Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

H.R. 875 – The Food Safety Modernization Act Does NOT Threaten Organic Farms

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
grassfed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-23-09 10:25 AM
Original message
H.R. 875 – The Food Safety Modernization Act Does NOT Threaten Organic Farms
Edited on Mon Mar-23-09 10:39 AM by grassfed
Please disregard previous calls to contact Congressman Waxman with regard to HR 875. Paranoia in the organic/raw food world has been exploited by right wing activists. Thank you TWO AMERICAS for the following:

"The bill in question has nothing to do with Monsanto, nothing to do with animal tagging, nothing to do with organic, and nothing to do with home gardens. What it does do is this: it starts rebuilding the public health and safety infrastructure, and restoring inspections and regulations - all of which the Republicans have been dismantling since Reagan.

However, the right wingers know that if they talk about "Monsanto" and organic and small scale animal keeping and home gardening that will fool liberals into supporting their campaign. Those are "hot buttons" for liberals - home gardening, small animals, Monsanto is evil, and organic food - so they just throw those words into their messages willy nilly, even though they have nothing to do with this bill, and sure enough, a bunch of liberals start spreading a right wing program of anti-government and anti-regulation advocacy all over the Internet."

Myths and Facts: H.R. 875 – The Food Safety Modernization Act

MYTH: H.R. 875 "makes it illegal to grow your own garden" and would result in the "criminalization of the backyard gardener."

FACT: There is no language in the bill that would regulate, penalize, or shut down backyard gardens. This bill is focused on ensuring the safety of foods sold in supermarkets.

MYTH: H.R. 875 would mean a "goodbye to farmers markets" because the bill would "require such a burdensome complexity of rules, inspections, licensing, fees, and penalties for each farmer who wishes to sell locally - a fruit stand, at a farmers market."

FACT: There is no language in the bill that would result in farmers markets being regulated, penalized any fines, or shut down. Farmers markets would be able to continue to flourish under the bill. In fact, the bill would insist that imported foods meet strict safety standards to ensure that unsafe imported foods are not competing with locally-grown foods.

MYTH: H.R. 875 would result in the "death of organic farming."

FACT: There is no language in the bill that would stop organic farming. The National Organic Program (NOP) is under the jurisdiction of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The Food Safety Modernization Act only addresses food safety issues under the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

MYTH: The bill would implement a national animal ID system.

FACT: There is no language in the bill that would implement a national animal ID system. Animal identification issues are under the jurisdiction of the USDA. The Food Safety Modernization Act addresses issues under the jurisdiction of the FDA.

MYTH: The bill is supported by the large agribusiness industry.

FACT: No large agribusiness companies have expressed support for this bill. This bill is being supported by several Members of Congress who have strong progressive records on issues involving farmers markets, organic farming, and locally-grown foods (Barbara Lee, etc.). Also, H.R. 875 is the only food safety legislation that has been supported by all the major consumer and food safety groups, including:

* Center for Foodborne Illness Research & Prevention
* Center for Science in the Public Interest
* Consumer Federation of America
* Consumers Union
* Food & Water Watch
* The Pew Charitable Trusts
* Safe Tables Our Priority
* Trust for America’s Health

MYTH: The bill will pass the Congress next week without amendments or debate.

FACT: Food safety legislation has yet to be considered by any Congressional committee.

http://www.thedailygreen.com/healthy-eating/blogs/healt...

A lot of attention has been focused on a bill introduced by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (H.R. 875), the Food Safety Modernization Act. And a lot of what is being said about the bill is misleading.

Here are a few things that H.R. 875 DOES do:

- It addresses the most critical flaw in the structure of FDA by splitting it into 2 new agencies –one devoted to food safety and the other devoted to drugs and medical devices.
- It increases inspection of food processing plants, basing the frequency of inspection on the risk of the product being produced – but it does NOT make plants pay any registration fees or user fees.
- It does extend food safety agency authority to food production on farms, requiring farms to write a food safety plan and consider the critical points on that farm where food safety problems are likely to occur.
- It requires imported food to meet the same standards as food produced in the U.S.

And just as importantly, here are a few things that H.R. 875 does NOT do:

- It does not cover foods regulated by the USDA (beef, pork, poultry, lamb, catfish.)
- It does not establish a mandatory animal identification system.
- It does not regulate backyard gardens.
- It does not regulate seed.
- It does not call for new regulations for farmers markets or direct marketing arrangements.
- It does not apply to food that does not enter interstate commerce (food that is sold across state lines).
- It does not mandate any specific type of traceability for FDA-regulated foods (the bill does instruct a new food safety agency to improve traceability of foods, but specifically says that recordkeeping can be done electronically or on paper.)

http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/food/foodsafety/backgr...




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-23-09 10:32 AM
Response to Original message
1. I don't know what to believe about this legislation
but I appreciate your posting this perspective.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Why Syzygy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-23-09 10:32 AM
Response to Original message
2. kick . thanks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-23-09 10:33 AM
Response to Original message
3. This part DOES concern me:
".........It does extend food safety agency authority to food production on farms, requiring farms to write a food safety plan and consider the critical points on that farm where food safety problems are likely to occur........"

It sounds like farmers, regardless of size, who sell commercially (even farmers' markets) will have to have a potentially VERY burdensome HACCP-type program in place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mulehead Donating Member (93 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-23-09 10:46 AM
Response to Original message
4. More good info about HR. 875 and other House and Senate Food Bills
Matha Goodsell posted the following to the COMFOOD blog (which is moderated by Tufts University), which is followed by an email from Stacy Miller, Exec. Director of the Farmers Market Coalition:


"Here's my response I've been sending out to those that ask:

Yes I've researched HR 845, but no, not all of what you're reading is true. Here's some research I've done on the food bills. I'm most concerned with Senate bill 510 and House bill 1332. Watch them very closely. The bills are very similar though not conferenced at this point. They are broad sweeping reform bills, just as vague as HR 875 and could be just as, if not more, detrimental to small scale farmers and processors. Unlike HR 875 which exempts some activities which fall under the Federal Meat Inspection Act or the Poultry Products inspection Acts and specifically excludes in section 3.14 any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined animal-feeding operation, there are no such express exceptions in these other two bills. The record keeping, product testing and HACCP requirements (all electronically of course) would be, in my opinion, overwhelming for most small scale operations. Look what HACCP did to our slaughterhouses-- gone! Any bill that will require one-size rules must be watched intently. These two bills( S510 and HR 1332) have bi-partisan support so don't let them off your radar by any means. Read them for yourself.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-...
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-...


In the meantime, here's my submission to the Broader View Weekly, a small hometown paper, I write for."


Food Safety Bills of 2009

By Martha Goodsell

Internet users are up in arms regarding House Bill 875, the Food Safety Modernization Act, but much of what is circulating over the network is hype and inflated fears. However, that’s not to say that HR 875 is not a threat to both small scale and organic farmers and those consumers who support such farms. In its present form, it is a very real- though not a highly probable- threat. HR 875 is not the only food safety bill recently proposed following the peanut butter contamination. There are six other bills that must be monitored.

There are two federal agencies charged with food safety. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is responsible for wholesome meat and poultry under the guidelines of the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA). The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on the other hand, has the responsibility for oversight of manufactured food products, and all those products not under USDA jurisdiction. Unlike the USDA who inspects products and ensures Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points (HACCP) compliance in slaughterhouses and in meat and poultry product processing facilities, the FDA is charged with the annual inspection of manufacturing facilities. Only a few products monitored by the FDA are required to have and follow HACCP plans.

Thanks to Upton Sinclair, and his book The Jungle, the USDA oversight on meat and poultry is much stricter than for other food products currently. Many of these bills are looking to change that, by requiring food manufacturers to have and follow HACCP plans, which includes strict record keeping requirements. Unfortunately HACCP implementation poses a greater obstacle to small plants compared to larger facilities. Thus, the single greatest problem with all of these newly proposed food safety bills are that they are not designed with small and large operations in mind. Rather, they are written with a “one-size-fits-all” approach. Knowing that many small operations will chose to close their doors, rather than comply with testing, record keeping, and all sorts of other requirements, these bills indirectly interfere with the rights of individuals to choose their foods. This threat of losing small farms – and thus one’s food choice- is feeding the current hysteria.

To read more about the bills visit http://www.govtrack.us/congress/legislation.xpd . Please contact your Washington representatives to express your support or opposition to the bills. Let’s take a look at what’s pending:

HR 875 - The Food Safety Modernization Act, sponsored by Rosa Delauro (D- CT) (whose husband works for Monsanto) has 30 co-sponsors at this time. This bill splits the FDA into two units: one which would monitor food and the other to monitor medicinal drugs and medical devices. (The FDA is charged with monitoring both food and drugs so this is only a new approach, not a new duty.) The bill would increase the number - or frequency - of inspections. HR 875 would require HACCP plans. It would also require imports to meet US standards. (Currently as long as a foreign country has an “equivalent” inspection system, product is accepted with little or no further questions or testing.) HR 875 would establish a national traceability system that would require tracking “the history, use, and location of an item of food”. Section 3.13A specifically exempts those operations currently under USDA inspection under the FMIA or PPIA acts and section 3.14 exempts any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined animal-feeding operation.

S425 - Food Safety and Tracking Improvement Act, sponsored by Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) has no co-sponsors. This senate bill would amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to provide for the establishment of a traceability system so that each article of food shipped in interstate commerce would require a full record keeping system. An audit system would provide for compliance. Premise registration would be mandatory. S425 amends the FMIA so that any person that has reason to believe that any carcass, part of a carcass, meat, or meat food product is inappropriately transported, stored, distributed, or otherwise mis-handled resulting in adulteration or misbranding shall serve notice to the secretary who shall then call on industry to withdraw the product. The PPIA and the Egg Product Inspection Act (EPIA) would be amended in the same fashion.

HR 814 - Tracing and Recalling Agricultural Contamination Everywhere Act, sponsored by Diana DeGette (D-CO) has five co-sponsors. HR 814 would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a traceability system for all stages of manufacturing, processing, packaging, and distribution of food. HR 814 would amend the FMIA by requiring identification and traceability for all cattle, sheep, swine, goats, and horses, mules, and other equines presented for slaughter. Without an identification number, farm records, and the ability to trace an animal’s movement, such an animal can not be presented for slaughter. The PPIA and the EPIA would be amended to establish similar provisions for poultry and poultry products and for eggs and egg products. It is interesting to note that nothing contained in HR 814 supports Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) requirements.

HR 759- The Food And Drug Administration Globalization Act, sponsored by John Dingell (D- MI) with eight co-sponsors, would require every food facility that manufactures, processes, packs, transports, or holds food for consumption in the United States to develop and implement a HACCP and food safety plan. HR 759 would require that all food facilities use standard lot numbers and that all facilities including food processors, farms and restaurants, keep electronic records. Food facilities must earn an accreditation status. This bill instructs the FDA to establish production standards for fruits and vegetables and to establish Good Agricultural Practices for produce and requiring those that grow and sell fresh fruits and vegetables to have a HACCP plan. COOL would be required. Only certified laboratories could conduct sampling and testing of food to ensure compliance.

S 429 - Ending Agricultural Threats: Safeguarding America's Food for Everyone (EAT SAFE) Act of 2009, sponsored by Senator Robert Casey (D- PA) with only one co-sponsor, focuses on imported and smuggled foods. This bill directs the Secretary of Agriculture to establish food safety and agroterrorism training programs. Notification of recalled food products would be provided to the public while notice of smuggled food products would be reported to the public and to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). This bill amends the FMIA and the PPIA to establish civil penalties for failure to present imported meat and poultry products for inspection and requires the use of federally certified food safety labs for product testing. A food-borne illness education and outreach grant program would be established.

S 510 - A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to the safety of the food supply sponsored by Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) has 8 co-sponsors currently. This bill addresses the concerns of government to the use of or exposure to certain foods. If the Secretary of Agriculture believes that there is a reasonable probability that the use of or exposure to an article of food will cause serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals, each person who manufactures, processes, packs, distributes, receives, holds, or imports such article shall provide access to that food article and to all records relating to such article. HACCP and preventive controls would be required for all manufacturers, processors, packers, distributors, receivers, holders, or importers. Safety standards would be established for production and harvesting of fruits and vegetables. All premises would be required to be registered and pay annual inspection fees. The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Agriculture, would facilitate public-private partnerships to help unify and enhance the protection of the agriculture and food system of the United States; including the sharing of information and intelligence relating to agriculture and the food system. The three agencies would identify best practices and methods for improving the coordination among Federal, State, local, and private sector preparedness and response plans for agriculture and food defense and would recommend methods to protect the economy and the public health of the United States from the effects of animal or plant disease outbreaks, food contamination and natural disasters affecting agriculture and food.

HR 1332 - Safe FEAST Act of 2009, sponsored by Jim Costa (D-CA) with 19 cosponsors. This is very similar to the senate bill S 510. All food manufacturers, processes, packers, or those who hold food for sale would be required to be registered. If the Secretary determines that food manufactured, processed, packed, or held by a facility has a reasonable probability of causing serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals, the Secretary may suspend the registration of the facility. In addition to having access to records and the product, the Secretary may direct the facility to order a recall. In addition to HACCP plans and record keeping requirements facilities would be required to: follow sanitation procedures, establish hygiene training, establish monitoring programs for environmental pathogen controls, implement an allergen control program, develop a recall contingency plan; follow Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs); and verify source suppliers. HR 1332 would encourage the building of domestic capacity through coordinated councils which would in part identify potential threats to the food supply and would establish surveillance systems through integrated networks.


----- Original Message -----
From: Melanie Cheng
To: comfood@elist.tufts.edu
Cc: melaniec@farmsreach.com Cheng
Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2009 8:31 PM
Subject: Re: Re: FWD: HR 875

Hi there,

Does anyone else have 2 cents on HR 875 and its "slipping through Congress soon"? My mind was somewhat at ease after reading Elizabeth's reply as well as a note from Stacy Miller to the Farmers Market Coalition list (pasted below).

But then I've been bombarded with emails asking what's up and with links to lots of sites that seem to make it sound like armageddon is coming if we don't act now....

I'd love to be able to point people to a reliable source that everything's going to be okay for now, assuming it will be. Maybe the OCA online petition is a good link to pass on? Your insights would be great!!

Thanks!!
Melanie

===

Thank you for your response to our letter. It's great to know that someone is as passionate as you are about the rights of small family farms.

I certainly share some of your concerns regarding how food safety regulations are implemented, but the growing concern about this issue means that we cannot take it lightly or will it away. Just this morning, President Obama pledged to improve food safety (NYT article here<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/us/politics/15address... > ;) so it is likely if not inevitable that anyone involved with producing food will see some changes in what they're required to do with regard to record keeping. This will be true regardless of whether FDA retains oversight of food safety or these responsibilities are given to a new agency. Are there unknowns with respect to how any congressional legislation may be implemented? Yes. Does it pay to be cautious? Yes. Do we as a community need to stay actively involved in order to prevent the worst case scenario? Absolutely.

I can assure you that many organizations, FMC among them, are following proposed changes (via HR 875, HR 814, S 425, & HR 759) closely and are dedicated to representing the interests of small family farms. There will be many opportunities (for us and for you) to advocate for science-based, scale-sensitive solutions, or even exemption based on what, where, and to whom you are selling. Another possibility is a voluntary certification administered by your state's cooperative extension or dept. of agriculture, which would provide technical assistance in helping you create and update a brief food safety plan that puts in writing the common-sense approaches that you are likely already taking to prevent contamination. At this point, of course, these scenarios are hypothetical. But I hope that you can share my cautious optimism that there are as yet myriad opportunities to help shape what is vaguely implied in any of these proposed acts into a reality which is maximally friendly to small-scale family farms selling locally. It is even possible that, if properly implemented, legislation would actually give a competitive advantage to farms like yours, which have smaller footprints and which more and more people in USDA and congress recognize as being
critical to safe, secure, vibrant food systems.

Working on your behalf and grateful for your support,

Stacy
Executive Director
Farmers Market Coalition
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Why Syzygy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-23-09 01:23 PM
Response to Original message
5. kick
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snazzy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-23-09 01:48 PM
Response to Original message
6. there seems to be a lot of alarmist astroturf about this bill
Edited on Mon Mar-23-09 01:49 PM by Snazzy
which keeps getting regurgitated all over the place. Foodandwaterwatch.org's debunking of the astroturf seems to be legit. Bookmarking them for next time. Now I know to scroll quickly to the bottom and look for the code-word wink "libertarian and conservative farmers" which was hidden in plain sight in the bio of the op-ed author for some of this astroturf.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Aug 29th 2014, 01:06 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC