Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

market-farming - [Market-farming] Fwd: [barrelponics] S510 - more helpful govt at work

market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Market Farming

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: KAKerby AT aol.com
  • To: market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [Market-farming] Fwd: [barrelponics] S510 - more helpful govt at work
  • Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 10:56:33 EDT

I'm forwarding this email from another list.  Just heard about it this morning.  The bulk of the info is below in the original email, but if anyone wants to do more reading, check out:
 
I've seen enough legislation come and go with great hoopla and gnashing of teeth, only to end up either dying in subcommittee or not turning out to be the doomsday that everyone was worried about.  A few, however, have been worthy of careful study and action.  I think S510 might be one of the latter.
Kathryn Kerby
Frog Chorus Farm
Snohomish, WA
 

From: brandon_friemel AT yahoo.com
Reply-to: barrelponics AT yahoogroups.com
To: barrelponics AT yahoogroups.com
Sent: 3/15/2010 7:41:39 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time
Subj: Re: [barrelponics] Will this affect the use of barrelponics raised produce in
 
Hey everyone,

Just came back from a local Market Growers Symposium. During the symposium we were updated on the status of several pieces of legislation. The Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance based out of Cameron, Texas presented the material. I would suggest everyone check them out, and support them if possible. Currently the US 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 farmer's market.

This bill is going to the floor for a vote sometime in April or May, so everyone needs to contact their local Senators and let them know that this bill undermines small farms and food processors, another sector of SMALL BUSINESS in this country that doesn't need any futher regulation. SMALL BUSINESS is the backbone of this country, and we must fight to keep SMALL BUSINESS thriving, especially in these economic times.

Call your Senators and tell them to EXEMPT farmers selling directly to consumers and small-scale processors from all of the provisions of the food safety bill, S.510. For contact information, visit www.congress.org or call the switchboard: 202-224-3121.

Below is the information from the flyer we were given. This is a little long, but very good information the group needs to be informed on.

FDA Regulation of Local Food Processors Is Unnecessary and Burdensome

Federal regs may be needed for industrial processing that source raw ingredients from mult. 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 publich 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 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 US 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 expemptions 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 procude, such as leafy greens, even for 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 penalities 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!
 
If anyone has any further questions please contact Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance at (866) 687-6452 (toll free) or at info AT farmandranchfreedom.org
 
Brandon
 
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."
--The apostle Paul




________________________________
From: "kakerby AT aol.com" <kakerby AT aol.com>
To: barrelponics AT yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, March 14, 2010 12:35:39 AM
Subject: Re: [barrelponics] Will this affect the use of barrelponics raised produce in

 
We may just decide to agree to disagree on this point, but here goes:

I still do not think the GAP stuff is a "Monsanto issue", for some very
specific reasons. First, Monsanto did not invent the problems - E coli,
salmonella, campylobacter, lysteria, or any of the rest of the disease
organisms we're talking about here. Second, they did not invent the "solutions",
namely, that growers need to tighten up their procedures. The buying public
did that, through a variety of related issues such as the growing chasm of
understanding between urban and rural living, the growing gap between
raising and eating food, the growing educational gaps in mathematics and life
sciences, and the increasing philosophy of "if I burn myself, I'm going to
blame that other guy". Third, Monsanto did not come up with or have any
direct or indirect benefit from the mechanisms of the solution. Monsanto did
not develop the composting protocols. They did not develop the recommended
distance between crops and livestock yards. They did not patent the
suggestion to wash hands after using the bathroom (which remains to this day the
#1 method of E coli contamination) . Nor did they develop the alternative
irrigation solutions which are both reducing disease transmission and
saving a heckuva lot of water. And finally, Monsanto would be the last to
benefit if every grower in the country adopted these standards and put out
cleaner produce. If anything, Monsanto should be the first entity in line to
make sure we don't adopt these standards, because the more competitive we
are, the less stuff Monsanto can sell.

I am not a fan of Monsanto (or Du Pont or Syngenta or any of the rest). I
won't buy their products, I don't recognize their claim on various forms
of life, and I am very actively working to build a future which does not
need them, does not want them and does not have room for them. So, hopefully
having established the idea that I'm not a Monsanto person, I believe that
if we pile up all the world's problems and put them in a big box labeled
"Monsanto's Fault" and try to put the blame on them for everything, we are
fundamentally avoiding the real work of #1 identifying the true issue, #2
working out some reasonable solutions for a majority of growers, and #3
spending our energies where they will do us the most good. Sure we can slam
Monsanto for everything if we really want to. That's very stylish right now.
But will it accomplish anything practical? No, it won't. Are there issues
out there that Monsanto has nothing to do with? Yep. Do I need to do my
homework every single time each of these issues comes up, so I can best arm
myself with the responses most likely to achieve my small-scale
sustainable farming goals? Youbetcha. So, if you'd like to continue to call this
some vein of the grand "Monsanto Issue", I guess that's OK. But it won't
help anyone accomplish anything useful.
Kathryn Kerby
Frog Chorus Farm
Snohomish, WA


In a message dated 3/13/2010 1:24:44 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
pernkat@ritternet. com writes:

Perhaps you don't know what the Monsanto issue really is. Monsanto is
busy
putting patents on every type of plant and seed that it is able to. They
have done so in Iraq after we went in and are doing so other places. The
Monsanto issue is that they intend to find a way to control the food
population for the entire world. They in no way are limiting their fight to
just GMO and cloned foods. Yes, this is another attempt to slip past those
watching and fighting against them so that they can increase their control.
Now, Monsanto is not the only large agri-industry in this group but their
name has been given to the whole group.

Pernkat

-----Original Message-----
From: barrelponics@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:barrelponics@ yahoogroups. com]
On
Behalf Of kakerby@aol. com
Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2010 11:30 AM
To: barrelponics@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: Re: [barrelponics] Will this affect the use of barrelponics raised
produce in

"The monsanto issue"? Um, no. I would have to say that is too
simplistic
an answer and implies that it only impacts folks using GMO and/or
synthetics, which is not the case. Lots, lots more going on here than that

sentence would imply.
Kathryn Kerby
Frog Chorus Farm
Snohomish, WA

------------ --------- --------- ------

Yahoo! Groups Links

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





     

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/barrelponics/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/barrelponics/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    barrelponics-digest AT yahoogroups.com
    barrelponics-fullfeatured AT yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    barrelponics-unsubscribe AT yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


  • [Market-farming] Fwd: [barrelponics] S510 - more helpful govt at work, KAKerby, 03/15/2010

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page