do with the "benign" energy you spoke of in your original post. THAT energy. I did not mean the CURRENT model which cannot exist without PETROLEUM. Those days are over has to do with the EUROPEAN SUBSIDES. THAT IS WHAT I MEANT BY THOSE DAYS ARE OVER. WHAT WOULD THEY BE? ETHANOL AND BIODIESEL. I get the impression that you believe that the gargantuan monoculture industrial model is the only option for farmers. They "farmers" already know that what they are doing is not working. I am not talking about a huge multinational corporate farm (ADDED JUST SO YOU UNDERSTAND). I am talking about the hundreds of thousands of farms that are 1000 acres or less. The current farming model is not sustainable with ANY energy source. It is destroying the topsoil so fast that if it isn't stopped mother nature will stop farming. Remember the dust bowl? I wasn't alive that long ago but I have seen the photos including the huge dust clouds in NYC that came from Kansas. The weather is changing radically and farming is about to become extremely difficult for those huge monoculture farms. 2 years in a row with immensely reduced crop yields due to weather. The change has to happen because soon there will be no choice. I am not exactly sure what you argument is about anyway. Stopping the madness has to be done at the ballot box but multinational corporations own most of the members of congress so it is going to be one of those ultimate challenges and it has to come from We The 99% and not anywhere else. They will not give up without a stiff fight. I have been trying to not be political here because I am a militant environmentalist that would be forest farming right now if a few things had worked out a little differently. I was asked to not be too political and have for the most part respected the wishes of the owner of this site. I become so worked up about these issues that I tend to rant. I will not go off on this anymore. It is an extremely emotional issue for me. I have been fighting clean water issues for over 40 years. Remember when the Cuyahga River caught on fire? Probably not but water became important to me when I was quite young, even long before that river caught fire in Cleveland. My reverence for the Earth is ingrained in my soul

Not sure if it helps or not but you can start by not contracting with them. Don't ask for permission for something that should be a right to begin with. I grow food and I eat food just like people have been doing for thousands of years. I don't need permission from a nanny to do it.

Christian McMahon wrote:Not sure if it helps or not but you can start by not contracting with them. Don't ask for permission for something that should be a right to begin with. I grow food and I eat food just like people have been doing for thousands of years. I don't need permission from a nanny to do it.

I am not sure who you are responding to and what "contracting" are you talking about?

Dave Bennett wrote:

Christian McMahon wrote:Not sure if it helps or not but you can start by not contracting with them. Don't ask for permission for something that should be a right to begin with. I grow food and I eat food just like people have been doing for thousands of years. I don't need permission from a nanny to do it.

I am not sure who you are responding to and what "contracting" are you talking about?

Contracting would be applying for a permit, license, or other permission. I am responding to the thread title. "What is the solution to stopping government tyranny when it comes to food freedom?" It's my position that if you ask for permission then it can be denied. You would be giving up a natural god given right to eat what you want by simply applying for permission.

Christian McMahon wrote:

Dave Bennett wrote:

Christian McMahon wrote:Not sure if it helps or not but you can start by not contracting with them. Don't ask for permission for something that should be a right to begin with. I grow food and I eat food just like people have been doing for thousands of years. I don't need permission from a nanny to do it.

I am not sure who you are responding to and what "contracting" are you talking about?

Contracting would be applying for a permit, license, or other permission. I am responding to the thread title. "What is the solution to stopping government tyranny when it comes to food freedom?" It's my position that if you ask for permission then it can be denied. You would be giving up a natural god given right to eat what you want by simply applying for permission.

I was under the impression that the problem in Nevada involved some of the "guests" paying for the meal at that farm. When you sell food you have to get a permit from the health dept. There are also many instances of the USDA just showing up with their storm troopers and taking animals etc. without notice or any valid reason for that matter.

Dave Bennett wrote:

Christian McMahon wrote:

Dave Bennett wrote:

Christian McMahon wrote:Not sure if it helps or not but you can start by not contracting with them. Don't ask for permission for something that should be a right to begin with. I grow food and I eat food just like people have been doing for thousands of years. I don't need permission from a nanny to do it.

I am not sure who you are responding to and what "contracting" are you talking about?

Contracting would be applying for a permit, license, or other permission. I am responding to the thread title. "What is the solution to stopping government tyranny when it comes to food freedom?" It's my position that if you ask for permission then it can be denied. You would be giving up a natural god given right to eat what you want by simply applying for permission.

I was under the impression that the problem in Nevada involved some of the "guests" paying for the meal at that farm. When you sell food you have to get a permit from the health dept. There are also many instances of the USDA just showing up with their storm troopers and taking animals etc. without notice or any valid reason for that matter.

I did read a bit about the incident in Nevada. I guess they were contacted about their BBQ. The government said they didn't have a permit so they applied for one. Then they went ahead before the inspector said it was OK. They were denied the permit and everything went downhill from there. Now I ask you. Did our ancestors ever consider asking for permission from the government to eat dinner? I seriously doubt it.