permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: permaculture
List archive
Re: [permaculture] IPC 9 -10-11 & SB 510 & local food production and practice of permaculture
- From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." <venaurafarm@bellsouth.net>
- To: permaculture <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [permaculture] IPC 9 -10-11 & SB 510 & local food production and practice of permaculture
- Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 15:49:52 -0400
Steve Hart wrote:
I thank Scott, Lawrence and Griffen for you inputs...may there be
many more.
Bollocks, indeed...and now back to our regularly scheduled programming:
And Keith Johnson! His suggestion to use, instead of or in addition to the traditional PC convergences, state of the art teleconferencing,
eliminating the cost of travel and making it possible for more to "attend" and participate (think video conferencing that included farm and permaculture site visits and conversations with the owners and their neighbors). Local organizations and agencies might also want to get on board and provide sites and equipment to help make this happen locally, thus bring the activities to many more people. It could be a week long event with daily activities reflecting the needs of the
attendees, leaders, consultants, experienced practitioners and those who have heard of permaculture but know nothing about it. What a way to network the whole world and promote the permaculture movement with a single annual week-long event. This is especially important now with so many needing to become involved in permaculture and food production on a local scale and in their own lives. I know that Keith is working on these issues in his hometown of Bloomington, Indiana. The Gulf oil spill will probably create a whole new group of small farmers, feeding themselves, their neighbors and providing farm products for their own local foodsheds and businesses.
I am including something I just sent to a local-foods list here in NC,
appropriate in the context of this post:
Roland wrote:
> Leave Regulation of Small Businesses to the States. Local food
> processors with fewer than 10 full-time equivalent employees are small
> businesses, and already subject to state and federal regulation. S
> 510’s food safety plan rules should not be applied to these local food
> businesses, as existing regulations have proven effective in limiting
> pathogen contamination outbreaks.
This did not work out so well for small farmers with livestock in Ohio. When NAIS did not pass, Ohio legislators created their own program for that state's small farmers, one that is much worse. I do not know if it has been repealed but if not that sets a bad precedent. I hope North Carolina will continue to support its ever growing number of small farmers participating in local foodsheds and regional programs. Locally-oriented small scale agriculture and permaculture are movements sweeping the country. Look at the blogs, lists, forums and YouTube videos and you will be amazed at what is going on. It is a new and happening thing, in the best tradition of the Victory Garden movement
plus use of sustainable methods and materials and less the pesticides. The situation unfolding with the The Gulf oil spill is going to create a whole new group of people growing and selling locally. This is not the place and time for new government rules and regulations that would make earning a living and surviving through farming more difficult and expensive than it would normally be.
> Keep calling Sen. Burr’s office and ask him to defend small farms and local food with these changes:
Again, for those who have not read this, here is part of Sen. Burr's letter his office sent out to those who contacted him about SB 510. I have heard that he is extremely interested in seeing the right version of this bill passed, one that protects small local farmers in the ways that Roland and others have described. This is what I sent out to various lists when I received my copy of his letter:
<>
I contacted my state's Senators, Hagan and Burr and received replies
from them that included this letter from Senator Richard Burr, Republican Senator from North Carolina:
<first paragraph deleted>
"The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (S.510), which was recently
approved by the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and
Pensions, would expand our food safety system and protect consumers
while exempting small farmers and local food businesses from unnecessary
and overreaching requirements. During the debate on the bill,
I introduced an amendment to ensure that farms, small businesses,
and businesses that sell directly to consumers are represented in the
process of developing guidance in the public safety standards and that
the FDA conduct outreach and education to these folks through local
public meetings. I am pleased to report that my amendment was accepted.
I also worked with the North Carolina Department of Agriculture to
include language in the bill that would utilize current state food
safety inspectors instead of new FDA employees, which encourages
better coordination among local, state, and federal food safety
agencies, and a common sense approach to food safety as it related to
small farms."
<last paragraph deleted>
Here's a big thanks to Senator Burr. I am delighted that representatives
of the Republican Party are helping small and local farmers and
associated businessmen in this very substantial way.
(And an equally big thanks to Senator Hagan and the Democratic Party
for the work they have done and are continuing to do for our state's small farmers).
Lawrence London
Venaura Farm
Sustainably-Grown Produce
venaurafarm@bellsouth.net
lflj@bellsouth.net
-
[permaculture] IPC 9 -10-11,
Steve Hart, 05/28/2010
- Re: [permaculture] IPC 9 -10-11 & SB 510 & local food production and practice of permaculture, Lawrence F. London, Jr., 05/28/2010
-
Re: [permaculture] IPC 9 -10-11,
Cory Brennan, 05/29/2010
- Re: [permaculture] IPC 9 -10-11, Killian O'Brien, 05/31/2010
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.