permaculture

["Lawrence F. London, Jr." <lflj@intrex.net>]

       --- On Fri, 6/26/09, Weston A Price Foundation <info@westonaprice.org> 
wrote:


         From: Weston A Price Foundation <info@westonaprice.org>
         Subject: HR 2749 Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009
         Date: Friday, June 26, 2009, 5:55 PM



         Dear Members,

         HR2749, the "Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009" has passed out of 
committee and is now on the floor of the
house.  As you can see from the FAQs below, this bill would be an absolute 
disaster for small farms and artisan food
production.

         Defeating this bill is our most urgent priority at the moment.  
Please take a moment to read the Frequently
Asked Questions below and then proceed with the Action items as best you are 
able.  We will need the concerted efforts
of thousands to defeat this dismal piece of legislation.

         More HR 2749 information is posted through links at 
http://tinyurl.com/mnm34s

         Anyone with additional questions is encouraged to contact the 
Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund directly by
calling 703-208-3276 or emailing info@farmtoconsumer.org
         Sincerely,
         Sally Fallon Morell

         ACTIONS TO TAKE

         1.  Call Your Representatives
         Personal contact is an effective way to change hearts and minds. To 
find your representatives, use the finder
tool at www.Congress.org  or call the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121. 
When contacting your representatives, use
examples from the FAQs to explain your opposition to HR 2749.

         2.  Sign the Petition
         HR 2749 has been moving quickly through Congress. If you have not 
already done so, please send a personal
message to your legislators through the online petition "Oppose HR 2749" at   
http://tinyurl.com/lwble7

         3.  Donate to the Fund
         Help the Fund continue its valuable service - helping small farmers 
and protecting your access to quality food.
http://tinyurl.com/lja2vj

         ======
         FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)
         HR 2749 - Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009

         NOTE:  Answers are based on the June 17 Waxman version that was 
accepted by voice vote of the House Committee
on Energy and Commerce.  Page references are noted per this version posted at 
 http://tinyurl.com/na33dz


         Q1:  Does FDA have jurisdiction over INTRAstate commerce?

         A1:  As a federal agency, the FDA has jurisdiction over INTERstate 
commerce. For example, the prohibited acts
regarding adulteration and misbranding in the current Federal Food, Drug and 
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) all refer to
INTERstate commerce. However, the existing law states that "in any action to 
enforce the requirements of [FFDCA] . . .
the connection with INTERstate commerce required for jurisdiction in such action 
shall be presumed to exist." [1a]
Combined with court decisions addressing the connection between INTRAstate 
and INTERstate commerce, it is unclear what
kind of showing defendants would have to make to rebut the presumption and 
avoid federal regulation. The agency's
regulatory power is limited to commerce, however, so non-commercial 
activities (such as growing your own vegetables for
personal consumption) are not regulated.

         Under current law, a business qualifying as a "food facility" must 
register with FDA, even if that business
only engages in INTRAstate commerce. [1b]  In addition, the agency can 
inspect the records of a business that engages
solely in INTRAstate commerce if there is a "reasonable belief that an 
article of food is adulterated and presents a
threat of serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals." 
[1c]

         [1a]  21 USC 379(a)
         [1b]  21 USC 350(d)
         [1c]  21 USC 350(c)

         Q2: Would HR 2749 expand the FDA's regulation of INTRAstate commerce?

         A2: Yes. Under HR 2749, FDA's regulatory control over INTRAstate 
commerce would grow considerably.  The bill
would allow for inspections of firms whose business is strictly within a 
State. [2a]  It would impose, among other
requirements, a mandate for all firms in the food business to comply with 
national performance standards for various
foods set by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). [2b]  It 
would also require most firms in the food
business to establish a traceback system for their products, even if those 
products never cross State lines. [2c]

         [2a]  Section 105(a)-pp. 42-43
         [2b]  Section 103(b)-pp. 36-37
         [2c]  Section 107(c)-p. 54

         Q3:  I have a garden and sell produce at a road-side stand on my 
property.  Would HR 2749 apply to me?

         A3:  Yes, you would now have to follow federally-established 
standards for growing produce. [3a] Produce not
grown as required by these standards would be considered as adulterated under 
the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA). [3b] Further, you would be required to make your business records 
available to FDA inspectors. [3c] The
inspectors would have the power to show up unannounced without a warrant to 
search your records without any evidence
whatsoever that you have committed a violation of the law.  If you refuse to 
let the inspector see your records, you
would be guilty of adulteration under FFDCA. [3d]

         [3a]  Section 104(b)-pp. 38-41
         [3b]  Section 104(a)-p. 38
         [3c]  Section 106(a)-p. 48
         [3d]  Section 207(a)-pp. 119-120

         Q4:  I sell produce from my garden at a local farmers market, under HR 
2749 would I have to register as a "food
facility" with FDA?

         A4:   Farms are exempt from the registration requirement under 
current law. [4a]  HR 2749 would not eliminate
this exemption.  "Farm" is narrowly defined under current regulations [4b]; 
so, it is possible that many farms that have
not registered in the past, could be required to do so if FDA has more 
resources at its disposal to enforce registration.

         For example, a farm that sells vegetables straight from the garden (i.e., 
no processing) would not be a "food
facility".  If FDA strictly interprets the definition of "farm", a farm that 
sells canned vegetables at the market would
be a "food facility" because canning is considered "processing" under the 
law. [4c]  Under federal regulation, a farm
that processes food would not be considered a "farm" for purposes of the 
registration requirement unless ALL of the
processed food is consumed ON the farm. [4d]

         Under HR 2749, those who sell vegetables from the garden at farmers 
markets would be required to follow federal
standards for growing produce [4e]; and their business records would be 
subject to random warrantless searches by FDA
inspectors even if the agency has no evidence of any violation of the law.  
[4f-see Q3/A3 above]

         [4a]  21 USC 350d
         [4b]  21 CFR 1.227(3)
         [4c]  21 CFR 1.227(6)
         [4d]  21 CFR 1.227(3)
         [4e]  Section 104(b)-pp. 38-41
         [4f]  Section 106(a)-p. 48

         Q5:  I own a bakery and sell my goods at a local farmers market, how 
would HR 2749 apply to me?

         A5:  HR 2749 would apply to you in the following ways:

         1 - Your bakery would qualify as a "food facility" and you would 
need to register with FDA each year [5a] and
pay an annual fee ($500 in 2010 [5b], and increasing in future years as 
indexed for inflation [5c]).
         2 - You would have to register in electronic format. [5d]
         3 - You would be required to have a unique facility identifier 
number. [5e]
         4 - You would be required to conduct an analysis identifying 
potential hazards at your food facility; and you
must implement controls to prevent those hazards from occurring as well as a 
plan for what to do in the event that any
do occur. [5f]
         5 - If your products cross state lines, you must develop a FOOD 
SAFETY PLAN. [5g-also see Q6/A6 below]
         6 - You would also be required to establish and maintain a system 
for tracing the food you produce.  It is
uncertain at this point what this traceability system will require, but the 
requirements are likely to be extensive.
         [5h]

         [5a]  Section 101(b)-p. 6 [4b]  Section 101(b)-p. 13
         [5c]  Section 101(c)-p. 14
         [5d]  Section 101(b)-p. 7
         [5e]  Section 206(a)-p. 118
         [5f]  Section 102(a)-p. 21
         [5g]  Section 102, sec 418A(a)-p. 28
         [5h]  Section 107(c)-p. 54-58

         Q6:  What will a FOOD SAFETY PLAN involve?

         A6:  Your FOOD SAFETY PLAN would have to include a hazard analysis 
that identifies potential hazards in your
operation.  The plan must also include descriptions of a variety of 
procedures you follow to prevent hazards from
occurring and corrective actions to take if any does occur.  In addition, you 
would need to describe your procedures for
recordkeeping, conducting recalls, and traceback.  Further, the plan must include 
how you ensure a "safe and secure food
supply chain" for the items and ingredients you use as well as how you 
implement any science-based performance standards
required by FDA. [6a]

         [6a]  Section 102, sec 418A(b)-pp. 29-30

         Q7:  I have read a summary of HR 2749 and am alarmed by the 
provision giving the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) the power to quarantine any geographic area within the 
country.  How broad is this power?

         A7:  Under HR 2749, the HHS Secretary would have the power to 
prohibit ALL MOVEMENT of ALL FOOD within a
geographic area.  No court order is needed to exercise this power.  The 
Secretary only has to notify the appropriate
official of the State(s) affected and issue a public announcement. [7a]

         [7a]  Section 133(b)-pp. 98-99

         Q8:  I am a raw milk consumer.   Is it true that under HR 2749 would 
give FDA the power to institute a complete
ban on the sale of raw milk?

         A8:  Yes, HR 2749 requires the HHS Secretary to issue "science-based 
performance standards . . . applicable to
foods or food classes."  The Secretary is to "identify the most significant 
foodborne contaminants and the most
significant resulting hazards . . . and to minimize to an acceptable level, 
prevent or eliminate the occurrence of such
hazards." [8a]  FDA would have the power to make pasteurization of all raw 
milk a performance standard.  Based on both
its public statements and its record of taking enforcement actions against 
farmers, FDA is vehemently opposed to the
consumption of raw milk and would like to ban its distribution.

         Even if FDA does not issue a performance standard requiring 
pasteurization, the likelihood is that if HR 2749
passes into law, the agency will be increasing its enforcement actions 
against raw milk producers whose products cross
state lines.  FDA has indicated that raw milk is a priority item with the 
agency; with the passage of HR 2749, it would
have much greater resources to go after raw milk than it did before.  FDA 
could take enforcement action directly or
through state agencies funded by FDA.

         The way to stop this threat is to support HR 778, a bill that would, 
in effect, end the ban on raw milk for
human consumption in interstate commerce. [8b]  If you have not already done 
so, contact your Representative and
Senators asking them to co-sponsor and/or vote for HR 778.  You may send a 
message to them through the petition service
by clicking on "Support HR 778 Now" at http://tinyurl.com/lwble7

         [8a]  Section 103(b)-p. 37
         [8b]  21 CFR 1240.61

         Q9:  I purchase products from an Amish producer who has said he 
would not register his facility because the
electronic filing requirement violates his religious beliefs.  What are the 
criminal and civil penalties he could be
facing if he is charged with violating the law?

         A9:  Under HR 2749, failing to register a food facility would constitute 
"misbranding." [9a] If any of the
"misbranded" products are introduced or "delivered for introduction into 
interstate commerce", the producer could be
sentenced to up to ten years and be assessed criminal fines. [9b] Under HR 
2749, anyone knowingly violating certain
prohibitions contained in the FFDCA such as the prohibition against 
introducing adulterated or misbranded food in
interstate commerce, could face these penalties.

         In addition, the Amish producer could be facing substantial civil 
penalties.   Under HR 2749, any individual
who knowingly violates a provision of section 331 of FFDCA (prohibited acts) 
relating to food, can be fined up to
$100,000; a corporation can be fined up to $7.5 million. [9c]

         [9a]  Section 101(a)-p. 6
         [9b]  Section 134-p. 100
         [9c]  Section 135(a)-p. 101

         Q10:  I'm a farmer who sells products direct to consumers.  I want 
to protect the privacy of those who purchase
from me and do not want to turn over to FDA any customer information I have 
in my records.  What are the potential
penalties if I refuse?

         A10:  Under HR 2749, FDA would have access to all records relating 
to the food producer's distribution of
products.  Failing to provide records to FDA would constitute adulteration. 
[10a]   The criminal penalty for refusing
access to records would be up to ten years imprisonment. [10b]  The civil 
fines could be up to $100,000 for an
individual and $7.5 million for a corporation. [10c]

         [10a]  Section 207(a)-pp. 119-120
         [10b]  Section 134-p. 100
         [10c]  Section 135(a)-p. 101

         More HR 2749 information is posted through links at 
http://tinyurl.com/mnm34s

         Anyone with additional questions is encouraged to contact the 
Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund directly by
calling 703-208-3276 or emailing info@farmtoconsumer.org


         Our postal address is
         PMB #106-380
         4200 Wisconsin Avenue, NW
         Washington, District of Columbia 20016
         United States