Hr2749 Food Safety Enhancement Act, Debate and Discussion Options

[radicalmom]

http://www.ftcldf.org/news/news-15june2009.htm

an extract:
Even before the FSEA was formally introduced, the Health Subcommittee held a hearing on the discussion draft on June 3. (Six other food safety bills have been introduced, but none have gotten a hearing yet.) The discussion draft, with some changes, was introduced as HR 2749 on June 8 by Rep. Dingell. Rep. Pallone introduced an amendment “in the nature of a substitute to HR 2749″ on June 10. This version of HR 2749 has been voted out of the Health Subcommittee and is now headed to the full Energy and Commerce Committee for mark-up on June 17. The bill is on the fast track.

Passage of the FSEA into law would amend the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). The bill proposes a substantial increase in power and resources for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and would significantly diminish existing judicial restraints on actions taken by the agency. Although the bill includes some provisions that could improve the mainstream food system, many of these are vaguely worded and do not clearly define the scope of the agency’s power, creating the potential for inappropriate application and enforcement. Small farms and local artisanal producers are part of the solution to the food safety problem in this country; the bill would impose on them a one-size-fits-all regulatory scheme and would disproportionately impact their operations for the worse. A detailed analysis of some of the key provisions is below [the citations are to the relevant section and page number of the June 10 version of the bill].

[radicalmom]

3 ways to watch and participate:

http://civileats.com/2009/06/10/food-safet...reps/#more-3964
Civil Eats promotes critical thought about sustainable agriculture and food systems as part of building economically and socially just communities. In our efforts, we support the development of a dialog among local and national leaders about the American food system, and its effects abroad. Civil Eats can be humorous, serious, academic, philosophical, conversational – its style of conversation is as diverse as its 40+ contributors – but it is always thought provoking, innovative, and focused on food politics.

http://www.ethicurean.com/2009/06/17/food-safety-sweep/
http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?...date=2009-05-01

[Highland Farm]

It has been noted time and time again -- when you think that it cannot get any worse, it can and usually does in time. One would suspect that this HR2749 will surely follow suit!

I am not sure how many small farms will be able to, or care to, address dealing with this Food Safety Enhancement Act 2009 when it (possibly) comes knocking at their door. I do know that it has become a big concern for us, in addressing the way we market. In other words, we have had this year to slow things up a bit in expanding, and to take the time to revamp our infrastructure, to be certain that our facilities are up to code and regulation in anticipation of (what will surely be) some new act to follow.

Yes this creates an extra burden for us, trying to get done everything in an already-too-short day, and will surely have ongoing new cost to consider as time goes on. It has also been a financial burden so far just to get it started. We have taken the approach that no matter how this legislature comes out in the end, we will continue to use and update the same practices and equipment certifications we had to comply with in handling food when we owned and operated a restaurant, using food produced at our farm and go from there. The difference this time is that we direct market on-farm to our members in our C.S.A.

Now on the bright other side of a rather dark cloud that is this Food Safety Enhancement Act 2009, demand for what, and how, we do farm is surely increasing. I am hopeful that this trend of increased demand for direct organic on-farm market continues...and... We will survive...even if this HR2749 stays so poorly written! There are still only a hundred pennies in a dollar earned... FSEA09 can't take all of them... Can it? If it remains as it currently stands, I suspect for too many of us small family farms, it will Try!

In the end, developing a larger local healthy food system is going to have to happen, and being prepared to address these bumps along the way (like HR2749) needs to be done. We also need to be sure that at election time, both local and nationial, we do remember those Bumps!
Remembering at election time... now that seems to be the hardest Part of any of this for most of us to Do!

[radicalmom]

hi, thanks for watching the post. this is an important issue. i watched the june 10th mark up manager's meeting; all three videos. these are some of the things i heard:
farms are exempt from the regulation when they sell directly to the public, unfortunately, this also means ANY single farm entity such as conagra who might sell to the local hospital, for example. so there was an amendment to ask to change that wording, taking into account the size of the operation, etc. retailers must keep track of the farms from whom they buy produce, simply that; and any good retailer will probably do that any way. although the subject came up of the fact that many small businesses haven't the technology that was required to have to keep track of this. there were requests to amend that as well and take into consideration the farmers that still use paper and pencil to do their bookwork. small farmers who grow livestock and sell directly to the public are also exempt from this regulation, as well as fish and seafood growers.
another subject that arose was the fact that the fda and the usda would have overlapping tasks, seeing as each state already has a usda facility to inspect as it is. so there will be consideration for that as well, especially due to the estimated cost of the process.

i got a very positive feeling from the hearings and i am a dyed-in-the-wool cynic. many of the reps are farmers themselves and have constituents who are their neighbours. this is going to be an interesting haul. i strongly recommend you get ahold of your house and senate rep and tell them where you stand. it is imperative that they know your wishes. take some time to listen to the videos. it will be worth it. i'll keep posting as the weeks go by.

[scpaddler]

hi, thanks for watching the post. this is an important issue. i watched the june 10th mark up manager's meeting; all three videos. these are some of the things i heard:
farms are exempt from the regulation when they sell directly to the public, unfortunately, this also means ANY single farm entity such as conagra who might sell to the local hospital, for example. so there was an amendment to ask to change that wording, taking into account the size of the operation, etc. retailers must keep track of the farms from whom they buy produce, simply that; and any good retailer will probably do that any way. although the subject came up of the fact that many small businesses haven't the technology that was required to have to keep track of this. there were requests to amend that as well and take into consideration the farmers that still use paper and pencil to do their bookwork. small farmers who grow livestock and sell directly to the public are also exempt from this regulation, as well as fish and seafood growers.
another subject that arose was the fact that the fda and the usda would have overlapping tasks, seeing as each state already has a usda facility to inspect as it is. so there will be consideration for that as well, especially due to the estimated cost of the process.

i got a very positive feeling from the hearings and i am a dyed-in-the-wool cynic. many of the reps are farmers themselves and have constituents who are their neighbours. this is going to be an interesting haul. i strongly recommend you get ahold of your house and senate rep and tell them where you stand. it is imperative that they know your wishes. take some time to listen to the videos. it will be worth it. i'll keep posting as the weeks go by.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Thanks for the post. Keep us informed.

[scpaddler]

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Thanks for the post. Keep us informed.

[radicalmom]

http://civileats.com/2009/06/18/food-safet...ouse-committee/

June 18th, 2009 By Naomi Starkman

The House Energy and Commerce Committee unanimously passed legislation yesterday that would increase government oversight of the U.S. food supply and, if the measure passes in the House, it will be the most sweeping reform of the food safety system in nearly 50 years. The House of Representatives is expected to decide on the bill before the July 4 recess.

“But FDA will not be the only cop on the beat,” said the committee chair, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), who introduced the bill. “One of the most important changes that will occur under this bill is a new focus on prevention, and a shared responsibility between FDA and food manufacturers to keep the food supply safe.”

The food safety bill contains several provisions that will benefit consumers, including:
· Inspections of high-risk food facilities at least every 6-12 months as well as inspection of lower-risk facilities at least once every 3 years (FDA currently averages inspections once every ten years). The schedule for high-risk facility inspection is an improvement over previous versions of the bill.
· A requirement that says, after a period of information gathering and study, FDA will be able to require high-risk food facilities to submit the results of testing their finished food products for safety.
· A requirement that all registered domestic and foreign food facilities identify hazards and implement steps to prevent or reduce contaminants that may appear in food.
· A requirement that businesses keep basic safety records in a standard format so they are easier for FDA to review.
· Authority for FDA to order a recall if a company fails to do so when requested.
· A requirement that food facilities selling to American consumers register with the FDA and pay annual fees.
· A requirement that FDA gather information and run a pilot project to set up a method to trace food back to its source in the case of contamination. Such a “traceback” system will have to allow FDA to trace food back to its source within two business days, a power which was clearly lacking at the agency during last year’s salmonella outbreak with peppers.

The bill also includes a requirement that FDA take another look at the scientific data on the safety of bisphenol A (BPA), a plastic additive that appears in many food and beverage containers. Many believe there is sufficient scientific justification for an immediate ban on BPA in baby bottles, sippy cups and other baby food containers. (We’ve reported about BPA here.)

As the legislation moves forward, Consumers Union is urging Congress to return to the legislation two strong provisions in previous versions of the bill: meaningful civil penalties to deter wrongdoers, and language protecting strong state food safety laws—like that passed in Georgia regarding safety inspections and testing—that provide even higher protections to consumers.

The meat industry, including pork, beef, and other agricultural interests, are claiming victory: according to the Wall Street Journal, they enlisted lawmakers on the House Agriculture Committee to help make the case that they should be exempt from FDA food-safety rules since they are already regulated by the USDA.

The Grocery Manufacturers Association said it was largely pleased with the bill after Democrats agreed to a number of changes, including halving the registration fee to $500 from $1,000 and adding a charge limit of $175,000. The legislation also would give companies flexibility in developing anti-contamination programs in lieu of strictly following FDA directives. Though produce industry associations have not endorsed the bill, leading industry lobbyists said the Committee listened to their concerns and made changes to the legislation before passing it out of committee.

Ami Gadhia, policy counsel for Consumers Union, said, “We hope that the legislation moves to the House floor quickly and the Senate passes a strong bill so a final package can be sent to the President soon. Congress needs to act before we discover another food contamination that takes consumers’ lives.”

Meanwhile, the Senate has yet to take up food safety legislation. The Senate could take up the House bill or start with the framework of a Senate bill offered by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill). The timetable for the Senate could also depend on how quickly health care reform legislation clears committee.

And, as Elanor Starmer over at Ethicurean rightly noted, there are also a lot of questions still to be answered, particularly around what the bill will mean for small food processors. (And, according to her, before you even ask, no – the bill would not regulate your backyard tomatoes.) See more background on produce standards, namely what Congress should avoid, in this post.) Elanor points us to Russell Libby of the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association (MOFGA), who does an eloquent roundup of the small farm wins and still-to-be-wons in the bill here.

[radicalmom]

http://www.lavidalocavore.org/diary/1942/t...needs-to-change

The Food Safety Bill: What's Good, What Needs to Change
by: Jill Richardson
Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 16:31:33 PM PDT

There's been a lot of talk lately about the parts of the Food Safety Enhancement Act that might hurt small farmers. I'd like to explain which parts of the bill are good and which parts are the ones we want to change. The bill (as a whole) addresses a very urgent situation, as the vast majority of Americans buy their food in the mainstream food system that has been plagued with food safety problems in the past several years. However, we do NOT want a food safety bill to hurt small farmers who are growing food responsibly.
Jill Richardson :: The Food Safety Bill: What's Good, What Needs to Change
Recalls
Currently, the FDA does NOT have the authority to call for a recall. The bill gives them the ability to do that.

Access to Records
In recent food safety outbreaks, the FDA has had a hard time getting access to company's records. The bill gives the FDA expanded access to records so they can see them (for example) while conducting inspections.

Traceability
Currently, there's no good way to know where foods or ingredients came from. The bill will set up a traceability system so we can do this. We don't yet have details on what this will look like (the government has no idea how they are going to do it). Farmers are exempt from this if they sell only directly to consumers and/or restaurants.

Funding the FDA
The FDA is cash- and resource-starved. This bill will provide them with funds by charging a $500/mo fee to all "food facilities." We need to make sure that the definition of "food facility" excludes small farms. While the bill excludes farms, once a farm begins to process foods, it may be considered a food facility.

This is what the FDA thinks is a farm:

"...a facility in one general physical location devoted to the growing and harvesting of crops, the raising of animals (including seafood), or both. Washing, trimming of outer leaves of, and cooling produce are considered part of harvesting. The term "farm" includes:

"(i) Facilities that pack or hold food, provided that all food used in such activities is grown, raised, or consumed on that farm or another farm under the same ownership; and

"(ii) Facilities that manufacture/process food, provided that all food used in such activities is consumed on that farm or another farm under the same ownership." [21 CFR § 1.227(3)]

If you manufacture or process food and sell it, then you are NOT a farm. Here is how they define that:

"Manufacturing/processing" is defined as "making food from one or more ingredients, or synthesizing, preparing, treating, modifying or manipulating food, including food crops or ingredients. Examples of manufacturing/processing activities are cutting, peeling, trimming, washing, waxing, eviscerating, rendering, cooking, baking, freezing, cooling, pasteurizing, homogenizing, mixing, formulating, bottling, milling, grinding, extracting juice, distilling, labeling, or packaging." [21 CFR § 1.227(6)]

This definition could be problematic as it could put small farms who make jam to sell (for example) in the category of "food facility" and thus make them subject to $500 annual fees. There is a "guidance document" to further define farms, but that guidance document is not part of the law - it's just a suggestion. That document says:

"The term 'farm' also includes facilities that manufacture/process, pack, or hold food, provided that all food used in those activities is grown, raised, or consumed on that farm or another farm under the same ownership."

This means that you CAN make jam from your own fruit and still be considered a farm. But you cannot use food from other farms in processing - then you'll be subject to the $500/yr fees. While the guidance document is reassuring, it would be better if the contents of the document became part of the law so that the FDA would have to apply it.

Inspections
Food facilities are subject to an increased inspection schedule. Currently the FDA inspects a facility about once a decade. Under the bill, they will inspect facilities every 6 mos to 4 years, depending on that facility's risk. The bill was recently revised to allow them to inspect small businesses less than that, if they feel it would be safe to do so. Again, we want to make sure that farms do not fall under the definition of "food facility."

Growing Standards
This is a part of the bill that concerns me. Here is some text from the Farmer to Consumer Legal Defense Fund site about this:

The FSEA will also directly impact produce farmers by authorizing FDA to tell them how they can grow their crops. The bill would require the HHS Secretary to establish by regulation "science-based standards for the safe growing, harvesting, packing, sorting, transporting, and holding of raw agricultural commodities that-(1) are from a plant or a fungus; and (2) for which the Secretary has determined that such standards minimize the risk of serious adverse health consequences or death to human or animals." [section 104((IMG:style_emoticons/default/cool.gif) , sec 419A(a)-p. 31]

Any issued regulation "may include standards addressing manure use, water quality, employee hygiene, sanitation and animal control, and temperature controls, as the Secretary determines to be reasonably necessary." [section 104((IMG:style_emoticons/default/cool.gif) , sec 419A((IMG:style_emoticons/default/cool.gif) (3)-p. 32]

In issuing the regulation, the Secretary "shall take into consideration, consistent with ensuring enforceable public health protection, the impact on small-scale and diversified farms, and on wildlife habitat, conservation practices, watershed-protection efforts, and organic production methods" [section 104((IMG:style_emoticons/default/cool.gif) , sec 419A((IMG:style_emoticons/default/cool.gif) (7)-pp. 32-33]

Here's the Farmer to Consumer Legal Defense Fund's critique of this provision (which I tend to agree with):

Based on the FDA's track record with "good agricultural practices", the agency is unlikely to adequately address the differences between industrial operations and sustainable farms. The danger is that FDA will adopt regulations that treat small farms growing a diversity of crops organically (whether certified or not) the same as a facility growing thousands of acres of a single crop conventionally. The regulations could be expensive and burdensome, or simply not feasible, for small farms. Any produce that does not meet the established safety standards would be considered adulterated under the FSEA [section 104(a)-p. 30].

Quarantines
Another part of the bill that concerns farmers is the power to quarantine it gives the FDA:

"If the Secretary determines that there is credible evidence or information that an article of food presents a threat of serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals, the Secretary may quarantine any geographic area within the United States where the Secretary reasonably believes such food is located or from which such food originated. The authority to quarantine includes prohibiting or restricting the movement of food or of any vehicle being used or that has been used to transport or hold such food within the geographic area" [section 133((IMG:style_emoticons/default/cool.gif) (1)-pp. 83-84].

Exemptions for Livestock Farms
This week, the bill was changed to exempt livestock and poultry operations, thanks to the lobbying of the pork industry. I can't say I'm thrilled about this because factory pork farms probably DO need to be regulated. But, at the same time, small livestock farmers are off the hook with the new changes to the bill too. Here is what the pork industry says of the recent changes to the bill:

The House Energy and Commerce Committee approved an amendment to the "Food Safety and Enhancement Act of 2009," H.R. 2749, that exempts livestock and poultry farms from a provision that expands the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's authority over food producers. It would allow FDA to conduct on-farm inspections, quarantine geographic areas over food-safety problems, create a tracing system for all food and require additional records to be kept. The provision will apply to the grain side of diversified livestock and grain operations.

Tags: Food Safety Enhancement Act, Food Safety, (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
The Food Safety Bill: What's Good, What Needs to Change | 2 comments
by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.
# You must enter a subject for your comment
Wonderful (4.00 / 1)
Now I'm going to have to ask the FDA how to grow lettuce?

I'm not mowing the lawn, I'm harvesting a crop....
by: Joanne Rigutto @ Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 23:39:06 PM CDT
by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.
# You must enter a subject for your comment
right, since they totally know (4.00 / 1)
and if anything, they'll tell ya how to grow it if you've got several hundred acres of monoculture. That'll work well on your farm, right?

"I can understand someone from Iowa promoting corn and soy, but we are not feeding the world, we are feeding animals and soft drink companies." - Jim Goodman
by: Jill Richardson @ Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 23:50:12 PM CDT
[ Parent ]

[Honorific]

FYI, I just got this from Metro Farm.com and Food Chain Radio. Thought folks would find it interesting.

The Federal government intends to make all food safe with HR 2749, the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009. This legislation leads us to ask…

For whom does the government want to make food safe?

This Saturday at 9am Pacific, Michael Olson’s Food Chain Radio hosts Peter Kennedy from the Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund and Tami Wahl from the American Association of Health Freedom for a conversation about the consolidation of government power along the food chain.

(A sponsor of HR 2749, Representative Henry Waxman D-CA, has also been invited to participate.)

Topics include a look at the new rules and regulations 2749 will place on family-scale agriculture; what impact those rules will have on the nation’s food chain; and whether only industrial-scaled producers of processed foods will be able to survive 2749.

Listen on your radio, computer or IPOD: Food Chain Radio

[radicalmom]

thanks for the information on the broadcast. if you are on facebook, would you please post it there? and also friend me so i can pass it on>? i will do what i can til then. thanks!

[radicalmom]

http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/20090723/nfaa1

Act now on HR 2749: affirm exemptions, add Farr-Kaptur Amendment

Editor's Note: Food safety legislation now is moving quickly in the U.S. House of Representatives. It's not as bad as it could be, thanks to farmer-group involvement described below, but it still needs your action, today or this weekend, to keep local, sustainable and organic retail marketing as free as posisble from unnecessary intervention.

Brian Snyder, executive director of the Pennsylvania Association for Sustainable Agriculture, gives a summary of work so far, what's coming up, and what direction needs to go to House members before this bill comes to the floor, probably early next week.

Snyder wrote Thursday afternoon, July 23, to his members (edited and formatted here for clarity):


In brief, the Food Safety bill in the House of Representatives (HR 2749) is expected to move as early as tomorrow (if no bumps in the road), but certainly by early next week. The goal of the Energy and Commerce Committee (E&C) is to move this bill under “suspension,” meaning with limited debate and no amendments, which requires a two-thirds vote, and to do so before the August recess starts in two weeks.

Delay of healthcare legislation at this point means they will try to move forward on food safety first, aggressively and somewhat undercover of the healthcare debate.

PASA has been centrally involved in consulting with E&C on this legislation since March, along with our friends at MOFGA (Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Assoc.), NSAC (National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition) and others across the country. Last week, PASA farmer member Nick Maravell (Potomac, Maryland) testified in a hearing on the bill before the House Ag Committee and did an incredible job of raising the most important outstanding issues.

To date we have achieved some things we can be proud of, including exemption for direct marketers from most traceability requirements (including for sales to restaurants and grocery stores), and now including some clear language in the bill to define what on-farm processing activities might be exempt from FDA registration as well. Things are still in flux as I write, but we believe all such processing will be exempt as long as 50% or more of sales (including by Internet and mail order) are made directly to individuals (i.e. retail, as opposed to wholesale).

And a huge gain just this week will likely be another exemption on sales of feedstuffs for livestock from one farmer to another, which had been included in the Bioterrorism Act of 2002 (thaaat’s right…) as an activity requiring registration. There have been other gains in specific wording of the bill, too detailed to enumerate in this email right now.

But we’re still disappointed that the fee being assessed to eligible businesses, including some on farms, will be the flat rate of $500 instead of our preferred sliding scale for smaller operations, including a minimum size below which no fee would be charged. We in fact would prefer to see a much higher fee paid by the largest food processing companies, from which most food safety issues seem to emanate in any case -- but that may not be achievable at this point.

We also have other language we’d like to see in the bill that would focus attention on high risk aspects of food production, protect organic farmers from duplicative paperwork and expand the research agenda into more diversified systems. All of these concerns are contained in an amendment being sponsored by Representatives Farr, Kaptur and others that E&C must deal with if they expect to get their two-thirds vote to limit debate.

So, we’re asking ALL of you to take a little time out of your busy summer schedules to help advance the sustainable farming agenda with respect to food safety even more than what we’ve been able to on our own. Call your representatives, and maybe a few others, to:

• Express strong support for the exemptions now contained in HR 2749 for direct marketing,
• Ask them to support the Farr-Kaptur Amendment that would do even more to focus food safety efforts on the REAL problem areas.
• Ask them to insist that language of the amendment get into the bill before it is introduced on the floor.
• Let them know what you think of a system that would charge a small, on-farm processing operation the same fee as facilities operated by the largest food companies in the world!

Following are links where you can find contact info for members of the House of Representatives:

Find your Representative in the House and his or her phone listing

This has already been a long slog, and if this bill passes we’ll now have to begin working with the Senate, and then a likely Conference Committee, to make further improvements. As usual, we are greatly outnumbered and outsized ($$) by groups that would rather see sustainable farmers pay the price of food system sins that have originated elsewhere. But we’ve been here before, and prevailed.


Thanks to PASA, MOFGA , the National Sustainable Agriculture Campaign and other ag groups working carefully to protect the direct retail sale and to move the focus--and cost assessment--of legislation to the industrial processing level where so many of the high-impact food safety issues originate.

[radicalmom]

http://www.lavidalocavore.org/diary/2193/a...odrelated-bills
i'm pasting this here, due to the fact it is food-related and also close to the issue of the food safety bill:

A Rundown of New Food-Related Bills
by: Jill Richardson
Fri Jul 24, 2009 at 17:47:19 PM PDT

Here are a few bills recently introduced into Congress that are related to food.
Jill Richardson :: A Rundown of New Food-Related Bills
Seeds
H.R. 3299: Seed Availability and Competition Act of 2009 - "To require persons who seek to retain seed harvested from the planting of patented seeds to register with the Secretary of Agriculture and pay fees set by the Secretary for retaining such seed, and for other purposes." Introduced by Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)

Perchlorate
H.R. 3206: Safe Drinking Water for Healthy Communities Act of 2009 - "To amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to require a national primary drinking water regulation for perchlorate." Introduced by Jackie Speier (D-CA) - The Dept of Defense is going to lobby HARD against this, most likely.

Factory Chicken Farms
H.R. 3150 - "To require the Secretary of Agriculture to use section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935, to provide compensation to certain poultry producers whose poultry production contracts were terminated or not renewed because of the closure of poultry processing plants and other cost cutting measures undertaken by a poultry processing company in bankruptcy protection." Introduced by Bob Etheridge (D-NC)

Community Gardens
H.R. 3225: The Community Gardens Act of 2009 - "To help provide funds for community gardens, and for other purposes." Introduced by Jay Inslee (D-WA)

WIC
H.R. 3241: Access to Books for Children Act - "To amend the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 to provide vouchers for the purchase of educational books for infants and children participating in the special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children under that Act." Introduced by Carolyn Maloney (D-NY)

Fish
H.R. 3173: Asian Carp Prevention and Control Act - "To amend section 42 of title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the importation and shipment of certain species of carp." Introduced by Judy Biggert (R-IL)

H.R. 3307 - "To direct the Secretary of Commerce to conduct a study of the population of the South Atlantic red snapper fishery, and to limit the authority of the Secretary to promulgate any interim rule that prohibits fishing in the South Atlantic red snapper fishery." Introduced by John Mica (R-FL)

Trans Fat
H.R. 3317 - "To direct the Commissioner of Food and Drugs to revise the Federal regulations applicable to the declaration of the trans fat content of a food on the label and in the labeling of the food when such content is less than 0.5 gram." Introduced by Steve Israel (D-NY)

S. 1500 - "A bill to amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to prohibit schools that participate in the Federal school meal programs from serving foods that contain trans fats derived from partially hydrogenated oils." Introduced by Kirsten Gillibrand

School Food
H.R. 3321 - "To amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to expand access to healthy afterschool meals for school children in working families." Introduced by Gwen Moore (D-WI)

S. 1499 - "A bill to amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to expand eligibility for free school meals to certain families in areas with greater than fair market rent." Introduced by Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)

S. 1480: Student Breakfast and Education Improvement Act of 2009' (and H.R. 3277) - "A bill to amend the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 to establish a program to improve the health and education of children through grants to expand school breakfast programs, and for other purposes." Introduced by Herb Kohl (D-WI) and Gwen Moore (D-WI)

Dairy
H.R. 3166: Dairy Fairness Act of 2009 - "To amend the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 to index for inflation the payment rate for payments under the Milk Income Loss Contract Program." Introduced by Peter Welch (D-VT)

H.R. 3322 - "To respond to the current over-supply of milk by temporarily increasing the payment rate for payments under the milk income loss contract program and by directing the Secretary of Agriculture to facilitate the efforts of producer associations and other third parties to remove dairy cows from production, and for other purposes." Introduced by Steve Murphy (D-NY)

S. 1398: Family Dairy Preservation Act of 2009 - "A bill to amend the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 to increase the payment rate for certain payments under the milk income loss contract program as an emergency measure." Introduced by Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)

Budget
S. 1406: Ag Appropriations Bill - "An original bill making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes." Introduced by Herb Kohl (D-WI)

Mercury
S. 1428: Mercury Pollution Reduction Act - "A bill to amend the Toxic Substances Control Act to phase out the use of mercury in the manufacture of chlorine and caustic soda, and for other purposes." Introduced by Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)

DSHEA
H.R. 3262: DSHEA Full Implementation and Enforcement Act of 2009 - "To ensure that the goals of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 are met by authorizing appropriations to fully enforce and implement such Act and the amendments made by such Act, and for other purposes." Introduced by Dan Burton (R-IN)
Tags: Herb Kohl, Kirsten Gillibrand, Peter Welch, Gwen Moore, Steve Israel, John Mica, Bob Etheridge, Jackie Speier, Carolyn Maloney, Jay Inslee, Judy Biggert, Sheldon Whitehouse, Steve Murphy, Marcy Kaptur, Bills, (All Tags)

[southernstyle]

Who is the government trying to protect? Not us! This is all just another way to assure the big trade corporations can continue to import poisoned produced.

Think about it, this is just going to make it tougher for american farmers to make A living. The majority of our produce is imported as it is, about 60%, why should we have to put out more money to make even less profit?

The federal government has no bussiness trying to "protect" us while supporting more imported goods. We need more farmers here in the U.S., their is no reason we should have to rely on other countries to feed us.

Go out and tell everyone you know to buy local or at least american grown crops. eventualy, these trade companys will go out of bussiness and we will regain A foothold on our food market.

Kevin,
Horticultural Scientist - The University of Georgia

[radicalmom]

http://www.cornucopia.org/2009/07/food-saf...family-farmers/

Food Safety Vote – Act Now to Protect Organic and Local Family Farmers

This week, as soon as Tuesday, the House will vote on HR 2749 — the Food Safety Enhancement Act.

We strongly encourage you to call or email your Representative as soon as possible and ask that they support the Farr-Kaptur amendment to HR 2749.

New food safety legislation should not penalize or threaten the nation’s organic and local, sustainable farmers. While we believe that it is not the intent of new food safety legislation to harm these producers, the Farr-Kaptur amendment helps protect organic, local and diverse family farmers by clarifying the legislative intent of HR 2749.

For a further summary of the Farr-Kaptur provisions, click here.

If you need to find contact information for your elected Representative, click here.

[radicalmom]

http://sustainableagriculturecoalition.org...press-releases/

Press Releases

For Immediate Release

July 29, 2009

Contact: Ferd Hoefner, Aimee Witteman

PH: 202-547-5754

House Rejects Food Safety Bill with Regressive Fee on Farmers

(Washington, D.C. July 29, 2009) – The House of Representatives today failed to obtain a two-thirds majority to pass the Food Safety Enhancement Act (HR 2749). The vote was 280-150, 6 votes short of the total needed to pass the bill under suspension of the rules with no debate and no amendments. The bill may now come back to the floor at a later date under regular rules allowing for amendments to be considered.

While the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition applauds Congressional efforts to make the U.S. food supply safer, it finds major flaws in the bill brought up today which works against the interests of small and mid-sized family farms, conservation and the environment, and local and alternative food systems without improving food safety.

“We appreciate Congress’ efforts to strengthen the oversight and enforcement authority of the Food and Drug Administration as well as address some of the concerns of our members and their base of small and mid-sized farmers and ranchers,” said Ferd Hoefner, Policy Director. “In particular, we applaud the common sense provisions in the bill that provide limited exemptions from traceability and registration requirements for direct farmer-to-consumer marketing and farm-to-farm sales.”

“However, this bill ultimately had great potential to economically harm family farms as a result of overreaching provisions that do nothing to advance the important cause of food safety,” continued Hoefner. “Simple, common sense amendments could fix these flaws and allow us to support passage of the bill. We hope that opportunity might now be provided.”

Among other shortcomings, the bill retains a flat registration fee of $500 per facility that will disproportionately impact small-scale producers who have invested in on-farm value-added processing to meet growing consumer demand and retain a higher share of the food dollar. The same fee would be charged whether the facility was run by a farm family with few if any employees or a multinational corporation with hundreds or thousands of employees.

The final bill also requires farmers who sell their products primarily into the wholesale market to establish expensive and unworkable electronic tracing methods unless they are granted an exemption by the FDA in the Federal Register during the implementation process. The bill does not provide specific guidance so that certified organic farmers will not have to be required to follow duplicative and potentially conflicting food safety standards since the USDA National Organic Program has long had food safety measures in place. Finally, the bill contains language that experience shows can do serious harm to wildlife and biodiversity, while failing to specify the positive role that conservation practices can play to address food safety concerns.

“We will continue to fight to get the concerns of sustainable agriculture advocates addressed as the bill hopefully comes back to the floor under regular order,” said Aimee Witteman, NSAC’s Executive Director. “We firmly believe that new food safety standards can and should be developed that are risk-based and do not work against the interests of small and mid-sized family farms, the environment, and regional food systems"

[radicalmom]

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll657.xml

---- YEAS 280 ---

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Bachmann
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Boccieri
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Brown, Corrine
Buchanan
Burgess
Butterfield
Buyer
Camp
Cao
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fortenberry
Foster
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
King (NY)
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kucinich
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Marchant
Markey (MA)
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Platts
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Putnam
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sánchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velázquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Wolf
Wu
Yarmuth

---- NAYS 150 ---

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Arcuri
Austria
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett
Bean
Bilbray
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Campbell
Cantor
Carter
Cassidy
Chaffetz
Childers
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Dreier
Duncan
Emerson
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Griffith
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kagen
Kind
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Kratovil
Lamborn
Latham
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Luján
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Markey (CO)
Marshall
Massa
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Olson
Paul
Pence
Perriello
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Radanovich
Rehberg
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Taylor
Teague
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Wamp
Welch
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Woolsey
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

---- NOT VOTING 3 ---

Davis (TN)
McCarthy (NY)
McHugh

[Harry Hamil]

As a 14 year market gardener, tailgate market coordinator and 6 year partner with my wife in the Black Mountain Farmers Market (a year-round store for local food), I thank "radical mom" for her work on this. This blog has important and timely information of the type we locavores need.

After hours of research and multiple conversations and correspondence, it seems to me that important ideas are getting lost in the shuffle including:

1. Who developed the basic thrust of HR 2749 and wrote up the initial bill? To me, there is clear indication of major efforts by industrial agriculture and the FDA.

2. And why all the rush at the height of the harvest for those of us producing/distributing/selling fresh food? It is costing me money to write on this blog. I have 50 flats of unsprayed blueberries to sell.

3. The forces behind this bill succeeded in forcing it through without full discussion or the opportunity to amend it. We only got 1/3 of the House to even vote for broader discussion of a disaster for the small farmers and the local food movement.

I must go to work.

[radicalmom]

i'm willing to do the research on that.. took a breather today. build a cart, played with the dog.. anyway. i will do what i can on this end to get those answers for you. i have some clues, but should get you precise info, if possible.. thanks for your hard work!!

[radicalmom]

http://www.lavidalocavore.org/diary/2227/f...e-said-she-said

Food Safety He Said She Said
by: Jill Richardson
Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 10:07:09 AM PDT

Prior to yesterday's vote passing H.R. 2749, the Food Safety Enhancement Act, John Dingell sent around a memo about how the bill wouldn't hurt small and organic producers, at least according to him. The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition has sent out a response to this memo. I'd like to share it here so that you can see both sides of the issue and so that we can be as prepared as possible for when the Senate takes up this bill.
Jill Richardson :: Food Safety He Said She Said
Here's NSAC's letter:

Representative Dingell today issued a letter in an attempt to rebut the concerns of the small and moderate-sized sustainable and organic farmers we represent concerning H.R. 2749, The Food Safety Enhancement Act. We clarify our points and respond to his letter below for the sake of continuing education and dialogue about the bill as it heads to the Senate and ultimately to conference with the Senate. We also thank Representatives Farr and Blumenauer for their floor colloquy with Representative Dingell that addressed many of the issues below as well as additional concerns with specific provisions of the bill from the sustainable and organic agricultural communities that are not mentioned in the Dingell rebuttal.

Dingell Letter:

"Concern: H.R. 2749 will require all farms to register with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and pay an annual $500 fee.

FACT: Farmers who sell a majority fo their product direct to consumer are EXEMPT.

Farms, that act only as farms, and sell their food or product directly to consumers or at a farmers' market are exempt from registering or paying a fee to the FDA. Farmers that manufacture food for sale are also exempt as long as they sell the majority of their food to consumers; this includes sales by mail or over the internet."

NSAC and NOC Response: NSAC and NOC never claimed that "all farms" will have to register and pay the $500 fee. Our concern centers on farmers who process their harvest into value-added products, an activity both we have promoted for over a decade and that Congress has funded and the USDA has also promoted. Many farms process their own jams, cheeses, beverages, or other products, therefore qualifying as "facilities" under the terms of the bill.

While H.R. 2749 bill exempts facilities that sell over 50.1% of their processed products directly to the consumer, it still imposes a fee on those who primarily sell wholesale. We represent a large number of farmers who sell their value-added products to the wholesale market as well as a large number who sell direct to consumer, and in fact, most farmers increasingly do some of each. The direct marketing exemption while welcome is not sufficient, and we owuld also call attention ot the practical consideration of implementing the provision given the FDA's or even USDA's inability to ascertain on a year-to-year basis in a continuously changing and evolving marketplace which farmer is 50.1% retail and which is 50.1% wholesale.

H.R. 2749 requires facilities of all size, regardless of whether their annual revenue stream is $1000 or $1 million or $100 million, to pay the same fee. In fact, according to the Energy and Commerce Committee staff estimates, the majority of the registration fees will be collected from the smallest processors including farmer processors. In many cases, the $500 fee will be cost-prohibitive for a small farm operation whose value-added processing activity is a small offshoot of the primary farming business. This is a fundamental issue of equity. The tax in the bill as written and approved by the House violates the basic principle of ability to pay which is the bedrock of our system. If any fee is going to remain in the bill that returns from conference, it will need to be progerssive and exempt the small-scale on-farm processing or we will continue to strenuously oppose it.

In addition, it is incredibly important to put the fee controversy in persective. According to the CBO, the fee schedule in the bill will, when fully ramped up, will bring in $368 million a year, yet the total cost of the bill at the same point in time will be nearly $1.5 billion a year. So no one should be under any illusion that the ultimate fate of the bill rests on the collection fo the fee from thousands of small and mid-scale farms scattered across the countryside. The cold hard reality is that if the very important food safety promises of the bill are going to be realized, Congress is going to have to come up with very substantial additional appropriations regardless of what the conference report includes or does not include on fees.

Dingell Letter:

"Concern: FDA will ahve the authority to issue safety standards that will apply to farms and interfere with organic farming practicies.

FACT: FDA is PROHIBITED from imposing safety standards unless it determines that those standards "are reasonably necessary to minimize risk of serious adverse health consequence or death."

This means that hte FDA can only issue standards for the absolute riskiest products. Further, in the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute, the FDA is directed to coordinate with USDA- who runs the National Organic Standards Board - in issuing these safety standards. This will ensure that the concerns of organic farmers are taken into consideration before issuing any standards. FDA is also directed to take into consideration "the impact on small-scale and diversified farms, and on wildlife habitat, conservation practices, watershed-protection efforts, and organic production methods."

NSAC and NOC Response: As instructed by the language in the current bill, FDA can require certified organic farms to follow the new safety standards promulgated by FDA. While the language instructing FDA to coordinate with USDA, secured by teh House Agriculture Committee in its negotiation with Energy and Commerce, is a very positive step in the right direction, we are simply asking for the inclusion of specific language that requires the FDA to coordinate with the National Organic Program on the development and enforcement of standards with respect to organic farming.

The NOP has long had food safety measures in place that require traceability via a documented audit trail as well as stringent manure use and composting regulations. Left as is, with broad language instructing FDA to coordinate with USDA across a wide range of issues in the bill and with many different USDA agencies, certified organic farmers could still face duplicative or conflicting requirements or fees. It would be so simple for Congress to ensure that will not happen fro the outset, yet the sponsors of the bill have been unwilling to include this straightforward language over many months of discussion. While we are heartened by Representative Dingell's response to this issue in today's floor colloquy, we will still work to see that his assurances are included in the actual statutory language.

Dingell Letter:

"Concern: FDA will have access to confidential farm records making such records vulnerable to distribution.

FACT: FDA is already limited in the types of records they can access under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and cannot access financial data, pricing data, personnel data, research data, or sales data other than shipment data regarding sales.

FDA would have access to farm records only relating to fresh produce for which FDA has issued a safety standard or that is the subject of an active investigation of a food-borne illness outbreak. FDA will also be required to establish record-keeping requirements through rule-making and must take into consideration the size of any business."

NSAC and NOC Response: This was not an issue we have been raising. We are generally supportive of the very important narrowing of the provision that resulted from the Agriculture Committee negotiations.

Dingell Letter:

"Concern: The "traceback system" included in H.R.2749 will be overly onerous for small farmers.

FACT: Farms that sell directly to consumers, restaurants, and grocery stores will be exempt from the "traceback system."

FDA will be required to go through rule-making in order to establish requirements for the "traceback system." No rules will be issued until FDA conducts at least two public meetings and one or more pilot projects in order to elicit input from users and other stakeholders. FDA will also hae to take into consideration the impacts such regulations will have for different sectors of the food industry. The purpose of such a system is to document the origins of food to help FDA to quickly identify the source of outbreaks and ensure that honest farmers and producers are not blamed for food outbreaks they are not responsible for."

NSAC and NOC Response: The exemption from traceability for food sold directly from a farmer to consumers, restaurants, and grocery stores is important and reflects common sense. However, it is not at all clear why restaurant sales should be exempt but not school or hospital kitchens. There is a groundswell of activity across the country in getting fresh, local, high quality food into our public institutions to help reverse a public health crisis highlighted by burgeoning rates of obesity and diabetes. We have attempted for months to get this important feature into the bill but without success. There is increased demand for locally-produced agricultural products in school cafeterias, but as it stands, the language in H.R. 2749 would not exempt farmers selling directly to institutional settings which could dampen farmer interest in these important new markets that stand to provide healthy, fresh food to our nation's children.

In addition, many small and mid-sized farmers do not sell direct to consumer but the identity of their product is preserved through the supply chain and is on the product when it is bought by the consumer. However, H.R. 2749 fails to include an exemption for "identity-preserved" products which specify the identity and location of the farm all the way to the consuemr. Again, a simple addition could cure this deficiency in the bill.

but there is an even more important issue lurking in the bill. We appreciate the additions to the bill requiring public meetings and pilot projects, but the bottom line is that the bill as approved by the House will place farmers who have not been otherwise exempted under the same requirements as large corporate processors. Once the bill's traceability system is operational, and unless or until FDA pro-actively decides to exempt a particular type of farm or a particular type fo food, farmers will be required, according to the bill, "to maintain the full pedigree of the origin and previous distribution history of the food; link that history with the subsequent distribution of the food; establish and maintain a system for tracing the food that is interoperable with the systems established and maintained by other such persons; and use a unique identifier for each facility owned or operated" by that farmer.

We do not object to farmers retaining paper receipts of their sales ("previous sources and subsequent recipients"), as provided for in the bill for grain, oilseeds, hay and several other products. But we do object to other entire sectors of farming being incorporated into the same comprehensive traceability provisions as the food industry. We believe the "full pedigree, full food chain" provisions of the bill are impractical and unworkable for farmers and we believe that there will be howls of protest when the FDA tries to put this portion of the bill into practice. Those protests in turn will lead to costly and unnecessary campaigns by individual sectors to get the same exemption treatment that the House provided to grains, oilseeds, hay, honey, sugar, cocoa, and other segments of agriculture. Disparate treatment based on political clout rather than sound principles is not good public policy. The good news, again, however is that problem is relatively easy to correct before this bill returns to the House from conference.

Thank you for considering our views as this bill moves forward through the rest of the legislative process. We believe these issues can be worked out in a manner that supports enhanced food safety and improved family farm survival.

Tags: Food Safety, H.R.2749, Food Safety Enhancement Act, NSAC, John Dingell, (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Food Safety He Said She Said | 2 comments
by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.
# You must enter a subject for your comment
cafeterias and hospitals (0.00 / 0)
I believe school's and hospitals are not exempt because many/most get federal funding or are state run institutions. most restaurants are private entities

This bill may not be harmful at all to us small farmers who sell locally-it looks like 100% of what I do will be exempt. At the farmers market i attend only three vendors will be effected-one guy whole sales his produce (but he is new this year and perhaps is getting going for the 51% local sales status so he will not have to pay the fee. A cheese maker who has gotten used to more and more fees and regulations (she is inspected monthly) and the certified organic egg and meat farm who does a lot of wholesaling as well as added value processing. but like the cheese maker has long had to deal with county, state and federal agencies inspecting, leving fees and loads of paperwork/record keeping.

I just hope this bill if it passes the senate and is signed into law really does make the industrial food stream safer for the masses. personally I eat very little industrial food but I have lots of friends and relatives that see my locavorism as pretty extreme and love their processed industrial foods.
by: Boulder Belt @ Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 04:07:38 AM CDT
by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

As I read the bill, small farmers AREN'T exempt! (0.00 / 0)
Well, they are exempt from the Tracing System for Food subsection, but NOT from registration, the $500 annual fee, the risk analysis plan/food safety plan/recordkeeping/inspections, etc. I have read (and electronically searched) the bill, and only on Page 57 can I find the supposed exemption (and it is as described above).
I agree that our existing food safety in this country could be improved, but this bill (in it's present form) has the potential to badly cripple the local/small farm food movement as an unintended consequence.
The really crazy thing is that USDA regulated products (meat/poultry/eggs) are exempt from this proposed act! Aren't tainted beef & mad cow disease the types of food bourne illnesses we were hoping would be made safer?
by: cesonnepe @ Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 15:20:46 PM CDT
[ Parent ]

[radicalmom]

http://farmwars.info/?p=594

The 2009 Food ‘Safety’ Bills Harmonize Agribusiness Practices in Service of Corporate Global Governance
By Nicole Johnson

“I think it’s time to de-professionalize the public debate on matters that vitally affect the lives of ordinary people. It’s time to snatch our futures back from the “experts.” Time to ask, in ordinary language, the public question and to demand, in ordinary language, the public answer.” – Arundhati Roy, Power Politics

corruptionIt’s enough to make you so queasy you lose your lunch. HR 875, the “Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009,” is a head-spinning piece of legislation that would radically change the structure of the US government’s regulatory agencies, usurping states rights to federalize food inspection and determine what agricultural practices are permissible. Considerable concern has been voiced about what this bill would mean for small and medium sized farmers, organic farming, the future of conventional and organic seeds, the food localization movement, and even home gardens. HR 875 would give regulators the power to enter private property, which is conveniently redefined as “premises,” and impose enormous fines for noncompliance. Though not discussed in the corporate media, numerous articles about it appear on the internet, launching a debate about whether or not Monsanto is behind the bill.

In response to these articles, Brad Mitchell, a member of Monsanto’s public relations staff who writes for the company’s new blog — a less-than-stealth effort to counter the public’s deep distrust of the predatory corporation — has gone on record stating that Monsanto has absolutely nothing at all to do with the bill.

Brad’s assurances aside, experience dictates that taking Monsanto at its word is patently foolish. But for those who need a bit more proof, like the Organic Consumers Association and Food and Water Watch, let’s settle the issue, once and for all: Who crafted the legislation and what do they hope to gain by it? Would it really make our food safer as it claims, or would it make mandatory the industrial agricultural practices that are the root cause of the food-borne illnesses it claims to vanquish? And what else might be at stake?

After a series of well-publicized cases of food contamination – E. coli-tainted meat, melamine-adulterated pet food and baby formula, salmonella-infected peanut butter – the public has been well primed to look toward Congress to fix a poorly funded and insufficiently staffed food safety inspection system. And, right on cue, a crop of “food safety” bills gets dumped our way. The most controversial and transformational of these pieces of legislation, Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro’s HR 875, can be traced directly to recommendations made by the Trust for America’s Health, a non-profit organization sponsored by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

The Trust for America’s Health has produced reports that serve as blueprints for a major restructuring of the agencies involved in overseeing food safety policy as well as eye-popping changes to the public health system. Its recommendations also have also made their way into the other food safety bills that have been recently introduced in Congress: SB 425, the “Food Safety and Tracking Improving Act;” HR 814, the “Trace Act of 2009;” and HR 759, the “Food and Drug Administration Globalization Act of 2009.”

While the vaguely worded HR 875 gives the appearance of being a reasonable attempt to fix the problems outlined, a close inspection of the blueprints on which they are based –and a bit of knowledge about the industry players who crafted them — reveals critical clues about how the public health system would be transformed for the benefit of biotech, pharmaceutical and agribusiness giants. Non-profit foundations have long served as effective tools for corporate wealth to influence public policy, providing the means to guarantee outcomes that enrich corporations at the public’s expense. The global pharmaceutical and consumer product company Johnson & Johnson’s tax-exempt foundation is no different.

Tayloring the Message: The Trust for America’s Health

The public should familiarize itself with three key reports produced by The Trust for America’s Health: “Keeping America’s Food Safe: A Blueprint for Fixing the Food and Safety System at the US Department of Health and Human Services,”(1) “Fixing Food Safety: Protecting America’s Food Supply from Farm-to-Fork,”(2) and the “Blueprint for a Healthier America: Modernizing the Federal Public Health System to Focus on Prevention and Preparedness.”(3)

President Obama’s nominee for Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration Margaret Hamburg, MD, sits on the board of directors at the Trust for America’s Health. Hamburg, a well-connected player in the public health field, also serves on the board of directors of the Rockefeller Foundation. Among other things, the Rockefeller’s vast fortune is responsible for funding foundations and institutes that spread unsafe genetically-engineered food crops around the world.(4) Sadly, those who hoped that Obama’s election would herald positive changes have repeatedly found themselves duped: the deep corporate ties of his appointees guarantee a continuation of corporate control over the US government, a veritable concierge service on steroids for private interests.

A notable craftsman at the Trust for America’s Health is none other than the notorious Michael R. Taylor, JD. Taylor penned a paper included as an appendix of “Keeping America Safe: A Blueprint for Fixing the Food Safety System at the Department of Health and Human Services” called “Restructuring Food Safety at HHS: Design and Implementation.” In it, Taylor prescribes the creation of a new Food Safety Administration that consolidates all safety functions formerly performed by a host of other government regulatory agencies and institutes on a federal level the use of industry-friendly “risk assessment” methods.

Monsanto’s Jack of All Trades

Most people who know Michael Taylor’s name recall that he worked as Monsanto’s lawyer at King & Spalding for years before being appointed to the FDA to oversee the swift introduction into the marketplace of GMOs. He did so by ramming through a faux scientific regulatory conceit called “substantial equivalence.”

Industry-independent scientists have rightly criticized the concept of substantial equivalence as an inappropriate method for determining safety, calling it “a pseudo-scientific concept because it is a commercial and political judgment masquerading as it if were scientific. It is, moreover, inherently anti-scientific because it was created primarily to provide an excuse for not requiring biochemical or toxicological tests. It therefore serves to discourage and inhibit potentially informative scientific research.”(5)

FDA scientists at the Division of Food Chemistry and Technology wanted to see testing performed to ensure that GMO foods didn’t increase levels of naturally occurring toxins, create new, previously unidentified toxins, increase the tendency to gather toxic substances from the environment such as pesticides or heavy metals, and alter the level nutrients.(6) Ignoring their scientific objections, the politically-appointed Taylor let loose GMO technology on the nation of guinea pigs without requiring any legitimate safety and toxicology investigations to protect public health. He also ensured that the public would remain ignorant of GMOs in their food by instituting a no-labeling policy. Now, almost 80% of the food sold in grocery stores contains GMOs. Monsanto subsequently rewarded Taylor for his government work by making him its Vice President of Public Policy.

These days, we find that Taylor has morphed from Monsanto’s VP into a “research professor” at George Washington University School of Public Heath and Health Services. He also spends his time writing policy at a number of industry-funded think tanks, including Resources for the Future, Resolve Inc, the Food Safety Research Consortium, and the Alliance to End Hunger,

Those who are concerned about what the Organic Consumers Association calls the real Monsanto bill, The Global Food Security Act (SB 384), can see Taylor’s contribution to that piece of legislation by reviewing a report he wrote for a think tank called the Partnership to Cut Hunger and Poverty in Africa. The report, “Beating Africa’s Poverty By Investing in Africa’s Infrastructure,”(7) supports the expansive agenda of biotech firms. The organization is funded in part by the Rockefeller and Gates foundations, and Taylor’s work product provides the rational for SB 384.(8) According the organization’s website, it aims to “implement Partnership activities to strengthen agricultural and rural enterprises and to facilitate their integration into regional, national and global markets” by bringing together “core representatives from U.S. and Africa-based private and public organizations who have experience with Africa’s agriculture and trade-related issues.” To give him credit, Taylor is relentless and prolific. If only his work sought to empower rather than enslave.

Since shedding the title of Vice President of Monsanto, Taylor has been busy promoting the concept of “risk assessment” as a means to deal with food-borne illness as an alternative to urging regulatory agencies to actually enforce laws already on the books and to adequately fund them so they could do so. Like “substantial equivalence,” the risk assessment conceit offers a great opportunity to change the system to benefit corporate interests. Taylor has spent years churning out the necessary conceptual building blocks in cross-pollinating think tanks and foundations to create the intellectual framework for legislative proposals like these food “safety” bills.

The reports produced by the Trust of America’s Health rely heavily on “risk assessment, management and communication,” a form of message control hatched at the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, a corporate-funded affair that provides “scientific” justification for a wide range of policies corporations want to see implemented. Using this method of risk analysis, the necessary justification can be produced for just about whatever outcome is wished by the underwriters.

It’s no real surprise that Taylor’s think-tank-funded policy on risk assessment, like his report “Food Safety Updated: Developing Tools for a More Science- and Risk-Based Approach,”(9) underwritten by the Milbank Memorial Fund and Resources for the Future, has been embraced and institutionalized by the Codex Alimentarius Commission.

Codex – A Tool of Global Governance by Corporate Command

If some variation of this batch of bad bills is passed into legislation, US citizens will find their laws considerably closer to becoming harmonized with Codex Alimentarius, a set of international food codes crafted by unaccountable and unelected bureaucrats in conjunction with vested industry and trade interests. It’s important that the public learns more about Codex, because its “standards” will be enforced by the World Trade Organization to govern global trade practices of all its member nations. Furthermore, this body of food codes will take legal precedence over national laws, like the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA).

The US media are assiduously silent on the matter of Codex. Under the helpful cover of the media’s information blackout, Codex Alimentarius Commission meetings are regularly attended by officials from the Departments of Agriculture, Health and Human Services, State, Commerce, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Office of US Trade Representative, and the US Codex Office. Non-governmental agencies in attendance at the meetings include the 49th Parallel Biotechnology Consortium, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, Consumers Union, Crop Life International, Dow Chemical, Dupont, the European Association of Bioindustries, the Grain and Feed Trade Association, the International Cooperative Alliance, the International Council of Beverages Associations, the International Council of Grocery Manufacturers Association, the Institute of Food Technologists, the International Glutamate Technical Committee and the International Life Sciences Institute, Monsanto, and Sygenta, among others –with the exception, that is, of any democratically elected and accountable representatives of citizens these food codes will affect.

The standards created by the Codex Alimentarius Commission are set to enable industry interests to dictate and control rules covering vitamins, minerals and nutrients, genetically modified plants and livestock, toxic residues, antibiotics, drugs, growth stimulants and other hormones in food and animals, organic foods, the irradiation of plants and animal food and nanotechnology. Scott Tips, President of the National Health Federation, the only accredited health freedom organization allowed to participate at Codex meetings, projects that these standards are on tract to be implemented sometime between 2011 and 2013.

Codex committees — such as the Codex Committees on Food Additives and Contaminants (CCFAC), Pesticide Residues (CCPR), Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods (CCRVDF), Food Hygiene (CCFH), General Principles (CCGP), Food Labeling (CCFL), Nutrition and Food for Dietary Uses (CCNFDU), Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems (CCFICS) and Methods of Analysis an Sampling (CCMAS) – all employ the concept of risk management to determine the rules they recommend to the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC).

Codex standards are of critical importance to agribusiness, because they are acknowledged as the appropriate guidelines in the Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) and Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Agreements of the WTO Agreement. While the WTO had provisions that allowed member states to create barriers to trade by citing national legislation to ensure food safety, those provisions would become void, thanks to the SPS and TBT agreements, if an international safety standard created by Codex determined otherwise. So, thanks to the unelected and unaccountable private deal-makers who wrote these trade agreements, Codex rules will trump national law.

Meet the Missus — Christine Lewis Taylor

Undermining US law for the benefit of multinational corporations is a family affair in the Taylor household. To see how the concept of “risk assessment” can be usefully abused, let’s look at how Mrs. Michael Taylor adopts the conceit to her purposes.

Christine Lewis Taylor, a veteran FDA employee, has been busy working up the “scientific” justification for placing a cap on the level of nutrients people should be allowed to consume. To do so, she pushes a perverse concept that defines nutrients as toxins. In other words, Mrs. Taylor would like us all to believe that the vitamins and minerals needed by cells throughout the body in order to function and detoxify should be considered hazardous, requiring governmental oversight that would limit people’s exposure to them under law.

After a stint heading up the Codex delegation on the Committee on Food Labeling and another as a delegate to Codex’s Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses, Christine Lewis Taylor was farmed out by the Institute of Medicine to the World Health Organization, where she played an instrumental role as Project Director in applying the risk assessment model to redefine nutrition as we know it. Her mission: To develop the framework whereby an “upper safe limit” would be set, defining the amount supplements the public should be allowed to purchase except by prescription. In her WHO capacity, she organized a seminar, selected the scientists who would be allowed to participate in it, and oversaw the group’s published conclusion.(10)

US law regulates supplements as food. But the pharmaceutical industry wants to change that and have supplements regulated as drugs, and bureaucrats like Mrs. Taylor are doing what they can to comply. Taylor argues that people are exposed to too many nutrients and wants to see the establishment of a one-size-fits-all international standard set that stipulates how much of each nutrient people need, a amount that in some cases is less than the already established recommended daily allowances.(11)

But the good news, at least for pharmaceutical companies, is that there would be more profit to be made in treating a host of vitamin-deficiency diseases. And, once these guidelines are adopted by Codex, people would no longer have the freedom to purchase therapeutic amounts of dietary supplements to compensate for a nutrient-deficient and legally poisoned food supply to which we’re subjected. Supplements would no longer be consider food as they are under DSHEA but instead would be regulated as drugs, available only by prescription or in amounts so limited as to render them insufficiently helpful in the prevention of disease.

People are subject to disease not because they are deficient in pharmaceuticals. We are subject to disease because we either do not get the nutrients we need from our food sources or because we are exposed to environmental toxins and harmful food adulterants like hydrogenated oils, high fructose corn syrup, MSG, pesticide residues, aspartame, and GMOs, falsely deemed safe by the FDA. These adulterants contribute directly to a long list of predictable degenerative diseases. But thanks to the tireless work of Mrs. Taylor, the chemical cartel will get wealthier by making us sick and wealthier still by treating us for illnesses its products cause.

Sweeping Inconvenient Facts Under the Rug

In addition to her work toward the implementation of Codex, it’s worth noting that Christine Taylor Lewis has done her part to rewrite history to make her husband’s tenure at the FDA to appear less corrupt than it, in fact, was. Talk about housekeeping. While serving as the thesis advisor to a Tuft’s university student, Taylor oversaw the details of a dissertation entitled the “Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods: Stakeholder Perceptions of the Food and Drug Administration’s Public Consultation Processes and Food Industry Reactions to the United States Voluntary and European Union Mandatory Policies.”(12)

This thesis belongs to Janice Lee Albert, who happened to be an employee of the UN’s Food and Agricultural Organization in Rome while working on her dissertation. Albert’s dissertation focuses on the controversy over labeling GMOs, a topic that deeply involved Michael Taylor, her thesis advisor’s husband. However, that marital relationship is never disclosed in the dissertation. In fact, while Mr. Taylor’s work is described throughout the dissertation, Albert fails to identify him by name as a key participant in the controversy. On the contrary, when Michael Taylor is – finally – mentioned by name, it is as one of twenty-four people Albert interviewed to obtain their views on the appropriateness of the FDA’s labeling decisions. Astonishingly, Albert identifies Michael Taylor as an “Independent Expert,” revealing nothing about the fact he (1) previously worked as a lawyer for the company who’s product was getting special treatment or (2) the fact that he was the one in charge of implementing the concept of “substantial equivalence” at the FDA or (3) went to work for Monsanto afterwards.

Under Christine Lewis Taylor’s supervision, Albert’s thesis defends the FDA’s controversial labeling decision and its consultation processes with the public as being “conducted as intended by law.” Albert claims that members of the public who are dissatisfied with the FDA’s decision not to label GMO products just don’t understand the all the factors that go into making decisions at the FDA. She’s probably correct on that point: Most of the public is under the mistaken assumption that the FDA has a responsibility to protect it from the unsafe products of an untested technology. Thanks to her explanation, at least we now know that certain employees of the FDA consider their only legal obligation is to offer the public an opportunity to voice its concerns, not act upon them.

Albert contends that the exact nature of the public concerns about GMOs was outside the scope of her dissertation and therefore unnecessary for her to address or even note. Nevertheless, a thorough pre-market study of the health risks associated with GMOs should never have been outside the scope of the FDA’s responsibilities.

Scientists and journalists have lost their jobs for daring to cross the powerful biotech industry to publicize the health risks of GMOs.(13) The well-controlled media dutifully ignores the pile up of evidence of the nature of the dangers. In recent months, research has been published showing that GM corn increases infertility (14) and that the key ingredients in Monsanto’s Round-Up Ready, the herbicide used on all GMO crops, cause death to human cells.(15)

Given what we now know about the dangers of GMOs, we should dispense with the discussion of whether or not to label them and move right to the topic of banning them altogether.

Identifying What Ails Us

Americans should be able to have confidence that the food they eat is safe. The Trust for America’s Health, however, is using recent food-borne illness events as an excuse to make radical and unnecessary changes to a regulatory system has been purposely underfunded and understaffed.(16) While focusing exclusively of food borne illnesses, it has ignored the predictable diseases suffered by millions that are caused by the chronic consumption of foods adulterated with ingredients that an industry-dominated FDA deems to be GRAS, that is, “generally regarded as safe.”

Restoring and protecting our health requires a real understanding about what ails us. To put things in perspective, food borne illnesses are responsible for some 5,000 death a year; but over 700,000 people die each year from government-approved medicine(17), and millions more suffer from predictable diseases that could be prevented if we had a safe, clean, whole-foods based food supply. If we allow those behind the food “safety” bills to use this crisis as an opportunity to change the food safety system, transnational corporations will have even more control over our health than they do now.

Prevention, as they say, is the best cure.

References:

(1) “Fixing Food Safety: Protecting America’s Food Supply from Farm-to-Fork,” a report from The Trust for America’s Health

http://healthyamericans.org/reports/foodsafety08/



(2) “Keeping America’s Food Safe: A Blueprint for Fixing the Food Safety System at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,” a report from The Trust for America’s Health

http://healthyamericans.org/report/62/food-safety-2009



(3) “Blueprint for a Healthier America: Modernizing the Federal Public Health System to Focus on Prevention and Preparedness,” a report from The Trust for America’s Health,

http://healthyamericans.org/report/55/blue...althier-america



(4) F. William Engdahl, Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation, published by Global Research, 2007.



(5) Erik Millston, Eric Brunner and Sue Mayer “Beyond Substantial Equivalence,” published in Nature (7 Oct 1999).

http://www.greenpeace.org.br/transgenicos/...equivalence.pdf



(6) Citizen Petition Before the United States Food and Drug Administration: Petition Seeking the Establishment of Mandatory Pre-Market Safety Testing, Pre-Market Environmental Review & Labeling for all Genetically Engineered Foods” filed by Center for Food Safety, Washington DC, et al., with Jane Henney, Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, March 21, 2000.

http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/Pe...dRegs3.2000.pdf



(7) “Investing in Africa’s Future – US agricultural development Assistance for Sub-Saharan Africa” By Michael R Taylor and Julie Howard, 2005, The Partnership to Cut Hunger and Poverty in Africa:

http://www.africanhunger.org/uploads/artic...83f67ea6abe.pdf



(8) “The Global Food Security Act” by Annie Shattuck. Foreign Policy in Focus, April 17, 2009.

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/6050



(9) “Food Safety Updated: Developing Tools for a More Science-and Risk-Based Approach,” Michael R. Taylor, Margaret O’K.Glavin, J. Glenn Morris, Jr., and Catherine E. Woteki. Published by the Milbank Memorial Fund and Resources for the Future, July 2003.

http://www.milbank.org/reports/2003foodsaf...foodsafety.html



(10) “Highlights of ‘A Model for Establishing Upper Levels of Intake for Nutrients and Related Substances: Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Technical Workshop on Nutrient Risk Assessment, May 2-6, 2005″ by Christine Lewis Taylor, PhD, Nutrient Reviews, Vol 65, Issue 1, pp 31-38.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?t...h&db=pubmed



(11) “The NAS Risk Assessment Model for Establishing Upper Intake Levels for Nutrients: A Critical Perspective From Psycho-physiological Perspective,” Richard Malter, PhD. 2000.

http://www.iahf.com/nas/nasrebut.html



(12) “Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods: Stakeholder Perceptions of the Food and Drug Administration’s Public Consultation Processes and Food Industry Reactions to the United States Voluntary and European Union Mandatory Policies.” Janice Lee Albert

ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/nonfao/ai241e/ai241e00.pdf



(13) Jeffrey M. Smith, Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Altered Foods You’re Eating. Yes! Books, 2003.



(14) “Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice” Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety, managed by the Austrian Federal Ministry of Health, Family and Youth, and carried out by Veterinary University Vienna. November 2008

http://www.seedsofdeception.com/DocumentFiles/190.pdf



(15) “Glyphosate Formulations Induce Apoptosis and Necrosis in Human Umbilical, Embryonic, and Placental Cells” by Nora Benachour and Gilles-Eric Séralini, Chem. Res. Toxicol., December 23, 2008 Copyright © 2008 American Chemical Society
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/tx800218n



(16) “Starvation Diet: FDA Lacks Adequate Resources for its Nutritional Health and Consumer Protection Missions” published by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Washington DC. October 2003.

http://cspinet.org/new/pdf/starvationrep.final.pdf



(17) “Death by Medicine” by Gary Null PhD, Carolyn Dean MD, Martin Feldman MD, Debora Rasio MD, and Dorothy Smith PhD. Life Extension Magazine, March 2004.

http://www.webdc.com/pdfs/deathbymedicine.pdf

Author’s Bio: Nicole Johnson is a researcher and activist living in Ventura county, California. Her kids wish she would go back to painting and stop worrying so much about the world.