Bad for farmers, eaters
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Sunday, May 12, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
In reference to the news story “Proposed farm filming ban ignites rights debate in Pennsylvania” (May 6 and TribLIVE.com): As a local farmer, I oppose House Bill 683 proposed by state Rep. Gary Haluska, D-Cambria. And I find his justification for the bill disingenuous as well.
As a farmer who raises beef on grass, I am happy to have the people who eat the food that I produce see how I raise my animals. Food is not just another product; we ingest it to nourish ourselves, and there needs to be complete transparency between those of us who produce it and all of us who eat it. This open communication is the basis of all good relationships, and a good relationship with all my customers is what I want as a farmer.
It is also the basis of why the Pennsylvania Farmers Union (PFU) does not support HB 683. The PFU supports not just family farms, but the idea that each eater is entitled to know where food comes from. Any legislation that, for whatever reason, tries to limit eaters' right to know how and where their food is produced is antithetical to the objectives of conscientious farmers and their customers.
As a farmer, I want to strengthen my relationship with those who eat the food that is the result of my work. The PFU is an organization of like-minded farmers, and we cannot agree to anything that impedes easy communication and understanding. No, HB 683 serves the all-too-transparent desire of the food industry to rob its customers of the right to know where their food comes from. It serves the interests of neither conscientious farmers nor the food-eating public.
The writer is president of the Pennsylvania Farmers Union (pafarmersunion.org).
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Islam & women
- Corbett’s choice
- Invest in pre-K
- ‘We the people’ are veterans
- Beneficial, irreplaceable
- Medicaid’s future
- Slots & property taxes
- Springdale’s dysfunction