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

Lawrence F. London, Jr. venaurafarm at bellsouth.net
Fri Oct 30 17:44:08 EDT 2009


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.




More information about the permaculture mailing list