Waxman-Markey Narrowly Passes House

by: Jill Richardson

Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 17:54:43 PM PDT

Waxman & Peterson Have a Deal (and I Have a Cow)

by: Jill Richardson

Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 22:16:48 PM PDT

Now, people talk a lot about a third political party in America. We don't need a third party, we need a first party. You go to the polls and your choices are the guy who voted for the first Wall Street bail out or the guy who voted for the next ten. This week we're hearing that a public option for health care is unlikely because it doesn't have the support of enough Democrats. Even Ted Kennedy's plan - Ted Kennedy, yeah - leaves 37 million uninsured. This is because we don't have a left and a right party in this country anymore - we have a center right party and a crazy party. And over the last thirty-odd years, Democrats have moved to the right, and the right has moved into a mental hospital.

So what we have is one perfectly good party for hedge fund managers, credit card companies, banks, defense contractors, big agriculture, and the pharmaceutical lobby - that's the Democrats. And they sit across the aisle from a small group of religious lunatics, flat earthers, and Civil War re-enacters who mostly communicate by AM radio and call themselves the Republicans - and who actually worry that Obama is a socialist. Socialist? He's not even a liberal! I know he's not, because he's on TV, and while I see Democrats on television, I don't see actual liberals. And if occasionally you get to hear Ralph Nader or Noam Chomsky or Dennis Kucinich, they are treated like buffoons. OK, these are not three of the world's most charismatic men, but then nobody's going to confuse Newt Gingrich for Zac Efron and I have to look at his fat face on TV more often than that free credit report song.

Shouldn't there be ONE party that unambiguously supports cutting the military budget, a party that is straight up in favor of gun control, gay marriage, higher taxes on the rich, universal health care, legalizing pot, and steep, direct, taxing of polluters. These aren't radical ideas. A majority of Americans are either already for them or would be if they were properly argued and defended. And what we need is an actual progressive party to represent the millions of Americans who aren't being served by the Democrats - because bottom line: Democrats are the new Republicans.

About the steep, direct taxing of polluters... wanna know why we are going for this cap and trade nonsense? Because of Wall Street. They see an opportunity to make money on this by creating a new market for carbon. And because you can easily water down a cap and trade system by giving out free credits to pollute or allowing easy ways to get allowances for sequestering carbon. You know, we aren't working towards fixing the problem if we're rewarding people for sequestering carbon that was going to be sequestered anyway.

Here's what CQ has to say about the Waxman-Peterson deal:

Their agreement would put the Department of Agriculture, rather than the EPA, in charge of special projects to reduce emissions in rural areas - for example, by planting trees on farmland.

"We will seek guidance from the administration to figure out the appropriate role for the EPA," Waxman said.

They will also add language to halt an EPA proposal, disliked by farm groups, to measure the greenhouse gas emissions that might indirectly result if more farmland is used for growing biofuel stock. They said the proposal would be on hold for five years pending a scientific study and consultation with federal agencies and Congress.

Both changes are likely to anger environmental groups, who say that EPA has superior expertise in these areas. But, Waxman said, "I think we will hold the environmentalists."

Bottom line: The American people are getting screwed on this one. And I need somebody smarter than me to analyze whether or not this lousy bill is actually better than the status quo and thus worth our support, or if it's just going to institutionalize legal polluting in the name of combating global warming. I think it's disgusting that this is the situation we're in and that the rich assholes who control our country are seriously more interested in short term profits over the longterm survival of the human race.

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.

Connecticut AG Steps Up Fight Against BPA

by: JayinPortland

Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 16:25:07 PM PDT

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal announced today that he has asked several companies -- packaging, beverage and food manufacturers -- to provide details about an apparent campaign to use fear tactics, political manipulation and misleading marketing to fight regulation of bisphenol A (BPA).

Blumenthal has long been an advocate against the dangerous endocrine disruptor bisphenol A in his state, and other CT legislators and public health advocates have also signed onto this effort.  They are requesting information from the industry regarding the recent North American Metal Packaging Alliance public relations strategy meeting which I wrote about here.

Published reports indicate that, at a recent meeting, an industry representative described the "holy grail" spokesperson for BPA as a "pregnant young mother who would be willing to speak around the country about the benefits of BPA." Blumenthal said such tactics, if proven true, would be astonishing and appalling in light of mounting scientific evidence about the dangers of BPA, especially to children. [...]

"We are demanding details about industry giants plotting to use deceptive, and possibly illegal, tactics to blur the truth about BPA dangers. This misinformation campaign could menace public health by confusing consumers and convincing them to ignore mounting scientific evidence that BPA, even in minute doses, endangers children and pregnant women."

Just last week, new studies were released linking BPA exposure to heart disease in women and fertility defects.  Attorney General Blumenthal now joins the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Bart Stupak (D-MI) in seeking information on the industry's fear tactics.

We'll leave the last word for now to Sarah Uhl, Coordinator of the Coalition for a Safe & Healthy Connecticut -

"If the canning industry spent less time trying to dupe pregnant women and more time switching to alternatives, we would have more safe products on store shelves right now."

Challenge to Big Ag: Can You Make a Bad Climate Change Bill Worse?

by: Jill Richardson

Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 05:23:15 AM PDT

As the Waxman-Markey climate and energy bill moves forward in the House, Big Ag interest groups are circling their plows and sharpening their pitchforks. Some of the largest corporations in the agribusiness sector-including the GMO-and-herbicide giant Monsanto-are pushing to control how agriculture would fit into the bill's cap-and-trade scheme.

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.)

How Bad Is the Waxman-Markey Climate Change Bill?

by: Jill Richardson

Sat Jun 06, 2009 at 12:00:00 PM PDT

Here's a bad sign: Alternet article "Why does the Much-Touted Climate Change Bill Look like it was Stolen From a Republican Playbook?" Ouch.

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

Congress Waking Up On BPA?

by: JayinPortland

Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 08:00:00 AM PDT

Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman and Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Bart Stupak sent a letter to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg relating to the possible dangers of Bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical found in consumer products and food product containers, particularly in infant formula containers and other items used by infants and children.  Chairmen Waxman and Stupak asked Commissioner Hamburg to reconsider the FDA's conclusion under the Bush Administration that BPA is safe at current estimated exposure levels.

"It is critical that we know for certain whether BPA is safe to use in consumer products and food product containers," said Chairman Waxman.  "We need to make sure that FDA thoroughly and fairly reviews the best science on BPA so that the public - and especially infants and children - are protected."

Much new information has come out about BPA since FDA's decision last year, and none of it has been kind to the chemical and plastics industry.  Nor, for that matter, has it been kind to FDA.  Let's hope the new administration straightens things out on this.

Rep. Stupak also expressed concern about the Bush Administration FDA's interactions with industry during the approval process and beyond, while both Reps. Waxman and Stupak sent a document request to the North American Metal Packaging Alliance regarding the fear and smear tactics they are reported to be planning to use in their upcoming PR counterattack.

Here are the letters [pdf] sent to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, and to the world's leading BPA cheerleader, NAMPA Chairman Dr. John Rost.

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 Food Safety Enhancement Act: Who Does It Affect?

by: Jill Richardson

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

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.

Congress Talks About Getting the Mercury out of Fish & HFCS

by: Jill Richardson

Sat May 23, 2009 at 16:26:19 PM PDT

The manufacturing process for chlorine and caustic soda also emits mercury pollution into the atmosphere, where it gets into our waterways and our fish. While this bill entirely fixes the mercury in HFCS problem, it will only reduce the amount of mercury in fish. But - that's better than nothing and it's an important step in the solution.

I'm not sure what the chances of this passing are because the Energy & Commerce committee has a LOT on its plate (most prominently, the climate change bill, which it just passed out of committee, and also food safety legislation). But the chair of the committee, Henry Waxman, is a bulldog ("the mustache of justice") so maybe he'll get something done on this issue.

Details about the testimony heard is below.