A Blue Dog's Take on the Food Safety Bill

by: Jill Richardson

Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 15:00:00 PM PDT

UPDATE: Please note in the comments that Kratovil's district includes the headquarters of Perdue chicken.

An Update on Congress (Including a Batshit Crazy Bill by Ron Paul)

by: Jill Richardson

Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 06:00:00 AM PDT

• The Senate debated Ag Appropriations
  
• The House debated the Food Safety Enhancement Act (I wrote about this last week but the link here gives you the official transcript).
  
• And debated it some more.
  
• The CBO (Congressional Budget Office) wrote up a report on the Food Safety Enhancement Act
  
• Sen. Schumer wants to get milk protein concentrate out of our dairy products (yay!!!)
  
• Sen. Udall of New Mexico introduced a bill that would authorize the USDA to mandate a recall of tainted foods.
  
• Ron Paul introduced a bill about health claims on food labels.

  The Ron Paul bill reads as follows:

  The Federal Government may not take any action to prevent use of a claim describing any nutrient in a food or dietary supplement (as such terms are defined in section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321)) as mitigating, treating, or preventing any disease, disease symptom, or health-related condition, unless in a final order of a Federal court following a trial on the merits finds clear and convincing evidence based on qualified expert opinion and published peer-reviewed scientific research that--

  (1) the claim is false and misleading in any material respect; and

  (2) there is no less speech restrictive alternative to claim suppression, such as use of disclaimers or qualifications, that can render the claim non-misleading.

  Translation: If this bill were to pass (it won't), you would be able to label a package of Twinkies to say that they cure AIDS, so long as nobody takes you to Federal court and proves that you're lying. And even then, the result might be that you are allowed to keep the claim so long as you add a disclaimer like "Scientific evidence has not found any evidence that this is true."

Food Safety He Said She Said

by: Jill Richardson

Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 10:07:09 AM PDT

Liveblogging Food Safety Debate

by: Jill Richardson

Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 11:53:51 AM PDT

Now there's wingnut Virginia Foxx speaking. She's ticked off at the manipulation of the House rules to try to ram through legislation (so am I) - although I would guess that her actual complaint is that the Democrats are in power and that they are passing legislation she doesn't like. She wants to score political points against Nancy Pelosi, period.

I will continue liveblogging in the comments.

Statements on the (Perhaps Temporary) Defeat of the Food Safety Bill

by: Jill Richardson

Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 22:26:22 PM PDT

Here are a few articles and statements on the bill's vote today:

• Des Moines Register: Food Safety Bill Fails, Gets Another Shot Thursday
• Center for Rural Affairs: Democracy Denied

I've pasted statements by the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition and Consumers Union below.

Food Safety Bill Update (Vote Will Be Tomorrow)

by: Jill Richardson

Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 19:13:23 PM PDT

The bill was voted upon today under special rules that required 2/3 of those present voted for it instead of a simple majority. It fell 8 votes short of passing. Had it only required a simple majority, it would have passed overwhelmingly, as the House has 435 members and the bill got 280 votes. Essentially, given the goofy rules requiring 2/3 of those present in order to pass it, it was set up to fail. You can see who voted for it on the House website - 230 Dems and 50 Republicans voted for it; 23 Dems and 127 Republicans voted against it. A list of the 23 Dems who voted against it is below. What I find interesting is that some really fantastic Congresscritters like Lynn Woolsey voted against the bill (and so did some rotten Blue Dog Dems). No doubt Rep. Woolsey wants food safety reform and her vote was in protest of how the bill would unfairly impact small farmers... that's my guess anyway, and I'll see if I can find out for sure.

Despite the failure to pass the bill today, they will vote on it AGAIN tomorrow. I have NO idea why a second vote is allowed (just as I have no idea why they required a 2/3 vote this first time around) but I'll look into that. For more details on what's going on, check out the Rules Committee report from today.

One last thing to note: Roy Blunt voted against the bill... and his wife is Kraft's top lobbyist (although she supposedly doesn't lobby the House).

The Food Safety Vote is Today

by: Jill Richardson

Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 11:22:44 AM PDT

Rep Boehner- Ohio (202) 225-6205
Rep. Cantor- Virgina 202.225-2815
Rep Lucas- Oklahoma (202) 225-5565

I realize the sustainable food community is split over their feelings on this bill. It does some fantastic, very necessary things that will save lives. It also contains provisions that are questionable or even harmful in their impact on small producers. I don't feel justified in telling you which side to come down on. There is one amendment, known as the Farr-Kaptur amendment, that will make the bill much more favorable to small farmers and producers. If that amendment is included, then I am absolutely in favor of the bill.

Without that amendment, I am leaning towards supporting the bill as well. Remember - we CAN still get pieces of the bill changed and improved in the Senate so the version the House passes is NOT what Obama will eventually sign. The sustainable farmers started working on this bill pretty late in the game - perhaps too late. They'll be more on top of things in the Senate and we can get a better bill there even if the House bill is passed with flaws in it.

Additionally, you can see all of the House's roll call votes online so once the vote takes place, you can see how your Representative voted.

Food Safety Bill Will Be Voted on Tomorrow or Wed

by: Jill Richardson

Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 13:49:48 PM PDT

To pass under suspension of the rules, a bill must receive the support of 2/3rds of the members voting, a quorum being present. A quorum for purposes of suspensions is 218. If all members are present and voting, we will need 290 YEAs to pass the bill.

I don't know why they are using these special rules, but I have heard from at least one source that we will probably have the votes to pass the bill. What is most important to us right now is to ask our legislators to please support the Farr-Kaptur amendment to the bill, so that the bill is as non-harmful as possible to small producers who do not pose much threat to our food system.

Details on the Farr-Kaptur Amendment

by: Jill Richardson

Fri Jul 24, 2009 at 08:08:04 AM PDT

ACTION: Support the Farr-Kaptur Food Safety Amendment

by: Jill Richardson

Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 17:16:37 PM PDT

Two organizations - the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association (MOFGA) and the Pennsylvania Association for Sustainable Agriculture (PASA) have really stepped up to ensure that the bill is fair to small farmers. Here is some text from a recent PASA email (I haven't been able to locate the exact language of the Farr-Kaptur amendment yet):

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 [Energy & Commerce Committee] must deal with if they expect to get their two-thirds vote to limit debate.

The bottom line from this email is: We need you to call, email, or fax your representatives ASAP and ask them to support the Farr-Kaptur amendment to H.R.2749.

Also... if you'd like to speak with your credit card, I'm sure PASA and MOFGA would appreciate your donations :)

The Latest on the Food Safety Bill

by: Jill Richardson

Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 10:51:44 AM PDT

I realize there are some folks on our side who wouldn't mind seeing this bill gutted. When you have one-size-fits-all legislation that could be harmful to small farms, having provisions removed from the bill by Big Ag might simultaneously weaken the bill's effects on Big Ag while helping small producers (by preventing them from being subject to the bill's provisions that were written and intended for Big Ag). If Peterson does anything that helps us, it won't be intentional. It would just be a lucky accident.

Peterson will likely remove the provision in the bill allowing the FDA to quarantine geographic areas after the discovery of a food safety problem. I would be VERY HAPPY to see that provision removed from the bill. Peterson wants to keep the FDA off the farm - which, to be honest, I wouldn't mind at all - but it seems that some provisions will stay in the bill, like a requirement for farms to keep records and perhaps even the ability of the FDA to demand farm records. I'd also like to see them remove the part of the bill where they tell farmers how to grow and harvest food.

The best parts of the bill (the ones we most need to keep IN the bill) are the increased FDA inspections for food manufacturers and warehouses (and the $500 user fees to pay for them), the FDA's ability to view records during inspections and during food safety outbreaks, the FDA's authority to mandate a food recall, the requirement for high risk facilities to test for pathogens and send positive results to the FDA, and the punishments for breaking the law. It doesn't seem that the Ag Committee won't remove any of those provisions. If you want to call the House Ag Committee to ask them to pass the bill quickly and to keep the most vital parts of the bill intact while removing the parts that could be problematic for farmers, their phone number is 202-225-2171 and their fax is 202-225-8510.

Additionally, the Western Organization of Resource Councils asks us to call our representatives (and/or the Ag Committee phone number I provided above) and:

urge them to support language in the Managers Report to the House on H.R. 7249 that

1.    Draws a bright line definition around small local food system producers and processors,
2.    Ensures that fledgling local food producers and processors are not saddled by excessive registration, fees, and recording-keeping requirements.

A Food Safety Update: 41,000 Lbs of Beef Recalled [UPDATED]

by: Jill Richardson

Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 13:52:39 PM PDT

JBS Swift is recalling 41,280 lbs of beef "due to possible E. coli contamination." Just another reminder that food safety reform is badly needed in this country. Meanwhile the Nestle Tollhouse Cookie Dough recall is still in the news. 70 people are sick; 30 hospitalized. The confirmed cases of E. coli occurred in 28 states. And - just a reminder - there are always many more cases of foodborne illness than the number the CDC is able to confirm.

So how about that food safety reform?? Well, the Food Safety Enhancement Act has passed the House Energy & Commerce Committee, which means it is ready to be voted on. Now the Speaker (Nancy Pelosi) needs to bring it to the floor for a vote. Congress is on recess next week, which means it's a GREAT time to call or visit your representative's district office to tell them you want them to urge the Speaker to bring the food safety bill up for a vote ASAP as soon as Congress is back in session after the 4th of July. (The bill could still use some improving to make it less burdensome to small producers... I'd like to see them drop the part of the bill that instructs the FDA to tell farmers how to safely grow and harvest food, and to exempt the smallest food facilities from the $500 annual fee... you might want to mention that to your Congresscritter too.)

So - assuming that happens - the FDA is going to get a badly needed makeover. But what about the USDA? So far... nothing. The beef E. coli recall falls under the USDA, but in a recent hearing, the meat industry unequivocally told the House Ag Committee that no new regulations were needed because their products were already safe and current oversight was enough. Let's hope those aren't famous last words. The fact of the matter is that as long as we produce animal products in filthy, crowded conditions and slaughter and process animals at mind-boggling speeds, making it difficult for workers to keep themselves and the meat they are working with safe, we are leaving ourselves open to more outbreaks like this one and like the more deadly outbreaks of years past.

The Food Safety Bill: What's Good, What Needs to Change

by: Jill Richardson

Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 16:31:33 PM PDT

Food Safety Bill: Consumers Union Response + An Internet Backlash

by: Jill Richardson

Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 16:00:29 PM PDT

Now, don't get me wrong. The bill isn't perfect. It's not perfect in several ways. But it's pretty much the best we're gonna get in today's political environment, and it's not so flawed that it's worth opposing. It DOES do a lot of needed things. I've pasted a Consumers' Union statement about the bill below so you can see what they are saying about it.

You'll notice from the statement below that we got SOME of the things we were asking for, including increased inspections for high risk facilities and language added to the bill about mandatory testing for pathogens and reporting of results to the FDA. Another article I saw earlier today said the bill now includes a provision that gives the FDA the ability to (at their own discretion) inspect small facilities less frequently than the timeline called for in the bill. Since the FDA is constantly strapped for cash, I have a hunch they will take advantage of that option.

The only thing that I find disappointing is a part added to the bill calling for the FDA to evaluate the safety of BPA. I think this means that the bills to ban BPA altogether are now dead. After all, it gives opponents to a BPA ban the argument that we should wait until the FDA studies the issue first.

So how about the crazy internet rumors that are starting up to oppose this bill? Here's what they say:

HR 2749 gives FDA tremendous power while significantly diminishing existing judicial restraints on actions taken by the agency.  The bill would impose a one-size-fits-all regulatory scheme on small farms and local artisanal producers; and it would disproportionately impact their operations for the worse.

The important thing to note is that - if these are coming from the same source as last time - these rumors are coming from the libertarian/Ron Paul crowd that wants the government to leave everyone the hell alone. The folks behind the rumors last time were obviously not legal scholars of any sort, since they were making ridiculous claims left and right (like "This bill will pass in the next two weeks!!!1!!" while Congress was on a 2 week recess). Like I said, it's not perfect. But the people who claim that it's going to impose restrictions on anywhere that prepares food (like homes and gardens) are totally full of it. For crying out loud, Uncle Sam isn't coming after your farmers' market.

Food Safety News! Bill Unanimously Approved by Committee

by: Jill Richardson

Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 11:01:37 AM PDT

I'll post details on this as soon as I get them, telling you if there's any changes in the bill and when (if we know when) the full House is expected to vote on the bill. But I think at this point it looks very likely that the bill will pass the House so now we can turn our eyes to the Senate to see if they'll pass it as well, and whether they will make changes to it first.

UPDATE: Here's an article on it from CQ Politics. Note that they added an amendment allowing the FDA some discretion to modify its inspection schedule for small producers.

UPDATE #2: Another article, this one from Reuters. Thanks to Naomi Starkman for "tweeting" these links. This article doesn't have much new information - it seems the bill is mostly unchanged after today's markup session. The user fees remain set at $500, which was a compromise that happened (down from $1000) in the subcommittee last week. The rest of the bill seems to be intact and so far I haven't seen reporting of any other new additions or changes to it.