Photobucket


La Vida Locavore
 Subscribe in a reader
Follow La Vida Locavore on Twitter - Read La Vida Locavore on Kindle

Food & Water Watch' s Statement on H.R. 875 and the Food Safety Bills

by: Jill Richardson

Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 12:00:00 PM PDT


Bookmark and Share
Food & Water Watch is one of my favorite organizations, and they've just put out a statement on food safety legislation. It meshes pretty well with what I've posted here before, but I wanted to share it anyway. Take a look below if you are interested.
Jill Richardson :: Food & Water Watch' s Statement on H.R. 875 and the Food Safety Bills
The dilemma of how to regulate food safety in a way that prevents problems caused by industrialized agriculture but doesn't wipe out small diversified farms is not new and is not easily solved.  And as almost constant food safety problems reveal the dirty truth about the way much of our food is produced, processed and distributed, it's a dilemma we need to have serious discussion about.

Most consumers never thought they had to worry about peanut butter and this latest food safety scandal has captured public attention for good reason - a CEO who knowingly shipped contaminated food, a plant with holes in the roof and serious pest problems, and years of state and federal regulators failing to intervene.

It's no surprise that Congress is under pressure to act and multiple food safety bills have been introduced.

Two of the bills are about traceability for food (S.425 and H.R. 814).  These present real issues for small producers who could be forced to bear the cost of expensive tracking technology and recordkeeping.

The other bills address what FDA can do to regulate food.

A lot of attention has been focused on a bill introduced by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (H.R. 875), the Food Safety Modernization Act.  And a lot of what is being said about the bill is misleading.

Here are a few things that H.R. 875 DOES do:

1. It addresses the most critical flaw in the structure of FDA by splitting it into 2 new agencies -one devoted to food safety and the other devoted to drugs and medical devices.

2. It increases inspection of food processing plants, basing the frequency of inspection on the risk of the product being produced - but it does NOT make plants pay any registration fees or user fees.

3. It does extend food safety agency authority to food production on farms, requiring farms to write a food safety plan and consider the critical points on that farm where food safety problems are likely to occur.

4. It requires imported food to meet the same standards as food produced in the U.S.

And just as importantly, here are a few things that H.R. 875 does NOT do:

1. It does not cover foods regulated by the USDA (beef, pork, poultry, lamb, catfish.)

2. It does not establish a mandatory animal identification system.

3. It does not regulate backyard gardens.

4. It does not regulate seed.

5. It does not call for new regulations for farmers markets or direct marketing arrangements.

6. It does not apply to food that does not enter interstate commerce (food that is sold across state lines).

7. It does not mandate any specific type of traceability for FDA-regulated foods (the bill does instruct a new food safety agency to improve traceability of foods, but specifically says that recordkeeping can be done electronically or on paper.)

Several of the things not found in the DeLauro can be found in other bills - like H.R. 814, the Tracing and Recalling Agricultural Contamination Everywhere Act, which calls for a mandatory animal identification system, or H.R. 759, the Food And Drug Administration Globalization Act, which overhauls the entire structure of FDA.  H.R. 759 is more likely to move through Congress than H.R. 875.   And H.R. 759 contains several provisions that could cause problems for small farms and food processors:

1. It extends traceability recordkeeping requirements that currently apply only to food processors to farms and restaurants - and requires that recordkeeping be done electronically.

2. It calls for standard lot numbers to be used in food production.

3. It requires food processing plants to pay a registration fee to FDA to fund the agency's inspection efforts.

4. It instructs FDA to establish production standards for fruits and vegetables and to establish Good Agricultural Practices for produce.

There is plenty of evidence that one-size-fits-all regulation only tends to work for one size of agriculture - the largest industrialized operations.  That's why it is important to let members of Congress know how food safety proposals will impact the conservation, organic, and sustainable practices that make diversified, organic, and direct market producers different from agribusiness.  And the work doesn't stop there - if Congress passes any of these bills, the FDA will have to develop rules and regulations to implement the law, a process that we can't afford to ignore.

But simply shooting down any attempt to fix our broken food safety system is not an approach that works for consumers, who are faced with a food supply that is putting them at risk and regulators who lack the authority to do much about it.

You can read the full text of any of these bills at http://thomas.loc.gov

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
How exactly will # 3 on the "Does" and # 5 on "Does Not" jibe??? (4.00 / 3)
At what scale of "farming" will one have to come up with a written "food safety plan" do you think?

In reading the text, it seems that this "Food Safety Administration" could create some serious headaches for producers, and drive up food costs due to the cost of maintaining the requisite records.

I hear what Food and Water Watch are saying about not affecting small scale ag, i.e. CSA "direct marketing" types, but how this might be interpreted by local enforcement entities could affect local small scale ag a little in the interim, doncha think?

I'm not seeing those assurances in the text of the bill, maybe I'm missing something, it's a hefty read.

Personal experience with these types of entities is driving my concern.  My family hasn't produced sorghum molasses for a generation due to compliance issues and a perceived threat to food safety under USDA regs. We had a compliance official show up at the farm to enforce in the 1960's, threatening legal sanctions if we didn't stop production.  And that was only for the production resulting from less than five acres of sorghum cane. Pretty small scale for a "gubment" official to worry about in my opinion.


I agree with Farmboy. (4.00 / 3)
Here in Maine, the farmers who are making a living do so not by selling to the public, but to restaurants. I assume this will create quite a problem for restaurants with a forager on staff -- someone who goes out and finds the best of both wild and farm produce/meat for use on the night's menu.

One of the best things about living here is our access to Portland, Maine. A few years ago, the city banned any new franchises. As a result, it's got some of the best restaurants I've ever eaten in (and I really like to go out to eat at good restaurants. I'll give up a lot of other luxuries before my weekly dinner date with my sweetie.)

There are places in Portland where you'll get fresh local greens all year long (thanks to Elliot Coleman and Barbara Damrosch,) local farm-raised organic meats, wild foragings, and locally-made cheese that are simply out of this world. And these upscale places keep a lot of farmers in business; basically subsidizing them enough that they can run a road-side stand and a trip to the farmer's market as extra.

It's the difference between health insurance and no insurance, too. Between a few dollars put away for retirement and having to sell the farm to retire.


[ Parent ]
I'm going to be in Maine this summer (4.00 / 2)
visiting my Dad, who's turning 80 in July. This is sort of off-topic, sorry, but if there was one restaurant in Portland you'd recommend, for really good, local Maine food, what would it be? Maybe lunch, particularly.

Mostly we'll be down in Cape Neddick/Ogunquit, but I hope to make it up to Portland, too.

thanks, zic!

and just because this item is at the top of the list right now, I'm going to make another sort of off-topic general comment right here, which is: there is so much good stuff posted on this blog every day, it's amazing, thanks.  


[ Parent ]
Local 188 (4.00 / 3)
On Congress St. would be my choice for lunch. Great for dinner, too.

But the most famous amongst foodies is Fore St., on Fore St., with a massive wood-cooking open kitchen -- an oven, spit, grill, and trendy produce room. For a dinner here, a reservation is recommended.

Another great choice for lunch would be Walter's on Exchange St. in the Old Port.

And finally, for local produce and cheese, check out The Public Market House in Monument Square (Congress St. again,) also a good quick-lunch option.


[ Parent ]
thanks! printed and put in my trip folder for (4.00 / 2)
future reference.  

[ Parent ]
oh good call! (4.00 / 2)
the best restaurant in Madison has someone scope out the farmers' market every week. This could absolutely mess that up!

"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

[ Parent ]
I agree (4.00 / 1)
I completely agree. And if you read the text of HR 759, it's a LOT more problematic than DeLauro's bill.

Honestly? I think the hysteria over DeLauro's bill has prevented us from talking about the REAL concerns with that bill and Dingell's bill (HR 759). However, since we've been having a fact-based discussion over here with real farmers who are legitimately concerned about these bills, I think we're more likely to be taken seriously when we speak up. I've been sending the concerns raised here on to Food & Water Watch and Consumers Union bc I know those folks are speaking directly to DeLauro's office. I've also sent a link to the diary where some of the comments were made to DeLauro's staffer myself and asked if he'd check them out.

Since I'm not a farmer myself, I'd be interested in any concerns you have - particularly with HR 759 if it's truly going to (potentially) pass.

"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


[ Parent ]
#6 - The scope of "interstate commerce" (0.00 / 0)
This is my major concern.  Under the Constitution, Congress can regulate "interstate commerce."  To most people, that sounds like they can regulate things that move across state lines.  But a series of cases, mostly in the 1930s and 1940s, interpreted that power very broadly.  

One of the more famous (or notorious) cases is Wickard v. Filburn, where the Court held that a federal agency could regulate the wheat a farmer was growing for his own family's consumption.  The rationale was that, if you looked at all of the people who grow wheat for their own consumption, they could affect interstate commerce.

So I agree with FarmBoy that the requirement that farms write food safety plans (basically HAACP's) could very easily end up affecting direct marketers and very small scale producers.  The only way to avoid that is a clear, unambiguous statement that says, "the agency can only regulate food production facilities that sell, or transport for sale, their product across state lines."  That should be combined with an exclusion for production facilities under a certain size (in many places, small farms sell direct to consumers across state lines because they live so close to the border).

I appreciate FWW's comments, and I agree with them that HR 759 is a worse bill.  But both bills -- and every other food safety bill I've seen so far -- share the common flaw that they don't understand the day-to-day realities of local and sustainable farming.  Nor do they really grapple with the fact that there are fundamental, qualitative differences between factory farms and sustainable farms.  These are two different systems, and they should NOT be regulated the same way.

Protect our farms - Stop NAIS!  Go to http://FarmAndRanchFreedom.org for more information.


[ Parent ]
And to continue that thought... (0.00 / 0)
Take this scenario: a small, sustainable farm raises grass-fed beef and lamb.  Generally, the farm breeds its own animals and sells direct to local customers.  But it's been a drought year and they need to sell some animals quickly to reduce the grazing pressure on the pastures.  In the middle of a drought, it can be very difficult to find someone who wants to buy your animals!  Or perhaps their customer base is increasing more rapidly than their breeding herd, and they want to buy some additional young animals to raise.

The simplest option, and sometimes the only realistic option, is to buy or sell animals at the local sales barn.  But most animals that go through the sales barn ultimately go into the conventional food chain -- which implicates interstate commerce.

So this small sustainable farm would have to create a "food safety plan" if it wants to be able to use the local sales barn to buy or sell.  

That may not be the intent of the people writing the bill.  But given the way both FDA and USDA have treated small farmers to date, I would bet it's how the agency would apply the regulations under HR 875.  And given the way that safety plans have worked for slaughterhouses and food processing plants (the HAACP plans), it's also a safe bet that they'd be a major headache for small producers.

(Note: Personally, we avoid the sales barns and buy and sell only with other local producers.  But that's not a realistic option for many farmers, and it definitely limits your ability to increase or decrease your herd quickly.)

Protect our farms - Stop NAIS!  Go to http://FarmAndRanchFreedom.org for more information.


[ Parent ]
HR 814/ HR 503: Is this Bizarre? (4.00 / 2)
HR 814, cosponsored by DeLauro, Bordallo, Nadler:

States that cattle, sheep, swine, goats, horses, mules and other equines, and poultry presented for slaughter for human consumption, and the carcasses or parts of carcasses and the meat and food products of those animals, shipped in interstate commerce shall be identified in a manner that enables the Secretary to trace: (1) each animal to any location at which the animal was held at any time before slaughter; and (2) each carcass or part of a carcass and food product forward from slaughter through processing and distribution to the ultimate consumer.

Note the horses, mules and other equines - yummy horse meat.

Now look at HR 503, the Equine Cruelty Prevention Act - cosponsored by DeLauro, Bordallo, Nadler (and many others):

Sec. 50. Slaughter of horses for human consumption

     `(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), whoever knowingly--

           `(1) possesses, ships, transports, purchases, sells, delivers, or receives, in or affecting interstate commerce or foreign commerce, any horse with the intent that it is to be slaughtered for human consumption; or

           `(2) possesses, ships, transports, purchases, sells, delivers, or receives, in or affecting interstate commerce or foreign commerce, any horse flesh or carcass or part of a carcass, with the intent that it is to be used for human consumption;

     shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years or both.

So, eat horse meat - go to jail.

I would really like to know how the cosponsors can support both of these bills.


what's the Safe FEAST Act? (4.00 / 2)
Don't know the bill number, but my own Congressman Leonard Boswell (who's not great) is a co-sponsor and had this to say in his weekly e-mail blast:

The recent reports of food-borne illnesses have raised questions for Iowans uneasy about the safety of our nation's food supply. These recurring problems demand action from the 111th Congress. I am a cosponsor of the Safe Food Enforcement, Assessment, Standards and Targeting Act of 2009 (the Safe FEAST Act) and I'd like to take this opportunity to tell you about some of the bill's main provisions.

Although America's food supply remains one of the safest in the world, its food safety laws need to be updated and improved. Much has changed since the last major reforms during the Eisenhower Administration, and while America's farmers and manufacturers are working hard to ensure the American public has access to safe and affordable food and to uphold safety regulations, modernization is necessary.  The FDA needs to have the ability to respond quickly and effectively to food safety threats. This Act would give the FDA expanded access to facility records if the Secretary has reason to believe food is contaminated.  Perhaps most importantly, the bill would give the FDA Commissioner the authority to order mandatory food recalls when firms fail to voluntarily recall dangerous products.

A proactive, scientific strategy for detecting and responding to foodborne illnesses is another vital part of a modern food safety protocol. The recent discovery of contaminated infant formula in China draws attention to the global nature of our food safety concerns.  The FDA would be able to deny the importation of goods if strict safety standards fail to be met.  It is my hope that this legislation will help restore confidence in the safety of America's food supply while protecting the public health.



I thought this was already done? (4.00 / 3)
The FDA would be able to deny the importation of goods if strict safety standards fail to be met.

We do deny importation (the monthly list is very creepy). Our problem is we inspect less than 2%. Once it's on our shores though, the FDA can't do a mandatory recall . . . .  


[ Parent ]
Political Activism Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Notable Diaries
- The 2007 Ag Census
- Cuba Diaries
- Mexico Diaries
- Bolivia Diaries
- Philippines Diaries
- My Visit to Growing Power
- My Trip to a Hog Confinement
- Why We Grow So Much Corn and Soy
- How the Chicken Gets to Your Plate

Search




Advanced Search


Blog Roll
Blogs
- Beginning Farmers
- Chews Wise
- City Farmer News
- Civil Eats
- Cooking Up a Story
- Cook For Good
- DailyKos
- Eating Liberally
- Epicurean Ideal
- The Ethicurean
- F is For French Fry
- Farm Aid Blog
- Food Politics
- Food Sleuth Blog
- Foodgirl.ca
- Foodperson.com
- Ghost Town Farm
- Goods from the Woods
- The Green Fork
- Gristmill
- GroundTruth
- Irresistable Fleet of Bicycles
- John Bunting's Dairy Journal
- Liberal Oasis
- Livable Future Blog
- Marler Blog
- My Left Wing
- Not In My Food
- Obama Foodorama
- Organic on the Green
- Rural Enterprise Center
- Take a Bite Out of Climate Change
- Treehugger
- U.S. Food Policy
- Yale Sustainable Food Project

Reference
- Recipe For America
- Eat Well Guide
- Local Harvest
- Sustainable Table
- Farm Bill Primer
- California School Garden Network

Organizations
- The Center for Food Safety
- Center for Science in the Public Interest
- Community Food Security Coalition
- The Cornucopia Institute
- Farm Aid
- Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance
- Food and Water Watch
-
National Family Farm Coalition
- Organic Consumers Association
- Rodale Institute
- Slow Food USA
- Sustainable Agriculture Coalition
- Union of Concerned Scientists

Magazines
- Acres USA
- Edible Communities
- Farmers' Markets Today
- Mother Earth News
- Organic Gardening

Book Recommendations
- Animal, Vegetable, Miracle
- Appetite for Profit
- Closing the Food Gap
- Diet for a Dead Planet
- Diet for a Small Planet
- Food Politics
- Grub
- Holistic Management
- Hope's Edge
- In Defense of Food
- Mad Cow USA
- Mad Sheep
- The Omnivore's Dilemma
- Organic, Inc.
- Recipe for America
- Safe Food
- Seeds of Deception
- Teaming With Microbes
- What To Eat

User Blogs
- Beyond Green
- Bifurcated Carrot
- Born-A-Green
- Cats and Cows
- The Food Groove
- H2Ome: Smart Water Savings
- The Locavore
- Loving Spoonful
- Nourish the Spirit
- Open Air Market Network
- Orange County Progressive
- Peak Soil
- Pink Slip Nation
- Progressive Electorate
- Trees and Flowers and Birds
- Urbana's Market at the Square


Active Users
Currently 0 user(s) logged on.

Powered by: SoapBlox