permaculture

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

S. 510, the Senate version of major food safety legislation - the vote on 
this is Wednesday, Nov. 18

If you are in North Carolina contact your Senators & Support Small Local Farms
Kay Hagan (D NC) Phone: 202-224-6342      Fax: 202-228-2563
Richard Burr (R NC)  Phone: 202-224-3154   Fax: 202-228-2981

And in Minnesota:  Al Franken (D MN)  Phone: 202-224-5641  No fax

Food safety bill alert from Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance

Subject:     Food safety bill alert
Date:     Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:27:15 -0600
From:     Judith McGeary <jmcgeary@pvco.net>

Below is the action alert that we sent out this morning.  I'm
also attaching the letter that we and several other organizations sent
to Congress last month, including the exemptions we are urging.

You can sign up for email alerts on our website, www.FarmAndRanchFreedom.org

Please share this information with others.

--
Judith McGeary
Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance
www.farmandranchfreedom.org
Phone: 512-243-9404
Toll free: 866-687-6452

-------- Original Message --------

Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance

*Action Alert*   11/11/2009

     Senate Food Safety Bill Moving Forward.  Call Your Senators Today!

The Senate is taking the next step towards passing S. 510, the Senate
version of the  House food safety bill. The Senate HELP Committee is
planning to "mark up" the bill next week, and it's critical that they
make changes before the bill is approved by the Committee!

While FDA claimed that the bill only covers food in interstate commerce,
the language of the bill would impose sweeping regulations on all farms
and food processors ? everyone from your local CSA to the small bakers,
jam makers, and cheesemakers at the local farmers market.

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!

*TAKE ACTION:
*
*1.  Contact both of your U.S. Senators *and ask them to push for
amendments to SB 510 to:
(a) CLEARLY exempt intrastate foods,
(b) also exempt foods sold in local foodsheds.

More detailed talking points are below.  To find out who your Senators
are, go to www.congress.org
<http://et.ratepoint.com/be37d8fdd60ff80a2ffbd5a3d4b5b9ce/7c3463774b8021745a615a7050492f8f>
or call the Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121.

*2.  Also contact the Chair and Ranking Member of the HELP Committee:
*    Chairman Harkin, (p): 202-224-0767, (f): 202-224-5128
     Senator Enzi, Ranking Member, (p): 202-224-6770

*3.  Spread the word in your community!*
You can download a flyer at:
http://farmandranchfreedom.org/content/files/Food-safety-Flyer-090924.pdf
<http://et.ratepoint.com/985021ddf3956da9a6b50f4e28d35cd3/7c3463774b8021745a615a7050492f8f>

*
TALKING POINTS:*

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 agencies? 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 consumers?
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 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.

For more information, go to:
http://farmandranchfreedom.org/content/food_safety_bills_09
<http://et.ratepoint.com/22a3f91448480f938ce31a0ba0d9df1d/7c3463774b8021745a615a7050492f8f>


     *Support Our Work*

Please consider joining or giving an additional donation at
http://farmandranchfreedom.org/content/join-farfa
<http://et.ratepoint.com/6a7edfbd949c63156231aad528c1e64e/7c3463774b8021745a615a7050492f8f>


We need your financial support and, just as importantly, the strength of
our voice depends on our membership!  We are frequently asked, by both
legislators and staffers, how many members we have.  The more members,
the more they will listen. Please help us be a strong voice.

     *Working together, we can make our voices heard

     Judith McGeary
     Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance
     http://FarmAndRanchFreedom.org
     
<http://et.ratepoint.com/2ce7f9cb4327bae0c60829ff6d9dbc7c/7c3463774b8021745a615a7050492f8f>*
     Phone: 512-243-9404
     Toll-free: 866-687-6452

*Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance, 8308 Sassman Rd., Austin, TX 78747
512-243-9404*

Forward to a Friend
<http://www.ratepoint.com/forward/15917/3599bb12067b0c937ba815b6ec951884?e=jmcgeary@att.net>

*SmartUnsubscribe*
<http://www.ratepoint.com/unsubscribe/15917?c=3599bb12067b0c937ba815b6ec951884&e=jmcgeary@att.net>sm

This email was sent to jmcgeary@att.net <mailto:jmcgeary@att.net> by
judith@farmandranchfreedom.org <mailto:judith@farmandranchfreedom.org>
RatePoint
<http://www.ratepoint.com?src=NLL&cid=3599bb12067b0c937ba815b6ec951884>
Update Profile/Email Address
<http://www.ratepoint.com/permission/15917?e=jmcgeary@att.net> |
SmartUnsubscribesm from this list
<http://www.ratepoint.com/unsubscribe/15917?c=3599bb12067b0c937ba815b6ec951884&e=jmcgeary@att.net>
| Privacy Policy <https://www.ratepoint.com/privacy/>

Having trouble viewing this email? Please click here
<http://campaigns.ratepoint.com/campaigns/3599bb12067b0c937ba815b6ec951884?r=618b79b761df01c8a7c881514c1e8924>
    Forward to a Friend
<http://www.ratepoint.com/forward/15917/3599bb12067b0c937ba815b6ec951884?e=jmcgeary@att.net>

To ensure delivery, please add judith@farmandranchfreedom.org
<mailto:judith@farmandranchfreedom.org> to your address book.
SmartUnsubscribesm
<http://www.ratepoint.com/unsubscribe/15917?c=3599bb12067b0c937ba815b6ec951884&e=jmcgeary@att.net>

========================================================================================================================

Alliance for Natural Health U.S. * Citizens for Health * Dakota Resource 
Council * Dakota Rural Action * Farm and Ranch
Freedom Alliance * Idaho Rural Council * Innovative Farmers of Ohio* Madras 
(OR) Saturday Market * Montana Farmers Union
* Nebraska Sustainable Agriculture Society * Northeast Organic Farmers 
Association ? Massachusetts * Northern Plains
Resource Council * Oregon Rural Action * Organic Consumers Association * 
Portland Farmers Market * Powder River Basin
Resource Council * Small Holders Alliance (Massachusetts) * Western Colorado 
Congress * Western Organization of Resource
Councils * Willamette Farm and Food Coalition
One Size Does Not Fit All When Regulating Food Safety
October 2009
RE: S.510, Food Safety Modernization Act
Dear Senator:
The undersigned organizations represent consumers, small farmers and 
ranchers, and local food producers that have
serious concerns over pending food safety legislation, specifically S.510, 
the Food Safety Modernization Act, and H.R.
2749, the Food Safety Enhancement Act as passed by the House on July 30, 
2009. We urge you to support amendments to
these bills to address their serious flaws.
Food safety is a priority shared by all. The growing trend toward healthy, 
fresh, locally sourced vegetables, meats,
fruit, dairy, and value-added products improves food safety by providing the 
opportunity for consumers to know their
farmers and processors, to choose products on the basis of that relationship, 
and to readily trace any problems should
they occur. The food safety problems in the industrial food system, with its 
long, multi-sourced food supply chains that
extend across thousands of miles and even international borders, can and 
should be addressed without harming the local
food systems that provide an alternative for consumers.
The attached fact sheet states our concerns in more detail. The following is 
recommended amendment language:
1) Categorical exemptions from the Act for:
?
Direct farm-to-consumer operations, including those adding value to their 
products and those selling to institutional
buyers and restaurants; or
?
Local food processors that satisfy either of the following:
a) a market radius of 150 miles if the processor is located east of the 98th 
meridian or a market radius of 300 miles if
the processor is located west of the 98th meridian, or
b) greater than 50% of sales made at retail, including to institutional 
buyers and restaurants, and gross annual sales
under $1 million.
If a ?categorical exemption? as requested is not granted, then:
Exempt the smallest processors from any registration fee and establish a 
sliding scale for the larger facilities to
ensure small and medium sized processors are not bearing the brunt of funding 
for the FDA?s regulatory oversight.
2) Establish clear and limited parameters regarding FDA?s authority over farm 
growing and harvesting practices?including
an exemption for farms selling direct to consumers.
3) Hold FDA accountable for its actions:
a)
Preserve the language in S.510 that requires the agency to meet a specific 
burden prior to accessing records;
b)
Add a provision for judicial oversight;
c)
Add a provision to indemnify producers for wrongly recalled food or goods.
4) Clear language that livestock and poultry are not subject to the 
requirements of S.510.
We appreciate the concern for a safe food supply. Unfortunately, we believe 
H.R. 2749 and S.510, while purporting to
increase food safety, will actually make our food system less safe and less 
secure. We urge you to amend the bills as
outlined above.
Thank you for your consideration.
For more information please contact Margie MacDonald, 406.252.9672, 
mmacdonald@worc.org; Judith McGeary, 512-484-8821,
Judith@FarmAndRanch Freedom.org; or Tami Wahl, 202.467.1986, 
tami@healthfreedom.net.
* Alliance for Natural Health U.S. * Citizens for Health * Dakota Resource 
Council * Dakota Rural Action * Farm and
Ranch Freedom Alliance * Idaho Rural Council * Innovative Farmers of Ohio* 
Madras Saturday Market Oregon * Montana
Farmers Union * Nebraska Sustainable Agriculture Society * Northeast Organic 
Farmers Association ? Massachusetts *
Northern Plains Resource Council * Oregon Rural Action * Organic Consumers 
Association * Portland Farmers Market *
Powder River Basin Resource Council * Small Holders Alliance (Massachusetts) 
* Western Colorado Congress * Western
Organization of Resource Councils * Willamette Farm and Food Coalition
Page 2 of 2 Fact Sheet
S.510 and H.R.2749 Present Serious Hurdles to Newly Emerging
Local Foods Producers and Small Businesses
One Size Does Not Fit All
1) The failure to address differences in scale and distribution.
History demonstrates that the major food-borne illness outbreaks and recalls 
originate within the large, industrial food
system. Small, local food producers have not contributed to the highly 
publicized outbreaks. Yet both bills subject the
small, local food system to broad federal regulatory oversight. Increased 
regulations, record-keeping obligations,
increased penalties and fees created by these bills will have chilling, 
possibly fatal, impacts on the re-emergence of
small businesses built around food in rural and urban America. Protecting 
local food producers from excessive FDA fees,
paperwork requirements (including HACCPs), and on-farm regulation will still 
promote food safety, as well as local
economies.
H.R. 2749 has a mandatory $500 per year fee for all facilities regardless of 
size, including small local businesses
processing local food for local markets. S.510 does not include a 
registration fee. Any fee should be on a sliding scale
with a clear exemption for the smallest processors.
2) The increase in FDA?s authority to regulate farming practices.
Both bills allow FDA to adopt rules to govern how farms of any size grow and 
harvest their crops. While H.R. 2749 limits
the authority to ?high risk products,? once the FDA has determined that the 
product is a risk ? such as leafy greens ?
the agency would be empowered to regulate all farms growing that product. We 
are concerned that the proposed additional
FDA regulation over farming practices will discriminate against small and 
diversified farms. A ?science-based standard?
for a large industrial farm would be completely inappropriate for an organic 
or biologically diverse farm. Although H.R.
2749 directs FDA to consult with USDA and to consider the impact of its 
rulemaking on small-scale and diversified farms,
there are no enforceable limits or protections for small diversified and 
organic farms from inappropriate and burdensome
federal rules.
3) Extensive reliance on HACCP.
The Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) system, along with 
accompanying requirements to develop and maintain
extensive documentation and records, has proven to be an overwhelming burden 
for a significant number of small regional
meat packers and 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, not due
to actual incidents of food borne-pathogen-induced illnesses. Despite these 
flaws, both food safety bills would extend
HACCP to a broad range of processors regardless of size and market range.
4) Lack of oversight of the agency?s action and potential errors.
Under H.R. 2749, the Secretary is provided carte blanche access to people?s 
records. Fortunately, under S.510, the
Secretary must meet a burden, specifically, ?a reasonable belief ?that an 
article of food will cause serious adverse
health consequences or death,? prior to having access to records. However, 
neither bill provides for judicial review of
the Secretary's rulings, decisions and actions.
As learned from the tomato debacle in June of 2008, food producers can be 
financially destroyed if wrongly subjected to
a recall order. Neither S.510 nor H.R. 2749 provides any safeguards against 
an erroneous recall or offers reparations.
5) Harmonization with international standards.
Although international standards are an inevitable part of international 
trade, the agriculture and supplement
industry?s experience has been that international standards are all too often 
used to restrict domestic production.
S.510 explicitly references Codex Alimentarius?an intergovernmental body that 
deals with global food trade issues?in
developing the food industry of foreign governments. Discussion around 
?harmonizing requirements? raises concerns for
the potential loss of control over U.S. food safety standards and continued 
access to higher doses of dietary supplements.
6) Overlapping jurisdiction and oversight.
H.R. 2749 included a categorical exemption for foods, livestock, and farms 
raising livestock that were subject to
specific USDA-jurisdiction statutes. S.510 lacks any such provision.
In addition, neither bill fully accounts for the extensive requirements 
included in organic certification overseen by
the National Organic Program in USDA in proposing FDA oversight of certain 
farming practices.
7) The 98th Meridian and Eastern and Western markets
The distinction between eastern and western local food markets is based on 
the ecological and demographic differences
between the more humid, lush and densely populated Eastern and Midwestern 
ecosystems and the semi-arid to arid Western
ecosystem. The 98th meridian is often used to draw the line between the two. 
There are a couple of precedents for such
distinctions in federal law. The 98th meridian was used as a demarcation in 
the federal surface mine and reclamation act
(1976) to require additional protections for alluvial valley floors in the 
West. The Homestead Act allotment was
adjusted over time to reflect the difference in land base to sustain a 
family, from 160 acres to 320 acres as the
settlements pushed further west.