Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

permaculture - Re: [permaculture] HR 2479 alert (US proposed legislation that willnegatively impact local foods

permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: permaculture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Robert Waldrop" <bwaldrop@cox.net>
  • To: "permaculture" <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [permaculture] HR 2479 alert (US proposed legislation that willnegatively impact local foods
  • Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 00:06:27 -0500

Thanks for the heads up about the typo. Since sending the message, I have learned that it will be voted on Thursday (July 30) afternoon, so time is of the essence. Phone calls or faxes to the DC office of your representative will do the most good.

Robert Waldrop, OKC

----- Original Message ----- From: "Ben Martin Horst" <ben.martinhorst@gmail.com>
To: "permaculture" <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 11:26 PM
Subject: Re: [permaculture] HR 2479 alert (US proposed legislation that willnegatively impact local foods


Actually HR 2749. The other (HR 2479) is an orthotics bill.

-Ben

On 7/29/09, Robert Waldrop <bwaldrop@cox.net> wrote:
I'm sorry, but I would like to interrupt our
discussion with news of a potential threat to
small scale vegetable production and artisan food
processing in the United Stats.

HR 2479 is a proposed bill in the US House of
Representatives that would have negative impacts
on many small farmers. For the first time, it
would allow the FDA to issue regulations governing
the production, harvesting, and distribution of
fresh vegetables. It imposes new fees and
regulations on artisan food producers and on
farmers.

It was first presented to the full House this
afternoon (Wednesday) under rules that allowed no
debate or floor amendments, and thus it required a
2/3rds majority to pass. It fell short of the
required votes by only 6.

Late Wednesday afternoon, the House Rules
Committee met under emergency rules, made a few
minor changes to the bill, but left most of it
intact. So it will be voted on again, possibly
very soon. The summary of the changes the Rules
Committee made at its page reporting the action
http://rules.house.gov/SpecialRules_details.aspx?NewsID=4413
is inaccurate.

I read the entire thing. (I had to put on some
relaxing music so I could get through it. I
probably also should have been drinking chamomile
tea. Or maybe bourbon.)

The last sentence of the committee summary of its
action says -- "In the fresh produce section of
the bill, it is clarified that the FDA should
issue standards only for the riskiest types of
products."

I didn't find anything that actually said that in
the actual text. There's some fluff about
consulting with the Sec of Ag and taking into
account the impact on small farmers yadda yadda
yadda but I didn't see anything that would prevent
the FDA from issuing detailed regs to farmers
about their vegetable production practices.

Another problem with the summary -- "For instance,
the substitute amendment provides that farms,
including those that process food and feed that
they sell to other farms or primarily directly to
consumers, do not have to register or pay. "

This is sort of true and sort of not true. If a
farm sells to both individuals and into some sort
of regular commercial marketplace, the value of
the sales of individuals must be greater than the
value of its other sales for the farm to be
exempt. Also, "farm to school" sales are NOT
exempt, so this will be a burden for farmers
participating in farm to school programs.

I also didn't really see anything that exempts
artisan producers. Maybe some that only do direct
sales, but once they branch out from that, they
come under the full impact of the regulations, and
the fines for non-compliance are very large,
starting at $20K and going up from there, and
every "day" of the violation is a separate
offense. I can see people looking at that risk
(plus the criminal penalties, which start at 10
years in jail) and deciding to just close up shop.

They did take out the bizarre provision of the
original bill that would allow meat packers to use
carbon monoxide to preserve the red color of the
meat. .

I think this bill is likely to negatively impact
anyone involved with permaculture who is also
trying to earn income by the sale of their on-site
produced products.

I intend to continue to oppose this bill and
encourage others to do likewise. If you are in the
United States, you can find out the contact info
for your congressional representative by going to
http://www.house.gov and entering your zip code in
the box in the upper left corner of the screen.

It's obvious that this is an attempted major power
grab of authority over the growing of vegetables,
and the last minute exemptions the Rules Committee
threw in are only a fig leaf attempt to give up
the least amount possible so they can maybe get
this passed.

Once the camels nose of regulation of vegetable
production is in the tent, the rest of the animal
will not be far behind. The attitude of the
government towards farming for 50 years has been
"get big or get out", and I think this is the
latest incarnation of that program. For some, it
may be the last straw and they will just give up.

I feel like I need a flag with a cabbage on it
that says -- "Don't tread on me."

Robert Waldrop, president
Oklahoma Food Cooperative
www.oklahomafood.coop
froglet in training with Barking Frogs
Permaculture, www.barkingfrogspermaculture.org

_______________________________________________
permaculture mailing list
permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
Subscribe or unsubscribe here:
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture
Google command to search archives:
site:https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/permaculture searchstring



_______________________________________________
permaculture mailing list
permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
Subscribe or unsubscribe here:
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture
Google command to search archives:
site:https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/permaculture searchstring







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page