Food safety bill headed to president's desk

Tom Coburn... (4.00 / 2)

Comment of the year!

Tom Coburn is the most wasteful federally funded project I can think of.

Ha!!!

---

by: JayinPhiladelphia @ Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 00:46:23 AM UTC

Not voting... (4.00 / 3)

What's with the 74 "not votings" (including my Congresscritter, Earl Blumenauer)?  Isn't that more than usual?  Was this just considered a formality?

Just for the heck of it...

Dem Nay votes:

Boren, Cardoza, Childers, Costa, Farr, Marshall, Perriello, Peterson

R Yay Votes:

Biggert, Castle, Dent, Djou, Ehlers, Fortenberry, Lee (NY), Roskam, Terry, Wolf

---

by: JayinPhiladelphia @ Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 00:57:45 AM UTC

interesting (4.00 / 2)

Biggert is my parents' rep. I'll have to tell them to email her a thanks.

"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 @ Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 02:01:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Christmas (4.00 / 1)

I wonder how many Representatives were not in D.C. It's Christmas, after all.

---

by: count @ Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 05:29:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Total votes (4.00 / 1)

For Tuesday's recorded votes, total votes were (chronologically)

358
355
359
358
334

---

by: count @ Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 05:47:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm looking foreward to writing my HACCP plan (4.00 / 1)

and figuring out how I'm going to raise my prices to pay for it.....

Thanks y'all.

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

---

by: JoanneRigutto @ Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 02:03:38 AM UTC

aren't you protected somewhat (4.00 / 2)

by the Tester amendment?

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 04:20:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's my understanding that FDA can (4.00 / 1)

choose to exempt farms or not as it sees fit. If FDA thinks that exempting a small farm will put the public at risk, it can choose not to exempt them.

Also, I'm so irritated at people thinking that this is going to make everyone safer. It won't. In many cases, if FDA had been doing the job it was already tasked with, people would have been protected. The Peanut Corp. of America is a classic example. FDA was tasked with inspecting that company, did they? No, they laid that off on the state, and then the state fell down on the job. Under S510 the same thing can happen.

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

---

by: JoanneRigutto @ Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 06:07:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Inspections (0.00 / 0)

Ditto for Jif peanut butter, ditto for DeCoster eggs.

Here's an important part of the bill, though:

SEC. 401. FUNDING FOR FOOD SAFETY.

(a) In General- There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out the activities of the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, the Center for Veterinary Medicine, and related field activities in the Office of Regulatory Affairs of the Food and Drug Administration such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2011 through 2015.

(b) Increased Number of Field Staff-
(1) IN GENERAL- To carry out the activities of the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, the Center for Veterinary Medicine, and related field activities of the Office of Regulatory Affairs of the Food and Drug Administration, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall increase the field staff of such Centers and Office with a goal of not fewer than--

(A) 4,000 staff members in fiscal year 2011;
(B) 4,200 staff members in fiscal year 2012;
(C) 4,600 staff members in fiscal year 2013; and
(D) 5,000 staff members in fiscal year 2014.

(2) FIELD STAFF FOR FOOD DEFENSE- The goal under paragraph (1) shall include an increase of 150 employees by fiscal year 2011 to--
(A) provide additional detection of and response to food defense threats; and
(B) detect, track, and remove smuggled food (as defined in section 309) from commerce.

Not as great as it might seem, though, because Dingell's bill paid for that and now the bill only authorizes appropriations, so the result remains to be seen. Also,

SEC. 421. TARGETING OF INSPECTION RESOURCES FOR DOMESTIC FACILITIES, FOREIGN FACILITIES, AND PORTS OF ENTRY; ANNUAL REPORT.

`(a) Identification and Inspection of Facilities-
`(1) IDENTIFICATION- The Secretary shall identify high-risk facilities and shall allocate resources to inspect facilities according to the known safety risks of the facilities, which shall be based on the following factors:
`(A) The known safety risks of the food manufactured, processed, packed, or held at the facility.
`(B) The compliance history of a facility, including with regard to food recalls, outbreaks of foodborne illness, and violations of food safety standards.
`(C) The rigor and effectiveness of the facility's hazard analysis and risk-based preventive controls.
`(D) Whether the food manufactured, processed, packed, or held at the facility meets the criteria for priority under section 801(h)(1).
`(E) Whether the food or the facility that manufactured, processed, packed, or held such food has received a certification as described in section 801(q) or 806, as appropriate.
`(F) Any other criteria deemed necessary and appropriate by the Secretary for purposes of allocating inspection resources.

`(2) INSPECTIONS-
`(A) IN GENERAL- Beginning on the date of enactment of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, the Secretary shall increase the frequency of inspection of all facilities.
`(B) DOMESTIC HIGH-RISK FACILITIES- The Secretary shall increase the frequency of inspection of domestic facilities identified under paragraph (1) as high-risk facilities such that each such facility is inspected--
`(i) not less often than once in the 5-year period following the date of enactment of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act; and
`(ii) not less often than once every 3 years thereafter.
`(C) DOMESTIC NON-HIGH-RISK FACILITIES- The Secretary shall ensure that each domestic facility that is not identified under paragraph (1) as a high-risk facility is inspected--
`(i) not less often than once in the 7-year period following the date of enactment of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act; and
`(ii) not less often than once every 5 years thereafter.
`(D) FOREIGN FACILITIES-
`(i) YEAR 1- In the 1-year period following the date of enactment of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, the Secretary shall inspect not fewer than 600 foreign facilities.
`(ii) SUBSEQUENT YEARS- In each of the 5 years following the 1-year period described in clause (i), the Secretary shall inspect not fewer than twice the number of foreign facilities inspected by the Secretary during the previous year.

`(E) RELIANCE ON FEDERAL, STATE, OR LOCAL INSPECTIONS- In meeting the inspection requirements under this subsection for domestic facilities, the Secretary may rely on inspections conducted by other Federal, State, or local agencies under interagency agreement, contract, memoranda of understanding, or other obligation.

Could be better, as even the House proponents agree.

There is that whole fee assessment bureaucracy the Senate put in. What a headache that will be.

---

by: count @ Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 06:42:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

hmmm (4.00 / 1)

I think they're already supposed to be doing this -

facilities identified under paragraph (1) as high-risk facilities such that each such facility is inspected--
`(i) not less often than once in the 5-year period following the date of enactment of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act; and
`(ii) not less often than once every 3 years thereafter.

And they're already relying on state/local inspections -

`(E) RELIANCE ON FEDERAL, STATE, OR LOCAL INSPECTIONS- In meeting the inspection requirements under this subsection for domestic facilities, the Secretary may rely on inspections conducted by other Federal, State, or local agencies under interagency agreement, contract, memoranda of understanding, or other obligation.

So tell me again how this is going to make us safer?


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

---

by: JoanneRigutto @ Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 13:22:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It depends? (0.00 / 0)

As dmd indicated in the diary, much depends on how it's implemented. Key to everything is increased staff/inspectors. If that doesn't happen, it would seem we'll be right where we started, although subpoena power and mandated recalls are good steps.

---

by: count @ Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 16:38:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

well of course it could be better (4.00 / 1)

but I think it's a miracle that the Congress passed even any step in the right direction.

I am not a policy expert on this issue, but I have confidence in the staff of places like the sustainable ag network and Food Democracy Now. On balance, they feel this law will do good.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 14:00:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

this is from Dave Murphy's blog (4.00 / 1)

at Food Democracy Now:

Key components of the compromise received from Senator Tester's office include:

The compromise differs in three respects from the most recent version of the amendment:

·  Language has been added that gives FDA authority to withdraw an exemption from a farm or facility that has been associated with a foodborne illness outbreak.
·  The distance from a facility or farm that is eligible to be a "qualified end-user" has been reduced from 400 miles to 275 miles.
· Language clarifying that farmers' market sales are "direct-to-consumer" for FDA's purposes has been revised to avoid creating unintended consequences (the effect is the same).

Below is a summary of the compromise reached with consumer groups.

Summary of Tester Amendment

Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) has sponsored an amendment to the food safety bill (S. 510) to further protect small, local food processors and producers.

Retail Food Establishments:

In the 2002 Bioterrorism Act, Congress required that all facilities that manufacture, process, pack, or hold food must register with FDA, but it exempted from that requirement "retail food establishments."  FDA defined the term at 21 CFR 1.227(b)(11).  For purposes of the definition, the Tester amendment would require FDA to clarify that "direct sales" of food to consumers includes sales that occur other than where the food was manufactured, such as at a roadside stand or farmers' market.

Qualified Exemptions:

-Facilities:

• Food facilities would qualify for an exemption from the preventive control/HACCP provisions in section 103 of S. 510 under certain conditions:

(1) they are either a "very small business" as defined by FDA in rulemaking; or (2) the average annual monetary value of all food sold by the facility during the previous 3 year period was less than $500,000, but only so long as the majority of the food sold by that facility was sold directly to consumers, restaurants, or grocery stores (as opposed to 3rd party food brokers) and were in the same state where the facility sold the food or within 275 miles of the facility.

• Facilities  that qualify would be exempt from the preventive control/HACCP provisions in S. 510, but would still have to comply with one of the following:

(1) They would have to demonstrate that they have identified potential hazards and are implementing preventive controls to address the hazards, or

(2) they would have to demonstrate to FDA that they are in compliance with state or local food safety laws.

• Disclosure:  Any food sold by a facility that opts for compliance option (2), above, would have to prominently and conspicuously provide the name and address of the facility that produced it on a food packaging label, or at the point of purchase, as appropriate.
• Study:  FDA would have to conduct a study of the food processing sector to help inform the definition of what it means to be a "very small" facility for purposes of the exemption above.

-Farms:

• Farms would qualify for an exemption from the produce safety standards in section 105 of S. 510 if, during the previous 3 year period, the average monetary value of the food they sold was less than $500,000, but only so long as the majority of sales were to consumers, restaurants, or grocery stores (as opposed to 3rd party food brokers) and were in the same state where the farm harvested or produced the food or within 275 miles of the farm.
• Any food sold under the exemption would have to have the same disclosure set forth above.

-Limitation:
• In the event of an active investigation of a foodborne illness outbreak that is directly linked to a facility or farm exempted under this section, or if the Secretary determines that it is necessary to protect the public health and prevent or mitigate a foodborne illness outbreak based on conduct or conditions associated with a facility or farm that are material to the safety of food, the Secretary may withdraw the exemption provided to such facility under this section.  No activities under this limitation expand existing FDA authorities to inspect farms.

The FDA could withdraw the exemption "In the event of an active investigation of a foodborne illness outbreak that is directly linked to a facility or farm exempted under this section"--not just because they had a feeling this or that farm might become a problem. Sounds to me like your farm is covered by the Tester amendment unless some future problem leads to an investigation of a foodborne illness outbreak.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 13:59:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

FDA can also identify high risk facilities (4.00 / 1)

I'm thinking that any farm selling raw milk will probably be identified as a high risk facility, especially given FDA's push agains all raw milk facilities.

I can also see FDA classifying any integrated/diversified  farm that integrates livestock production and plant crop production especially where both are conducted on the same property, as high risk. Any farm that uses composted manures as high risk, etc.

So, while my size and who I sell to, as well as the area I sell into (less than 275 miles from my farm), may make me elligable for exemption under the Tester ammendment, the fact that I produce milk (although not for sale), and integrate animal production along with plant production (and many of those plants/fruits, etc. are eaten raw), I can see FDA classifying a business like mine as being high risk.

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

---

by: JoanneRigutto @ Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 21:27:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

mound of worms (0.00 / 0)

Compost, eh? I see no need to borrow trouble before its time, but I wonder if they would go so far as to specify temperature. There might be a government rule that compost piles should reach 140 degrees F, whereas some people might prefer 120.

Well, there are many ways for this to cause trouble. I hope common sense and good judgement prevail.

---

by: count @ Thu Dec 23, 2010 at 00:09:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm a firm believer in keeping a low profile (4.00 / 1)

and flying below the radar as much as possible.

Anymore, when I use animal manures, I use them in areas where I'm growing things that can't be eaten unless cooked unless the manure's been aged for at least a year. For things that can be eaten raw, I use the aged manures, grass clippings, and by spring of 2012 I should have worm castings to use for fertilizer.

I'm going to be working with compost teas as well in 2011. A lot of the areas I'm growing in have enough organic matter in them from building them up over the past several years that I really don't want to add any more, so I need to shift to compost teas, cover crops and rotation with legumes anyway.

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

---

by: JoanneRigutto @ Thu Dec 23, 2010 at 01:52:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]