The End of Innocence for Local Farmers

Hmm, interesting take on things (0.00 / 0)

I don't have a problem per se with regulations. I do have big problems with regs that duplicate existing regs and those that conflict with or interfere with local control of regulations, especially for businesses that are selling intrastate. Those regs should be strictly state controled. Sure, if you want to sell interstate, then the fed comes in. But I'd really like it if the fed stayed the hell out of intrastate business.

Regarding regs covering food manufacturing -

We currently have regulations that cover food manufacturers at both the federal level and the state level. If I decide to set up a commercial kitchen and produce jams, jellies, pickles, cheese or anything else that has to be cooked, processed, dried or preserved, and that will be used as food for human consumption, or even in some cases, I think for animal consumption, I have to comply with state and federal regulations. I have to be licensed by the state food safety department, have my facilities inspected on a regular basis, submit my recipes and samples of finished product to a state lab or state approved lab. So as far as that goes we already have plenty of regulations for local food producers/processors. So, in that sense, to enact new federal regulations would be not only to recreate the wheel, but to add yet another layer of regulations over an existing set, some of which may conflict with the existing regs.

One state has passed a law allowing in home processing of food products without inspection as long as the foods will be sold direct to the end consumer in intrastate sales. I forget which state did that, it's back east somewhere I think. However, the reicpes and samples still have to be submitted to the state for review and testing.

Regarding food growing, harvesting, and sales direct to the end user -

This one I'd like the fed and the state to stay the hell out of, and I, along with many others, will fight tooth and nail to ensure that that happens. If someone wants to sell to a store, produce stand, school, restaurant, etc. then let those entities decide what kind of insurance they want the grower to carry, growing practices, etc. they want to producer to engage in. People purchasing produce from a farm, farmstand, or someone at the farmers market can, if they so choose, ask the farm what kinds of growing practices the farm uses, what chemicals, if any the farm uses, etc. If it's someone who is selling produce they themselves grow, they'll be able to tell the consumer how the produce is being grown. If they're unwilling to answer questions straight up, them perhaps that's a sign that one might not want to purchase produce from that person. In Oregon, I can sell anything I grow, harvest or forage myself with out licensing. In all other cases, I must purchase a food seller's license if I'm going to sell something.  So we already have sufficient reguations as far as that goes.

Same for slaughter -

If I'm going to slaughter and sell to the end user, as long as I sell the animal before I kill it, I don't need to be inspected and I shouldn't. I don't need a HAACP and I shouldn't need one. If I'm going to have animals slaughtered and sell the meat, then I do need to have them slaughtered under inspection (either state or federal depending on whether the sales will be intrastate or interstate), and the meat has to be cut/wrapped in a licensed facility. Knowing what I know about meat cutting, I wouldn't want to attempt that type of carcass fabrication without the training and equipment anyway as meat cutting/butchery is a highly skilled trade requiring at least a decent apprenticeship before you even know what part of the carcass to cut a T-bone out of.

Again, there are already existing regulations that cover this aspect of food production.

I think that the most important message we small producers can send out legislators in DC is that we don't need new federal regs because we're already covered by many, many state and local regulations for intrastate sales. If someone wants to cross state lines in their commercial activities, then let them deal with the federal regulations. But I think that FDA and USDA regualting intrastate business is overstepping their bounds.

Also, while I do believe that education is very important in food production, as far as growing practices, using manures, composts, etc. I don't believe that there should be anything like a mandate for certain types of education. I see how these education requirements have imacted my other business (construction) and they devolve from something that might have been handy into just another scam that doesn't help anyone except the company selling the courses the state makes you take in order for you to be able to work and earn a living.

And one last thing -

As a small non-organic farmer myself, I have to take issue with your portrayal of us with regard to buying chemicals over the counter and making our customers sick.

Another problem is small non-organic growers; large conventional farmers who use toxic chemicals must, by law, register and keep detailed records on their pesticide use.  Small grower can buy what ever pesticide they want at a retail garden store; apply it to any crop, at any dosage, at any time with no record keeping.  This could have serious long term health consequences for unsuspecting local consumers.

If those chemicals are so bad, they should already have been taken off the shelf at the local garden centers. I doubt that the local consumers are any more at risk from a local grower selling at the farmers market or through a CSA than they are from their neighbor who shares their garden bounty with them. Most home gardeners are using those chemicals as well. That's why they're being sold at the garden centers and variety stores.

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.

---

by: JoanneRigutto @ Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 19:25:11 PM UTC

Fact are facts (4.00 / 1)

..."If those chemicals are so bad, they should already have been taken off the shelf at the local garden centers. I doubt that the local consumers are any more at risk from a local grower selling at the farmers market or through a CSA than they are from their neighbor who shares their garden bounty with them. Most home gardeners are using those chemicals as well. That's why they're being sold at the garden centers and variety stores."...

Sad fact is that the same chemical companies that sell products to big corporate farms that end up polluting ground water and creating the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico called Gulf Hypoxia also control which chemicals are sold at garden centers.  

Everyday citizens can buy organophosphates without understanding how dangerous they are. .."Organophosphate pesticides (as well as sarin and VX nerve agent) irreversibly inactivate acetylcholinesterase, which is essential to nerve function in insects, humans, and many other animals."...

---

by: OrganicGeorge @ Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 19:57:24 PM UTC

The point I was making when I said this - (0.00 / 0)

..."If those chemicals are so bad, they should already have been taken off the shelf at the local garden centers. I doubt that the local consumers are any more at risk from a local grower selling at the farmers market or through a CSA than they are from their neighbor who shares their garden bounty with them. Most home gardeners are using those chemicals as well. That's why they're being sold at the garden centers and variety stores."...

is that making small farms selling to local consumers jump through regulatory hoops with regard to chemicals sold in these types of venues to home gardeners will do little or nothing as far as preventing adverse health effects caused by the use of said chemicals. There are probably more home gardeners using these chemicals irresponsibley and sharing their garden's produce with the neighbors than there are farms using them.

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.

---

by: JoanneRigutto @ Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 22:25:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think we are talking over each other (4.00 / 1)

I want a broad range discussion, over a couple of years, to come up with a workable system that protects small farmers and consumers.

We agree these toxic chemicals should not be available in garden centers.  They are available due to big corporations wanting to make profits at the expense of human health and the environment.

---

by: OrganicGeorge @ Sun Jun 20, 2010 at 09:36:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

we be lame (0.00 / 0)

Monsanto writes the rules

---

by: zardoz86 @ Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 17:33:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. (0.00 / 0)

http://sustainableagriculture....

---

by: zardoz86 @ Wed Jun 23, 2010 at 04:44:16 AM UTC

unsafe (0.00 / 0)

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is considering a rule that could weaken already-lenient controls on the use of antibiotics in food animal production.

The new rule affects the Veterinary Feed Directive (VFD), a program allowing veterinarians to prescribe antibiotics mixed into animal feed in new ways. Currently, the VFD ensures that for those new antibiotic uses a diagnosis is made before animals are given antibiotics in their feed.

Many industrial farms routinely feed antibiotics to poultry or livestock to compensate for overcrowded and unsanitary conditions, while promoting growth. Proposed changes to the VFD could weaken oversight that prevents unnecessary drug use - increasing the rate of antibiotic resistance in humans.

Up to 70 percent of all antibiotics sold in the U.S. are fed to healthy food animals. Weakening the VFD could breed dangerous new strains of antibiotic-resistant bacteria that can spread to humans thus making these important drugs we depend on useless.

---

by: zardoz86 @ Wed Jun 23, 2010 at 04:57:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Tell me (0.00 / 0)

of those antibiotics sold in the US for animal use, and of those used in CAFOs, which ones are contributing to antibiotic resistance in human diseases and/or zoonotic diseases that impact humans?

I hear the number 70% bandied about regarding antibiotics sold in the USA going to animal agriculture, but after looking the info and having direct experience with animal drugs including antibiotics and having some knowleage about zoonoses, I'd like to know specifically which drugs you'd like to restrict.


Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.

---

by: JoanneRigutto @ Thu Jun 24, 2010 at 00:12:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

alternative to antibiotics (0.00 / 0)

Charcoal powder had been commonly used to cure the intestinal disorders of animals. In 1980s the utilization of charcoal and wood vinegar extended into the fields of animal husbandry and the fish aquaculture. In the 1970's one of the wood vinegar makers invented a tablet of charcoal powder containing wood vinegar and sold as a medicine for livestocks ; this was formally recognized by MAFF (33). When animals take the drug with the feed, it is said that the quality of meat, fat and egg can be improved because of effect on activity of intestinal microorganisms (47). Recently the use for pig and poultry increased to avoid antibiotics and to prevent epidemics.

In general, charcoal powder has the strong ability to absorb the smell of excretions and liquid. The charcoal carbonized under lower temperature than 300 degree Celsius especially shows the strong adsorption of ammonium (48). The mixture of charcoal and wood vinegar has been used in barn of housed livestock as the deodorant and absorbent of liquid. It seems that these effects result from the complex reactions of charcoal and wood vinegar, but there has been little available scientific investigation (33).

The material containing wood vinegar also is used in the aquaculture of eel and fish to keep water clean (33). Sometimes high quality charcoal which is carbonized under higher temperature has been also used for water purification in the fish tank. From experiences it is said that fish likes to spawn around the charcoal, probably because some algae propagate on the wood charcoal and carbon fiber  

---

by: zardoz86 @ Thu Jun 24, 2010 at 17:10:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

antibiotics (0.00 / 0)

Factory farms use 70 percent of antibiotics in the United States, not for sick people and animals, but for healthy pigs, chickens and beef cattle. Why? The agricultural industry says it helps the animals grow to market weight more quickly. Antibiotics also compensate for the crowded, filthy conditions in which the animals live.

But this indiscriminate overuse of antibiotics creates virulent "super bugs" -- bacteria that are no longer susceptible to treatment by commonly used drugs. These bugs endanger the health of animals and humans, who can contract serious diseases through handling the animals and eating meat.

A University of Iowa study found antibiotic-resistant MRSA, a potentially fatal infection, in three-fourths of the hogs in Iowa and western Illinois, and two-thirds of the farm workers who handled them. Illnesses caused by antibiotic-resistant bacteria can be extremely difficult to treat and kill 70,000 Americans every year

---

by: zardoz86 @ Thu Jun 24, 2010 at 17:22:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

money (0.00 / 0)

S.510 - FDA Food Safety Modernization Act
is not

S.619 - Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act of 2009
though it pays to say it is

---

by: zardoz86 @ Thu Jun 24, 2010 at 17:41:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

leter from Senator Durbin (0.00 / 0)

Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to the nontherapeutic use of antibiotics in animal production.

I understand your concerns about the nontherapeutic use of antibiotics in animals. For the past six decades, antibiotics have proven to be highly effective in combating bacterial infections in humans. In addition to their use in humans, antibiotics, also known as antimicrobials, are used for therapeutic and nontherapeutic purposes in animals. The nontherapeutic uses in animals include administering antimicrobial drugs in the absence of disease for purposes such as growth promotion, feed efficiency, or routine disease prevention. Livestock producers often use antimicrobials for these purposes, adding antibiotics to the feed or water of healthy animals, including cows, poultry, and pigs.

Scientists and consumers have expressed concern about the nontherapeutic use of antibiotics in animals. Recent studies have suggested that these practices have the potential to decrease the effectiveness of antibiotics in fighting bacterial infections in humans. Many of the antibiotics used nontherapeutically in animals closely resemble antibiotics that are frequently used as the last line of defense against harmful pathogens in human medicine, including such familiar antibiotics as penicillin and bacitracin.

The Preservation of Antibiotics for Human Treatment Act (S. 619) would phase out the nontherapeutic use of antibiotics in livestock by requiring the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to deny applications for new animal antibiotics unless a manufacturer can prove that the use poses no threat to human health. This bill has been referred to the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee. I am not a member of this committee, but I will keep your views in mind in case this issue comes to the Senate floor.

Thank you again for contacting me. Please feel free to keep in touch.

Sincerely,

Richard J. Durbin
United States Senator

---

by: zardoz86 @ Thu Jun 24, 2010 at 18:57:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Your information is all well and good (0.00 / 0)

but you still haven't answered my question. Which antibiotics are causeing resistance in human disease organisms and zoonotic disease organisms. I'm looking for specific drugs or classes of drugs. For instance, I can buy penicilin over the counter at the feed store for different animals. It's extremely effective in preventing infection in animals that have been injured. I can also buy antibiotic boluses for use after partruition to prevent uterine infections. Should I be barred from purchasing these things from the feed store without paying a vet $100 for a consult?

I'm aware of the problem with certain strains of MRSA. But of the classes of antibiotics that are used in animal ag, which ones specifically are causing the resistance in organisms in the human population?

The reason I ask this question is that I use antibiotics in my animals during disease outbreaks and for the prevention of infection when an animal is injured, has birthed, etc.  

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.

---

by: JoanneRigutto @ Thu Jun 24, 2010 at 23:55:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Chicken feed may present arsenic danger (0.00 / 0)

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg...

organic rules that if your animal gets sick and needs to be treated by anitbiotics you need to treat the animal with antibiotics and then you can no longer sell the animal as organic.

the concern I have is the use of antibiotics for animals as a growth promoter like arsenic or to compensate for the animal living in unheathy suroundings

you should not be prevented from your use of antibiotics but there should be a restriction on how much you can buy
per head and this should be regresive.

I don't know how the law under consideration would effect you.
I would be concerned that the law would be used such as it only impacts small farmers and does not change large feed lots that do threaten a pandemic that could wipe out the entire human race

---

by: zardoz86 @ Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 18:10:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

antibiotics s510 is not s619 (0.00 / 0)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/h...

The draft guidance, published on the agency's website, also says that antibiotic use in animals should require veterinarian oversight. The public and industry will have 60 days to comment, and the FDA will then use those comments to consider its next move, Sharfstein says. "We're seeking guidance on how to achieve those principles."

The main classes of antimicrobials used in both humans and animals are macrolides and tetracyclines, Roach says.

Agency research shows "use of medically important drugs in food-producing animals should be limited," says Bernadette Dunham, director of the FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine.

Meat producers dispute the idea. National Pork Producers Council president Sam Carney says the FDA "didn't present any science on which to base this."

House Rules Committee chairwoman Louise Slaughter, D-New York, said in a statement that "the only thing accomplished by pumping antibiotics into healthy animals is to dilute the effectiveness of our medicines."

---

by: zardoz86 @ Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 01:13:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Guacamole, salsa linked to food poisoning (0.00 / 0)

The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill a year ago to reorganize the convoluted U.S. food safety system, but the Senate has yet to act, despite broad bipartisan agreement on the issue.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38...

---

by: zardoz86 @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 23:13:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]