Hi, folks
FYI, there is a proposed bill in committee in the US House of Representatives which would require Federal inspection of all fruits and vegetables sold--even from small artisan growers. A $500 initial registration fee is proposed. There is an article about it at this link:
http://www.ftcldf.org/news/news-15june2009.htm
For Farmers and Consumers Defending the Right to Buy and Protecting the
Right to Sell Nutritious Food Directly from the Farm
It MIGHT be a good idea to contact your US Representative while the bill is still in committee--BEFORE it becomes law.
Artisan Vegetable Farming to Disappear by New Law?
That's scary! Thanks for pointing it out - I used the link to sign the petition and send an email to my elected officials.
It looks like the $500 initial registration fee you mentioned is actually a $500 Annual Fee. And in this economy, too!
This bill gives the FDA the power to "quarantine a geographic area" and "halt all movement of food in a geographic area" - the HHS Secretary can shut down all farmers markets and local food sources simply by notifying the right State official and making a public announcement. No clearance or agreement needed from any other agency or government position.
They can also conduct searches of business records without a warrant and without evidence of a problem (business records required to be registered under this bill, not just anyone's business records).
It lets them tell farmers how they can raise and harvest their crops - giving small farmers and organic farmers the short end of the stick, because you know the pencil pushers at the FDA aren't going to do the research and testing to make the regulations broad enough to encompass the methods everyone is using now.
Please sign the petition and contact your US Representatives! The link in the post above works very well.
You can also send a message directly to your State Representative via National Write Your Congressman. (www.nwyc.com). You might have to be a member. I've not used the site that much but went ahead and sent a message to my State Representative through them. I'm sure there are other online sources to contact state rep's directly as well.
Well, first, try to remember what you learned in high school about how our democracy functions before you go off all crazy worried. This bill has just been introduced in the House. It has to be sliced and diced there. Then, IF it is passed, it goes to the Senate, where it has to be sliced and diced again. IF it is passed there, then the president has to decide whether he will approve it or veto it. There is no guarantee that this bill will remain unchanged through all that. So that's one reason not to be hysterical.
Reason two: READ THE BILL. There you will see that it applies to facilities that are required to be registered according to Section 415. Then go look up what is defined as a facility by section 415 of the FDA code. This will tell you, and I quote, "The term "facility" includes any factory, warehouse, or establishment (including a factory, warehouse, or establishment of an importer) that manufactures, processes, packs, or holds food. Such term does not include farms; restaurants; other retail food establishments; nonprofit food establishments in which food is prepared for or served directly to the consumer; or fishing vessels (except such vessels engaged in processing as defined in section 123.3(k) of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations)."
What does that say again? THIS TERM DOES NOT INCLUDE FARMS. Notice that?
FARMS ARE NOT INCLUDED.
You can read the section here:
http://www.fdaagents.com/laws.html
You can read the actual bill as it stands now here:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h2749/show
Now ask yourself this question. Do you really think food processors should not be required to register and to be inspected by the FDA and closed if they are in violation of food safety regulations? Eat any salmonella-contaminated tomatoes or peanut butter lately?
And now just try to imagine who could possibly benefit by viral marketing against this bill, hmm? COULD it be those very food processors who take such an offense at the very idea that they should be inspected by the FDA? Do you think???
Well, this looks like a tricky issue. My state rep has already e-mailed back (one of his helpers I'm sure) to let me know that there has been quite a bit of objection to parts of this proposed bill and that he feels the bill needs to be re-written and several parts need to be clarified and made more specific. It sounds as if a number of people are concerned about the specifics of this proposed bill.
paracelsus, I'm sure you are right and that the process will be a long one. The interesting part for me is being able to contact my elected official so readily and getting a responce so quickly! The e-mail did not read like an auto-responce to me. Someone actually responded to my concerns. WOW! Of course there are a lot of small farmers in my area.
paracelsus, the issue has not been so straightforward and there is a great risk that farms may be included. I wouldn't be so quick to write off the concerns. The sticky part is in the interpretation of the phrase "processes, packs, or holds food."
Food served "directly" to the consumer on the farm does not apply, but a farmer that trims, washes and puts the produce in cold storage overnight for sale at a farmers market the next day may be perceived as "processing, packing and holding" food.
That is the concern of the Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund and the reason they are asking growers and consumers to contact their representatives and voice support for the smaller growers. A one-size fits all bill will place an excess burden on the smaller growers. There have already been incidents in a few states in which the FDA and the USDA have interpreted the farms prepping produce for market as "processing".
Paracelsus,
The purpose of posting this now is so that farms can get in on the writing of the legislation rather than wait until it becomes law to have any input to it. And yes, it DOES include farms---like farms that pack tomatoes, for example. A packing shed typically IS a type of warehouse(warehouses covered in the proposed law). Some tomato growers would like to see independent "pin hookers" put out of business by the law so all tomatoes would HAVE to go through a packing shed(warehouse). A year or 2 ago, Florida tomato growers and agents lost lots of money when the salmonella scare closed down tomato fields in Florida---only to find out later that the tomatoes in question had come from Mexico(not inspected by USDA) rather than Florida!
Paracelsus,
If you were really following what was going on, you'd know that...
A) it turned out that it wasn't tomatoes with salmonella (after tens of millions of dollars of produce were thrown away), but peppers.
B) the peanut butter situation was a failure of the FDA to use EXISTING laws and enforcement to shut the company down.
The FDA needs more manpower and to enforce existing laws. Not create a bunch of new ones.
garden-mermaid, take a look at the definition of "farm" in the FDA regulation that is invoked in this bill. The FDA regulation specifically allows what they define as a farm--and which is specifically EXCLUDED from the bill--as being able to hold and process food that is grown on that farm and that is then sold elsewhere. That is there in the definition section on the bottom of the page of the first url I gave.
I have seen this so often--people running around screaming over something that does not apply to them, and responding to websites that have clearly been set up specifically to provoke that reaction in order to benefit the very people that the bill(s) really WOULD regulate, in this case processors who get food from all over and process it, people who have nothing whatsoever in common with a farm.
In hard times especially, remember what FDR said: "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." This is a case of fear itself being the issue, not the bill. When people are frightened due to something as amorphous as the economy, which pretty much none of us can understand, then they are going to look around for a focus of that fear. Here is a focus--or perhaps I should say a "misdirection," much as magicians use to distract people from what is really going on.
Believe me, nobody in Washington gives about farms that are growing for farmer's markets. There is no money to be made from them. But there IS money to made from big processors. And there is also the public health question--and the fear question. People are becoming afraid of our food stream. The government has to do something to control that. I think actually with this bill they are taking the right approach--focus on the big food packers and processors.
I know it's disappointing to realize that something you were so het up about is just a popped balloon. You feel foolish. It happens to everyone. That is the nature of the web. You have to be a really critical reader. Because not only is it easy to misunderstand things, but corporations make a deliberate practice of this kind of viral marketing--going around and setting up phony blogs, phony organizations, phony websites that spread disinformation. They have learned from ideologues like Fox "News" that it is possible to manipulate people using their fear and mental laziness. Well, don't be a dupe.
paracelsus, I am aware of the FDA's definition of a farm as written in the text. I have read the entire text, as well as the definitions. I am also very much aware that the wording allows for interpretation by local enforcement. This room for interpretation has resulted in harrassment of a number of small farms - the prepping of vegetables and fruit of market has been deemed "processing" and the farm as then been recategorized as a food processing facility rather than a farm.
The recent historical practice has been to apply the requirements /regulations/fines that were designed for large food processors to the small producers. This places an unfair burden upon them and often drives the small producer out of business. The food safety regulations need to be appropriately sized for the size of the producer.
Typing in upper case letters is generally construed as "screaming" or shouting in a web post. Please note that I typed my post in lower case letters except where rule of punctuation requires upper case. I don't see any posts on this thread that would constitute people running around screaming.
Do you personally know the level of agricultural involvement of everyone on DG? If not, then you are not qualified to state whether this bill "applies" to any other member or not.
The Farm to Consumer Foundation, and its associated Legal Defense Fund, came about as a result of the harrasment and changes in the regulatory environment that have a detrimental effect on smaller producers. They have helped many small producers fight back for their rights when the large processors have tried to snuff them out. The FTCLDF has first hand legal experience with the way the FDA, USDA and state ag authorities abuse the food regulations.
If you think no one in Washington cares about farms growing for farmer's markets, then you are living with your head in the sand. The fastest growing market segment for food is the fresh, local small producer market. Many consumers have lost confidence in the industrial food system and are now shopping from local small producers. The large producers/processors are feeling the bite.
The reason why I posted in all caps was because I was amazed that of the people who had posted on this topic, none had apparently actually read the bill and seen that farms were specifically excluded. Thus the caps. Maybe people couldn't read the bill but could read the caps. The very next post, though, proved me wrong on that score.
The FDA rules are federal rules and not local rules and not enforced by local agencies. So whatever local agencies think of this bill, if the bill actually passed and went all the way up to the president and was approved by him, it would not be enforced by local agencies but by federal ones.
If people cannot even be bothered to actually read a bill they are protesting, maybe they deserve just what they think they are going to get. Because they are not acting like informed citizens but just a manipulable mob, and mobs have to be controlled.
Federal laws trump state laws. Normally in something like this, the states take their guidance from federal laws. In the matter of the salmonella peanuts, both GA and TX were caught short and embarrassed by their negligence. The regulatory and inspection authorities everywhere probably will tighten up to avoid the same fate.
Judging from the reports of some recent cases, I think the locals react mainly in pursuit of tax dollars and fees. In fact, if you follow the money, you can better get to the real reason for any legislation, enforcement or lack there of.
From what I can tell, there's a swelling tidal wave of repugnance to our industrial food supply that encompasses everything from animal rights, pesticides, high fructose corn syrup to tainted imports and genetic modification. A lot of the processor's web sites are indicative that they've noticed. They're greenwashing everything and showing red barns and countryside scenes. They're concerned and they all have their well paid servants at all the congressional hearings to make sure there's no real pain for them.
I agree with pretty much everything you said, twiggybuds.
I am not at all the kind of person who thinks the government is a friendly force. However, if it weren't for the feds, we would still be drinking milk watered and treated with formaldehyde to preserve it, etc., as people did before the Pure Food and Drug Act.
Paraclesus,
No offense intended, please, but if the Feds hadn't regulated raw milk, I would still be drinking it. I was raised on farm-fresh, home-grown milk which my mother milked by hand twice a day from Jersey cows. It tasted great. My mom sold milk, made butter and raised chickens for egg laying in the late 1950's and early 1960's. We only had about 2 to 3 cows to milk at one time and maybe 200 chickens. That was in the days of no Federal inspection. A small farmer like this couldn't have survived then with Federal regulations. It kept us fed and brought in just enough cash to pay the feed bill and keep us off Federal welfare.
As for the formaldehyde taste, that's what I get from processed milk. It took me years to tolerate the taste of homogenized milk. (Just another perspective)
Kind regards,
No one is arguing against an overhaul of our food safety system.
The primary reason for raising the alerts on these types of bills as they are introduced is to give both small producers and consumers notice so that they can contact their representatives and express their views.
My family and friends, and so far all of the local small producers who sell directly to their customers, are urging both houses to modify the bill to ensure food regulations are scale and risk appropriate. A small producer that sells direct to the consumer or local market does not pose the same risk as a large producer or processor that sells across the country and the regulations/fines/requirements should be appropriately sized. If you make your neighbours ill, you've just killed your customer base (and they know where to find you).
As an example, some of the food regulation bill have tried to mandate that all food producers be required to add electronic bar codes to all foods produced. This type of equipment is very expensive and doesn't make sense for a small producer selling at a road side stand, through a CSA, at a farmers market or to a local restaurant.
When Dole distributed bags of spinach contiminated with e coli O157 H7 around the country, and when a milk processor distributed contaminated milk (contaiminated *pasteurized* milk) they only got a slap on the wrist. In the meantime, small producers who have not caused any inllness have had joint federal and state swat teams descend on their farms and coops to haul them away in handcuffs in front of their children. We are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.
As a consumer, I have the right to buy real food, in an unprocessed state, if I so chose. I am not going to give up that right without a fight.
When food regulations state that they are based on "science based standards", whose science are they choosing? There are many discrepancies in supposedly scientific studies. The majority of independent studies on GMO show that these genetically altered foods are hazardous to both human and animal health, and often to the environment as well. Will be be forced to use the "science" based studies biased in favour of the industries that fund them?
After the spinach incident, someone tried to put through a regulation requiring sterilization all soils used to grow leafy greens. This was supposedly "science based". What about the science that shows that the importance of the beneficial microorganisms in the soil to ensure a healthy crop?
I read every word of the text of these bills, and I read the arguments put forth by those wishing to advocate as well as block/modify the bill. Since you have also read the bill and have come to a very different interpretation of it, doesn't it seem possible to you that the people who will be enforcing the bill may also have their own interpretation?
Large scale producers can afford the endless legal bills to clarify these points. Small scale producers usually don't have the funds, which is why they are often targeted. Food regulators want to make a show of "doing something" about the food contamination, so they go after the folks who are least able to defend themselves against unjust, poorly written regulations while the companies that are actually inflicting the harm continue to get away with bad practices.
(edited to fix a few typos)
This message was edited Jul 1, 2009 4:57 PM
Nicely said, Garden_Mermaid. I stand with you.
Garden_Mermaid,
You made some good points that I appreciate. First off: "science". "Science" CAN be good, but I think "common sense" is better---but often seems lacking with our politicians these days---to wit, the Bailouts, for example. If politicians get overzealous on wanting to change the world with scientific technology----and their intellectual ideolgies---they SOMETIMES need reminding that our Constitution gives the citizens the power---it is OF the people, FOR the people and BY the people. Citizens sometimes have to remind them of this--otherwise we could have a "panel" of 535 legislators "dictating" to us instead of representing us......come to think of it, NOW sounds like a good time to remind them!
Hear! Hear! Well said GM and Sugar
"Food regulators want to make a show of "doing something" about the food contamination" and add bureaucracy and costs in the process. Let them prosecute willful negligence and violators of our current laws like feldon said. Then they need to go back 50 years and examine all the food and agriculture legislation line by line and come up with something realistic and sensible.
The Mayo Clinic solved the jalapeno mystery and Kraft Foods discovered the peanut crisis. Not the FDA or the USDA. They're already so bogged down in nonsensical legislative mandates that they can't function. Nor can they be everywhere all the time. Nor should they be. I'd like to see less government employees and the burden shifted to the processors, growers, shippers, brokers, etc., that are in a better position to monitor the products they handle. If vigorous prosecution and painful punitive consequences were applied, they could/would police themselves far more effectively than the government ever could.
I've also told my representatives that local food is local business and that it should be a state's rights matter. I strongly resent the intrusion of government into every facet of our lives under the guise of benevolent protection.
Thanks all.
Thank you too paracelsus, for playing "devil's advocate". We need multiple view points to have productive discussions.
Looks like we have another contamination recall. This time from powdered milk.
Please all, contact your representatives if you have not already done so. Let them know what you want to see done to improve our food supply. I'm hoping many will speak up for provisions that are appropriately sized and keep small, local producers viable. However you think or feel about this issue, please be involved and let your reps know about it.
Much of this discussion has covered language and intent of the proposed legislation as in "it doesn't say that or it excludes this". To demonstrate the futility of expecting legislation to solve problems or guarantee anything in a subject that's such a tangled web, I submit the following article from the Washington Post.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31719136/ns/health-more_health_news//
The gist of it is that the Organic Label can no longer be trusted to mean anything. I would not pay one penny more for organic food after reading this article. It's shocking.....please read it.
twiggy, this just reinforces the need to know your farmer/grower/supplier.
Seattle Tilth, Oregon Tilth and California's CCOF program had much stricter criteria than the National Organics Program (NOP) for organic certification. When the previous administration forced everyone onto the same standards as the NOP it weakened the standards. I check to see who is doing the certification. As the article mentions, some certifiers are looser than others.
Many of our farms out here no longer pay to be recertified, but they do still farm the same way as they did under the tighter standards. They also are proud to tell their customers how they grow their crops and have periodic open houses for customers to visit the farms. Our local independent natural foods stores and localvore groups will actually pay them a visit. I'm willing to pay a little more to keep these farmers going and I want to see more of them. We see new organic vendors at our farmers markets each year. I buy a few sample items from the new ones and test the brix of their produce. If the brix is high enough to warrant buying a meal's worth, I watch to see how we feel after we eat it.