Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

permaculture - [permaculture] Food Safety Bills in Congress | Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance - important links & local (N.C.) farmer input included

permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: permaculture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." <venaurafarm@bellsouth.net>
  • To: permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [permaculture] Food Safety Bills in Congress | Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance - important links & local (N.C.) farmer input included
  • Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 17:44:08 -0400


Food Safety Bills in Congress | Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance
http://farmandranchfreedom.org/content/food_safety_bills_09

Food Safety Bills in Congress
Tell Congress:
One Size Does Not Fit All When Considering Food Safety Bills!

Small local farms and food processors are fundamentally different from huge, industrial food suppliers that ship food all over the country. Congress can and should address the problems with the industrial food supply without harming the local food systems that provide an alternative for concerned consumers!

The U.S. Senate is considering a bill, S. 510, to reform the food safety system. Although reform of the industrial food supply is clearly needed, this bill threatens to create more problems than it will solve. S. 510 would undermine the rapidly growing local foods movement by imposing unnecessary, burdensome regulations on small farms and food processors – everyone from your local CSA to the small bakers, jam makers, and people making fermented vegetables to sell at the local farmers market.

October 8, 2009: FARFA and 20 other organizations send a letter to the Senate, urging broad reforms to S. 510. Read the letter here:
http://farmandranchfreedom.org/content/files/Food-safety-100509.pdf

Download this flyer to share with your neighbors and community! And more action steps are at the end of this page.
http://farmandranchfreedom.org/content/files/Food-safety-Flyer-090924.pdf

FDA Regulation of Local Food Processors Is Unnecessary and Burdensome

Federal regulations may be needed for industrial processing that source raw ingredients from multiple locations (sometimes imported from other countries) and ship their products across the country. But federal regulation is overkill for small local processors. State and local public health laws are enough for local food sources.

HACCP Will Not Improve Food Safety and Will Harm Small Processors

S. 510 applies a complex and burdensome Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) system to even the smallest local food processors. The HACCP system, with its requirements to develop and maintain extensive records, has proven to be an overwhelming burden for a significant number of small regional meat processors across the country. In the meat industry, HACCP has not eliminated the spread of E-coli and other pathogens and has resulted in fewer independent inspections of the large slaughter plants where these pathogens originate. At the same time, small regional processors have been subject to sanctions due to paperwork violations that posed no health threat. Applying a HACCP system to small, local foods processors could drive them out of business, reducing consumers’ options to buy fresh, local foods.

S. 510 Puts FDA On The Farm

S. 510 calls for FDA regulation of how farms grow and harvest produce. Given the agency’s track record, it is likely that the regulations will discriminate against small, organic, and diversified farms. The House version of the bill directs FDA to consider the impact of its rulemaking on small-scale and diversified farms, but there are no enforceable limits or protections for small diversified and organic farms from inappropriate and burdensome federal rules.

What The House Has Done

On July 30, the U.S. House passed its version of a food safety bill, H.R. 279:

? The Good: The House added a definition for “retail food establishments” that allows for some cottage level processing without invoking FDA regulation. Over 50% of the product must be sold at retail to qualify. The amendments also inserted some exemptions in the registration and record-keeping sections of the bill for farmers selling direct to consumers

? The Bad: HR 2749 continues to direct FDA to set standards for how farmers grow and harvest some types of produce, such as leafy greens, even for the small farmers selling directly to consumers

? The Ugly: HR 2749 puts local facilities processing local foods for local markets under the same regulatory regime, and paying the same fees, as the major industrialized agribusinesses, like Dole or Del Monte

The focus is now on the Senate. The major foodborne illness outbreaks and recalls have all been within the large, industrial food system. Small, local food producers have not contributed to the highly publicized outbreaks. Yet both the House and Senate bills subject the small, local food system to broad federal regulatory oversight. Increased regulations, record-keeping obligations, and the penalties and fees could destroy small businesses bringing food to local communities. Take action today to protect local food producers, promote food safety, and help your local economy!
Take Action

*
Call your Senators and tell them to EXEMPT small and local food sources from the food safety bill, S. 510. For contact information, go to http://www.congress.org or call the Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121
*
Download this flyer to share with your neighbors and community!
http://farmandranchfreedom.org/content/files/Food-safety-Flyer-090924.pdf

©2007 Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance · 8308 Sassman Rd · Austin, TX 78747 · Tel. 866.687.6452 · Contact Us

<><><><><><>


From: "Bill Daugherty"
After I received the Farm and Ranch Freedom e-mail about SB 510, I sent
the following letter to both our senators. The language below came from
the FARFA e-mail. If you concur, e-mail / call your senators also.
Maybe forward this e-mail to others on your e-mail list.

Bill


Senator Hagan,

Regarding SB 510, please help protect local growers:

Push for amendments to SB 510 to:
(a) CLEARLY exempt intrastate foods,
(b) exempt foods sold in local foodsheds.

Read the specific amendments proposed by FARFA and 20 other
organizations in our letter at
http://farmandranchfreedom.org/content/files/Food-safety-100509.pdf

Thank you,

Bill Daugherty

Major Issues with SB 510:

1. Although FDA stated that the bill only applies to food in interstate
commerce, the language of the bill does not contain any such limitation.
On its face, the bill applies to any farm or food producer, regardless
of the size or scope of distribution. If the intent truly is to limit
the bill to food that is crossing state lines, then it must be amended.
And even then, the bill would still negatively impact small farmers and
food processors who live near state lines and who cross state lines to
reach local farmers markets and coops.

2. The major foodborne illness outbreaks and recalls have all been
within the large, industrial food system. Small, local food producers
have not contributed to the highly publicized outbreaks. Yet both the
House and Senate bills subject the small, local food system to the same,
broad federal regulatory oversight that would apply to the industrial
food system. Increased regulations, record-keeping obligations, and the
penalties and fees could destroy small businesses that bring food to
local communities.

3. FDA regulation of local food processors is unnecessary and
burdensome. Federal regulations may be needed for industrial processors
that get raw ingredients from multiple locations (sometimes imported
from other countries) and ship their products across the country, but
federal regulation is overkill for small, local processors. Existing
state and local public health laws are sufficient for local food
sources.

4. Relying on HACCP will not make food safer and will harm small
processors. S. 510 applies a complex and burdensome Hazard Analysis and
Critical Control Point (HACCP) system to even the smallest local food
processors. Although the concept of preventative controls is a good
one, the federal agenciesE28099 implementation of HACCP has already
proven to be an overwhelming burden for a significant number of small,
regional meat processors across the country. In the meat industry,
HACCP has not eliminated the spread of e. coli and other pathogens and
has resulted in fewer independent inspections of the large slaughter
plants where these pathogens originate. At the same time, small,
regional processors have been subject to sanctions due to paperwork
violations that posed no health threat. Applying a HACCP system to
small, local foods processors could drive them out of business, reducing
consumersE28099 options to buy fresh, local foods.

5. S. 510 puts FDA on the farm by calling for FDA regulation of how
farms grow and harvest produce. Given the agencyE28099s track
record, it is likely that the regulations will discriminate against
small, organic, and diversified farms. The House version of the bill
directs FDA to consider the impact of its rulemaking on small-scale and
diversified farms, but there are no enforceable limits or protections
for small diversified and organic farms from inappropriate and
burdensome federal rules.

6. S. 510 favors foreign farms and producers over domestic. Both S 510
and H.R. 2749 create incentives for retailers to import more food from
other countries, by burdening domestic producers with requirements that,
in practice, will not be equally enforced on foreign producers. The
bills will create a significant competitive disadvantage for ALL U.S.
agriculture and food production.




  • [permaculture] Food Safety Bills in Congress | Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance - important links & local (N.C.) farmer input included, Lawrence F. London, Jr., 10/30/2009

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page