But the salmonella in eggs tastes like bootstraps!

Dinki: which would ensure egg producers aren't blocked from selling across state lines due to differing state standards.

OMG, Congress addressing an issue related to interstate commerce. In other words, DOING ITS FARKING JOB. I can understand how derpmitter would find that confusing.

This will make the price of eggs so high that only the 1% will be able to afford them.

quatchi: Feinstein said her bill, S. 3239, would codify an agreement between the United Egg Producers and the Humane Society on how egg-laying hens should be treated and how eggs should be labeled.

See here's a significant difference between Dems and Reps.

Democrats want to see more humane laws for chickens and a more level playing field.

Republicans just want to fark chickens into a mass of feathers, gore and blood.

But both sides are bad so...

Fenstein is lying about a patchwork of regulations (state law that interferes with interstate commerce and doesn't involve a compelling state interest will be deemed unconstitutional) in order to push through her standards of what constitutes ethical treatment of chickens on the entire nation.
democrats are indeed bad.

Shaggy_C: YoungSwedishBlonde: What exactly is wrong with this legislation?

Let's say Illinois says all hens must be free range and not caged and genetically modified monsters that can't even walk because they're so mutated to be egg-laying machines. Indiana puts no such law on the books. Right now, you have to meet Illinois standards to sell the egg in Illinois. With the new legislation, Washington gets to pick the standard, which will be between Illinois and Indiana. Now everyone gets to have eggs from genetically modified monsters that can't even walk because they're so mutated to be egg-laying machines. The big egg corporations profit handsomely while you as the consumer get to shut the fark up and enjoy it.

If states could do shiat like this, don't you think they would do it all the time to protect local producers? Illinois can't restrain interstate trade by putting ridiculous regulations in place. it is unconstitutional.

Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona

1. Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona, (1945); pg. 228, briefed 10/1/95
Prepared by Roger Martin (http://people.qualcomm.com/rmartin/)

2. Facts: The Arizona Train Limit Law of 1912 prohibited operating railroad trains of more than a prescribed length. Reducing the length of the trains was said to increase safety because of less "slack action" which caused trains to behave uncontrollably. However, the length limit required the train operators to run about 30% more trains, and cost Southern Pacific about a million dollars/year in extra costs. About 95% of all rail traffic in Arizona was interstate, and so it affected train operations from Texas to California.

3. Procedural Posture: In 1940, Arizona sued Sourthern Pacific for the statutory penalties for violating the law. The trial court found the law to be an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce, and further found that it was not justified by local safety concerns because the increase in safety by reducing the slack action was offset by the decrease in safety of more trains. The state supreme court reversed, concluding that a state police law, based on safety, could not be overturned even though it had a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

4. Issue: Whether the total effect of the state law as a safety measure in reducing accidents is too small to outweigh the national interest in keeping interstate commerce free of burdens where a uniform national regulation is needed.

5. Holding: Yes.

6. Majority Reasoning: The general rule is that the states do not have the authority to substantially impede the free flow of commerce where the need for national uniformity in laws demand that the regulation be done at the national level. However, this case lies between the two extremes of clearly needing national regulation, and clearly needing a local police measure. Thus, it calls for a balancing of the state and federal interests. The findings show that the increase in safety is small if at all. Also, if the length of trains is to be regulated, it must be done uniformly for efficiency. Since the Arizona Law is a substantial burden on commerce where a need for uniformity exists, and does not have an adequate police justification, it is unconstitutional.

Ricardo Klement: You know, so much of this stuff is retarded, that sometimes people don't even bother reading the details before becoming outraged. This is clearly one of those cases. Aside from it being a Democrat proposal, I wonder if even Ron Paul would have a problem with this, and if so, what he feels the federal government's job is here.

It's a Democratic proposal.

Think of it this way, if the Democratic party were instead called the "Jewish party" would you feel comfortable calling it a "Jew proposal" or a "Jewish proposal"?

Of course, there are instances where it would be appropriate to use the word "Jew", but only if you were talking about an individual or group of Jews, and not things that are Jewish.

Just a little mechanism that help you not sound like a buffoon.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and a half dozen other senators have proposed legislation setting a uniform national standard for the treatment of egg-laying hens, which would ensure egg producers aren't blocked from selling across state lines due to differing state standards.

Government regulations that make business easier. You'd have to be a Rederpocran to oppose this.

relcec: quatchi: Feinstein said her bill, S. 3239, would codify an agreement between the United Egg Producers and the Humane Society on how egg-laying hens should be treated and how eggs should be labeled.

See here's a significant difference between Dems and Reps.

Democrats want to see more humane laws for chickens and a more level playing field.

Republicans just want to fark chickens into a mass of feathers, gore and blood.

But both sides are bad so...

Fenstein is lying about a patchwork of regulations (state law that interferes with interstate commerce and doesn't involve a compelling state interest will be deemed unconstitutional) in order to push through her standards of what constitutes ethical treatment of chickens on the entire nation.
democrats are indeed bad.

So you're mad at her for having ethics and/or standards?

You think national standards that address the real issues of national health, food security and humane treatment of animals are an inherently bad idea?

Not wanting mass outbreaks of disease spreading between over-crowded livestock and humans who work with them is bad now?

This word "bad", what exactly does it mean to you?

I don't think we're talking about the same word here.

BarkingUnicorn: Exactly what in this proposal will help prevent such outbreaks?

http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs/farm/report_food_safety_eggs . pdf

http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs/farm/hsus-a-comparison-of-th % 20e%20-welfare-of-hens-in-battery-cages-and-alternative-systems.pdf

Guidette Frankentits: Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and a half dozen other senators have proposed legislation setting a uniform national standard for the treatment of egg-laying hens, which would ensure egg producers aren't blocked from selling across state lines due to differing state standards.

Government regulations that make business easier. You'd have to be a Rederpocran to oppose this.

Gov't regs that make business easier and more profitable for large multi-state agribusiness corporations. You'd have to be an entrenched corporatist to support this.

BarkingUnicorn: I don't see anything in this proposal that would make eggs safer for humans. It's all about hen welfare. If the purpose is to facilitate interstate commerce, then ban state standards that impede interstate commerce.

Personally, I agree: fark states' rights right in the mouth. Seriously. The time when the size of the country resulted in a communications and logistics lag that pretty much required the states to wield a large degree of autonomy is long, long gone and now that autonomy just results in shiat like this and segregation.

ManateeGag: I lobbed it up for the spike with my comment...guess I was too subtle.

Meh. I think we were all just kind of agog at the breathtaking vapidity of this submission and consequently unable to muster the customary responses.

So kudos to subby on that score at any rate. I guess it's not often the fark.com meme repetition machine gets a monkey wrench tossed into it.

relcec: If states could do shiat like this, don't you think they would do it all the time to protect local producers? Illinois can't restrain interstate trade by putting ridiculous regulations in place. it is unconstitutional.

If that were the case, there would be no such thing as individualized laws in each state and there would be no point to this law being proposed by the feds. This is not the case at all. In your example the impedance to interstate commerce was not justified by the slight increase in safety. It was very specifically ruled.

we could just have Pennsylvania come up with some regulations, slap a 'Reg. Dept. Penna. Agr.' line on egg cartons, and pretend it solved something. it works for baked goods, anyway.

Regulating and promoting interstate commerce is a good thing. What's the problem? It will actually promote job creation in that industry. Seriously Drew, stop trolling.

Lenny_da_Hog: If that makes a difference to the consumers, they'll pay to continue regulating farms to their higher certification, and they'll buy the eggs that meet those higher standards.

If that's the case, why do we need a standard at all? The point that the article and Ms. Feinstein make is that it is specifically to rip up the state standards and make the Federal standard the one, overarching law of the land. As a state you would no longer have the option to set a higher standard. This same thing is happening right now with California getting its right to set CAFE standards stripped away. I do not like this law because it makes everyone have to put up with the minimum. I don't want to live by Mississippi standards.

she's going to need a bigger basket

BarkingUnicorn: YoungSwedishBlonde: What exactly is wrong with this legislation?

It imposes the will of bleeding hearts in a few states on the citizens of all states.

It raises the cost of making eggs in all states.

OTOH, it makes life easier for egg producers. So it passes.

Funny, I'm assuming we're on opposite sides of the fence politically but we're against the law for similar reasons. You, because red states would have to put up with "bleeding heart" standards that are higher than your state-level standards today; and me, because my "bleeding heart" state standards would be watered down to meet some compromise level.

Feinstein is only ONE of SIX senators co-sponsoring the bill. Two are Republicans.

The rundown: Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Scott Brown (R-Mass.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), David Vitter (R-La.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).

Lenny_da_Hog: If that makes a difference to the consumers, they'll pay to continue regulating farms to their higher certification, and they'll buy the eggs that meet those higher standards.

Awww, how cute, he believes in the "free market".

It doesn't work that way in the real world.

BarkingUnicorn: What, the hens are gonna poison our eggs if we don't accede to their demands for better working conditions?

Yes, exactly. The notion that animals raised in healthier conditions may produce a healthier product is so preposterous that Gary Larson offers the only succinct response to such silliness.

BarkingUnicorn: I think ammonia kills salmonella.

Feel free to piss all over your next egg breakfast then instead of cooking it if you believe that the urine from thousands of chickens crammed into an enclosed, unventilated space is an effective antimicrobial for use in food safety.

Ricardo Klement: That's why all the products were just fine before those agencies existed.

You have a strange definition of "just fine".

BarkingUnicorn: quatchi: crab66: Who actually has a problem with this?

What's wrong with reasonable regulations that help prevent mass outbreaks of disease?

THIS.

It's not just about simple humanity in terms of treating livestock better but the real health risk that arises when the industry lobbies successfully to cram more and more animals closer and closer together purely for the sake of a fattened bottom line. I'll pay an extra nickel for an egg if it ensures no outbreaks of Avian or swine flu, tyvm.

But this proposal doesn't do that.

Not completely but it's a step in the right direction and it's better than the the status quo.

TsukasaK: Ricardo Klement: That's why all the products were just fine before those agencies existed.

You have a strange definition of "just fine".

Take a look at his other posts. You need to work on your sarcasm detection.

Truly, this is the defining issue of our times. Hundreds of years from now, historians will look back at 2012 as the year Senator Feinstein stepped up to the plate to tackle the egg issue.