Consumer Groups Calls For Stronger Food Safety Bill

by: Jill Richardson

Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 08:06:12 AM PDT

See the details of their requests below.

One Step Closer to Landmark Food Safety Reform!

by: Jill Richardson

Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 21:28:27 PM PDT

Let's keep watching this to make sure that small farmers are protected and the rules to keep the big guys in line aren't watered down. The next step will be a vote by the full House Energy & Commerce Committee.

Making Sausage

by: Jill Richardson

Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 17:46:39 PM PDT

The text of the bill isn't available online yet, so we don't know how different it looks from the draft version released a few weeks ago. The markup session for the bill appears to be TOMORROW (Wednesday, June 10). This will begin in the subcommittee on health at 10am, followed by the full committee at 1:30pm. More info below...

Who Doesn't Like the Food Safety Bill?

by: Jill Richardson

Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 06:00:00 AM PDT

So who is NOT for the bill in that case? The meat industry. This took me by surprise - not because I expect them to be for food safety regulation (in a recent hearing before the Ag Committee, they said they needed no new regulation) but because typically they are regulated by the USDA and this bill covers the FDA. I didn't think they'd have that much stake in this bill's outcome. (H/t Naomi Starkman)

Here's why the meat industry opposes the bill:

Woodall said meat producers are also concerned about the precedent this bill could set in giving the Food and Drug Administration regulatory authority over the industry, which is currently watched over by the Department of Agriculture. The cattlemen's group also takes issue with mandatory recalls and says voluntary recalls work better. The industry worries that the bill would require government inspectors on farms, Woodall said.

"There is no need to have FDA inspectors come on farms or cattle operations," Woodall said. "There are too many other processes and steps between the time it leaves the farm and gets to the consumer, including the way the consumer handles the product when they get it home. It would give a false sense of security to the consumer."

They might sound a lot more convincing if we weren't in the middle of yet another ground beef E. coli recall.

(Hilariously, the meat industry is totally being outspent in lobbying dollars by the groups that are actually FOR food safety reform, such as the Grocery Manufacturers Association. Perhaps that will actually work in our favor for a change! Don't take this to mean that GMA is suddenly on our side. The big companies lost a lot in the peanut butter salmonella recall and they are fixing their food safety practices out of financial necessity to prevent future losses. They are for government reform to make sure that other companies don't gain a competitive advantage against them by going cheap on food safety. And, no doubt, they want this bill to come out to their specifications, which may not be to the greatest good of American consumers.)

June 3 Food Safety Hearing - Part 2

by: Jill Richardson

Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 03:20:03 AM PDT

This part hearing included testimony from:

• Michael Ambrosio, Food Marketing Institute, Vice President Quality Assurance Division, Wakefern Food Corporation
• Pamela G. Bailey, President and Chief Executive Officer, Grocery Manufacturers Association
• Caroline Smith DeWaal, Safe Food Coalition, Food Safety Director, Center for Science in the Public Interest
• Tim F. Jones, MD, State Epidemiologist, Tennessee Department of Health
• Thomas E. Stenzel, President and CEO, United Fresh Produce Association

Today's Food Safety Hearing - Part 1

by: Jill Richardson

Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 15:34:02 PM PDT

This hearing included testimony from:

• Dr. Margaret Hamburg, Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration
• Michael Ambrosio, Food Marketing Institute, Vice President Quality Assurance Division, Wakefern Food Corporation
• Pamela G. Bailey, President and Chief Executive Officer, Grocery Manufacturers Association
• Caroline Smith DeWaal, Safe Food Coalition, Food Safety Director, Center for Science in the Public Interest
• Tim F. Jones, MD, State Epidemiologist, Tennessee Department of Health
• Thomas E. Stenzel, President and CEO, United Fresh Produce Association

This diary covers the first part of the hearing, with the very many opening statements made by members of Congress and the first witness, Margaret Hamburg.

The Latest on the Food Safety Enhancement Act

by: Jill Richardson

Sat May 30, 2009 at 08:00:00 AM PDT

So here's what we know now: There will be a hearing on June 3 where we'll learn more about this bill and the direction it's going. Millions of corporate lobbying dollars are going into this bill - not necessarily in opposition to the bill as a whole, but to make sure it looks the way industry wants it to look. (As radio show host Jon Elliott put it when I told him about Kellogg's request to have a day's advance notice before any FDA inspections, "They have to be sure they get Snap, Crackle, and Pop in line before the inspectors come.")

The bill has a lot of good in it, and a few flaws. There are two major things we need to watch for. First, the bill cannot be too lenient in areas where we are in need of food safety regulatory reform. If another PCA sells more tainted peanuts, we want the FDA to detect and handle the problem BEFORE nearly 4000 products are recalled across the entire country and before people die. Second, the bill should not be unnecessarily harsh on small producers and small businesses.

I was discussing this with a food safety expert earlier and while I respect his point that food safety problems CAN happen on small farms, there's also the problem that the government doesn't always understand or care about sustainable ag practices and so we're left with a choice between regulation that could harm small farmers or no regulation on small farms with some remaining risk of food safety problems. Is some risk of food safety problems allowable for small businesses (who, if god forbid they have a food safety problem, will on affect people in a small area) in exchange for not putting them out of business? After all, they aren't the ones resulting in nationwide recalls.

One of the best posts I've seen on the new bill comes from food safety expert Obama Foodorama, who is not as optimistic as I am. More on this below...
 

The Food Safety Enhancement Act: Who Does It Affect?

by: Jill Richardson

Thu May 28, 2009 at 20:38:05 PM PDT

LVL Prank: Ask Roy Blunt to Co-Sponsor the Food Safety Bill!!!

by: Jill Richardson

Thu May 28, 2009 at 05:00:00 AM PDT

Let's all give him a call to ask him to co-sponsor it. Ask him to add a provision to the bill that requires food manufacturers to perform microbial tests for pathogens and then report positive results to the FDA. Blunt's phone number is (202) 225-6536.

Please send this idea around to your friends and family. Let's get as many people to call him up as possible!

This Is It Guys! We Have a Food Safety Bill!

by: Jill Richardson

Wed May 27, 2009 at 16:37:50 PM PDT

• Gives the FDA mandatory recall authority.

• Requires all food producers to register with the FDA & pay a registration fee of $1000. It applies to both US and foreign producers and will fund the FDA's activities.

• Requires companies to prepare food safety plans. The FDA can audit them and can specify minimum requirements.

• The FDA is required to issue food safety regulations for production and harvesting of fruits and vegetables. This worries me A LOT. The California Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement provided "safety" guidelines for leafy greens that were absolutely idiotic and harmful. That is what we DON'T want to see happen here. However, that part will be hammered out by the FDA, not by Congress. It's just something to pay attention to for the future.

• Inspections: High risk facilities must be inspected every 6-18 mos. Lower risk facilities can be inspected every 18 mos to 3 years. Warehouses must be inspected every 3-4 years.

• Traceability:

  FDA would be required to issue regulations that require fod producers, manufacturers, processors, transporter, or holders to maintain the full pedigree of the origin and previous distribution history of the food and to link that history with the subsequent distribution history of the food; and to establish an interoperable record to ensure fast and efficient traceback (current law permits facilities to hold a record in any format - paper or electronic - making efficient tracing of foods difficult for FDA). Prior to issuing such regulations, FDA would be required to conduct a feasibility study, public meetings, and a pilot project.

  Farms that sell directly to consumers or restaurants are exempted from this provision.

• The bill does NOT include: A requirement that companies test for pathogens and report positive results to the FDA. THIS SHOULD BE ADDED to the bill, if we're going to have a strong and effective bill

What can you do: Call your representative AND members of the Energy & Commerce Committee and ask them to sign onto this bill as co-sponsors. Also ask them to add an amendment requiring testing for pathogens and reporting of positive results.

How will small farmers be impacted? It's a 120-page bill and it was just announced today. So we're not 100% sure yet BUT we'll want to make sure that they are not negatively impacted as we read through the bill and then work with Congress as this bill is marked up in committee.

A list of Energy & Commerce members are listed below. Please look for any members within your state and call them.