Reason to believe S.510 is scary.

I keep meaning to post this, and I keep putting it off, because I KNOW that you probably care more about what is going on at the farm (weeding, the last rain kick started the Canadian Thistle) and not more blabbing on the Food Safety Bill.


But I found this article last week about a farmer being raided for suspected interstate sale of raw milk.
"Stockton warned the requirement now is for federal agents to claim they have "credible evidence" regarding a case, but a proposed federal change would strike those words in the law and replace them with "reason to believe."
"The phrase 'reason to believe' would be inserted 14 times into the code with S. 510," she said. "If this bill goes through, the FDA will have control of farms. They will not need 'credible evidence' to act. They will essentially be given a free hand to act as they want. And look at how they already act, even with the existing constraints in place." "

How much less is "reason to believe" then "credible evidence," a world it seems to me... a constitutional world...

Are we all the same?

Here is a really nice article on SB510.

I like this quote: "Senate Bill 510 actually will strengthen the forces that have led to the consolidation of our food supply ... while harming small producers who give consumers the choice to buy fresh, healthy and local foods," said R-CALF CEO Bill Bullard in the release.

It is true. I rewatched Food, Inc. the other day and was torn again, between righteous anger at our food system and fear that documentaries like it will help cement a one-size fits all food safety system.

We need a system which does not treat a 4 acre veggie grower like Earthbound Organics. If you have not already, tell your senators you support the Tester Amendment. Here is info on it.

Call - tell them to support the Tester Ammendment!

Senate Bill 510 is going to pass, but a series of amendments look like they are going to be included! However, it is my understanding that the Tester amendment is not included in the amendments which will definatly make it in. It will be debated separately and voted on alone.

According to food safety news "The most contentious amendment in consideration, proposed by Senator John Tester (D-MT), to exempt food facilities with under $500,000 gross sales from preventative control plan requirements, and traceback and recordkeeping provisions, will not be part of the manager's amendment, but will be debated separately when the bill is brought to the floor. "

Please note that Food Safety news is on the separate side of the issue from me and thinks this amendment is "asking for trouble." But their article outlines the amendments made and pending clearly so here is the link: http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2010/04/farmers-make-gains-in-senate-battle/

I would ask you to call your senators and ask them to support the Tester Amendment and support your local farms.

Fact and fiction...

So you may be hearing a lot about why the senate bill 510 (FDA Food Safety Modernization Act) is bad and what it does.

You may have heard:

• You will have to pay $500 and be subjected to inspections to grow your own garden!
• It will outlaw organics!
• It will end Farmers Markets and CSAs!
• It will mean only GMO seeds can be sold!

These things are NOT true. The law will not do this, your garden will not be illegal and your farmers market is safe, you will still be able to buy organic veggies and avoid GMO varieties.

But it will have significant impacts. Basically the problem is this - it is trying to apply a one size fits all mold to farms and food producers, across the board, regardless of size of the grower (/producer) or means of distribution.

• It is NOT limited only to products involved in interstate commerce, which means that the food your farmer grows for your local farmers market is not exempt.
• It does NOT recognize differences in farm size, which means a 10 member CSA will have to pay the same fee, complete the same paperwork, and compile the same Hazard Plan as a multi-thousand acre non-diversified farm.
• It puts the FDA in charge of farmers production methods. Is this really the right place for this to be? Shouldn't this be a Department of Agriculture issue? People who deal with farms and not pharmaceutical factories?
• Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) system will apply to even the smallest local food processor. This means that the person making cupcakes or jelly for market will be considered legally the same as Kraft food.

But honestly, my biggest concern is not for this bill today. In all probability, if it passes the worst that will happen with small producers is they have to pay their $500, because the amount of work involved in implementing this involves is so large that it will be years before they work their way down to the 2 acre grower. BUT it will set up a framework to institute regulation whenever public opinion blows.

So lets say that in 5 years there is a U-pick strawberry farm somewhere which gets contaminated somehow with something? Lets say, hypothetically, that 24 children who picked strawberries there get very ill, a couple may even die. With this law in place it would be a matter of REGULATION not LEGISLATION that U-pick berry farms are no longer compliant with food safety laws.

Lets say that in 7 years there is a farmers market somewhere where jalapenos which are contaminated with something are sold. They trace it back to a farmer who had a deer walk across his field. There is not necessarily proof that that is the source of the contamination, but since we know that animals should not be within 1000 feet of food (California Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement) new REGULATION not LEGISLATION is put in place that any food grown within 200 feet of evidence (footprints) of animals must be destroyed.

Lets get crazy and say that in 20 years there is a problem somewhere and good diligent organic farmers by compost from a company who has produced a bad, contaminated product. People in 4 states get sick, 25 die. Now you can no longer use compost in farms via the stroke of a pen.

I am all for food safety, but I feel that the small grower is a pretty safe bet from a safety standpoint. We are NOT the same as big farms and should not be treated such.

We need to call and let our Senators know that we do not agree with 510. Since it is pretty much guaranteed to pass (which senator will risk being against food safety, and be accused during the next election of being responsible for death of the next child to be victim to a food contamination outbreak) we need to support amendments which exempt small producers.

One size does not fit all!

Senate Bill 510

I was talking with a friend about the new Food Saftey Bill today (yes, if you have not yet firgured it out, I am firmly against food saftey) and he pointed out that the fault is mine. I did not hire lobbiests who did a good job. If I would have hired better lobbiests or given more money to campaigns then things might be trending diffrently!

Orginizations who support this bill have spent over $7,000,000 in donations, those who oppose it less then half a million. Wow, what a diffrence.

Want to guess what side big business is on? Here's a clue, it is not on the side of small farmers!

http://maplight.org/us-congress/bill/111-s-510/360488/total-contributions

Senate Bill 510

I have to say my favriote thing right now about Senate Bill 510 is that is EXCLUDES large scale meat producers, CAFOs, and large meat processing plants. They are where much of the food containmantion comes from but we should ignore them and instead force a farmer who brings a few dozen pints of jelly to market or makes a salad mix to sell to keep extremely detailed records (possibly requiring the help of a consultant to meet the letter of the law), pay a $500 annual fee, and be subject to regular inspection.

No difrenetnation between a producer who grossed $500, $5,000, $50,000, or $50 million, same fees, same paper work, same requirements. Does this make sense?

CALL TODAY! http://www.westonaprice.org/Urgent-Action-Alert-on-Senate-Food-Safety-Bill.html Let them know you support the Tester ammendment.

"The Committee version of the bill does NOT address my concerns, and I urge the Senator to support the Tester Amendment to exclude small facilities and direct marketing farms from the most burdensome provisions of the bill."

Senate Bill 510

One of our members forwarded this email to me, which I am reposting in its entirity, what with the season I had not been aware of this coming back to the forground (we had talked about it last fall.)

I will post more about it tommrow, but this is an important issue for small farms (and as importantly small and home food producers) so I ask each of you to look into it as well. For more information click here.

April 10, 2010
Re: Senate Bill 510 – Local Foods and Farms May be at Risk

Dear Friends and Lovers of Local, Sustainable Foods,
I am writing to let you know about S.510, a food safety bill which has been named the “Food Safety Modernization Act”. Having read the bill and analysis and commentary on the bill, I have come to the conclusion that S. 510, if passed, may have the (seemingly) unintended consequence of compromising and potentially eliminating altogether many small farms, and along with that consumer access to local food – whether at farmer’s markets, through a CSA (community supported agriculture), or in farm to table restaurants. All without addressing the root cause of the past food contamination problems.
As you may have already gathered, I oppose - strongly oppose – S.510. I am sending this email letter to you because it is my hope that after you read this you will consider calling your Senator and expressing your own opinion about this. This can be relatively easy. I have included at the end of this email an “Action Alert” from the Cornucopia Institute (a non-profit educational organization which supports the ecological principles and economic wisdom underlying sustainable and organic agriculture). The Alert provides simple instructions for contacting your Senator, with some suggestions for what you might want to say
The companion bill to S.510 passed the House last year, and it is predicted that this Bill may come before the Senate for a vote as early as this coming Tuesday, April 13. In addition to moving pretty quickly, the bill also seems to be somewhat of a sleeper. Although its impact on small, local farms will be considerable, potentially devastating, there seems to be very little awareness of it among the members of the local farms/local foods community. All attention (if any) has been focused upon the so-called “Leafy Greens” regulatory process which has been traveling around the country, with the “Produce Safety Project” hosting “stakeholders” meetings between representatives of the prospective regulators (the FDA, the USDA), farmers, and research academics
S. 510 provides extensive, onerous, expensive regulatory requirements, all done in a “one size fits all” manner (meaning that the same rules would be applicable to both the enormous industrial farms and to small local farms). Farm registration, hazard analysis and controls, extensive recordkeeping and reporting requirements, extensive traceability documentation, etc. The bill provides for the establishment of detailed standards regarding the manner in which a farmer may grow, water, nurture, harvest and store his crops, what animals may come in contact with his crops (possibly none), and so forth – seemingly every aspect of the farmer’s food growing operation. The FDA would be given sweeping enforcement authority - the power to enter the farm, to order food to be quarantined or recalled, to order the farm to be shut down, etc. – all under very subjective standards which leave a lot of room for abuse and/or mistakes. If you are at all familiar with the USDA’s or FDA’s track record under their already extensive regulatory authority, you know that it is not exactly exemplary. This history, with respect to small farms in particular, is replete with stories of arbitrary, capricious and often just plain ignorant (and highly subjective) enforcement operations. A little “oops” by the Feds and a small farmer already operating with a very small profit margin faces the risk of being forced out of business.
Viewed most charitably, the bill is a poorly thought out reaction to the food safety problems of recent years (remember the E. Coli on spinach coming out of California?). What the bill overlooks is that virtually all of the recent food safety scandals have been linked directly to large, industrial scale agricultural operations. The main threats to food safety, even according to the government proponents of the bill, are centralized production, centralized processing, and long distance transportation. These are attributes of the industrial food system, certainly not of the small, local, sustainable and/or organic farmers who typically sell at farmer’s markets, through their own CSA or directly to restaurants. In fact, the food produced by family and local farms, often organic and sustainable, is probably the safest in the nation. This makes sense, when you stop to think about it. These farmers know first-hand the importance of food safety. It is for them a way of life. They and their family members work in the fields. They eat the same food that they sell us (OK, maybe they eat the stuff with the bumps and bruises). They know that if there is a problem there will be no hiding behind the food consolidator, the packing house or the long distance transportation operation. When we buy local product we know the identity of the farmer who grew the food, and many of us also have the opportunity of getting to know the farmer. Food safety safeguards are very naturally built into local food systems.
Once we understand that the main threats to food safety involve large scale industrial agriculture, it is readily apparent that it makes no sense to impose upon small local farms the onerous and complex regulatory and record-keeping requirements which may be appropriate to control the “big guys” with their disturbing record on food safety. The larger operations will be able to absorb these costs – the fees as well as the time cost of extensive recordkeeping and documentation. The small, local farmers will not. Many of them are already operating at the margin, settling for a very small income in order to be able to continue doing what they love, playing their part in building a local, sustainable food supply for our communities. And any of you who have friends in this community know that they are already at or below the minimum amount of sleep required to sustain human life, especially during growing and harvesting season.
As I considered S.510 Bill and the surrounding issues, I found myself asking the question, who will benefit from this legislation, if passed? The answer, I believe, is that large agricultural business will be the winner. Congress and the public may think that it is the public that is benefitting – there has been a lot of hoopla about food safety in the past couple of years. Some of it is certainly justified – there have been significant breaches in the safety of our food supply, virtually all of them linked to big agriculture (E. coli on fresh spinach, melamine in dairy products, Salmonella in peanut butter, to name a few). By inducing the public to believe that their food is safe, and by crippling or shutting down the smaller and increasingly “thorn in the side” sustainable, local, organic farmers whose message and offerings of safe, healthy, sustainable, community enhancing food is catching on in this culture, this bill looks to me mostly like a vehicle for large agricultural interests to increase their markets.
Thank you for reading this far. If you share even some of my views on this Bill, you may agree that it is important to let your Senator know about this before the upcoming vote (which may occur as early as Tuesday, April 13). If you would like to do this, please continue on and read the Action Alert from the Cornucopia Institute which I have included in the balance of this email. This Action Alert provides simple suggestions for expressing your concerns to your Senator, including how to contact him or her and discussion points. Cornucopia encourages people who support small, local farmers – people like most of us - to support the proposed amendment to S.510 offered by Senator Tester, (D-MT), who is actually a certified organic farmer. While this amendment may not be perfect, in terms of the goal of protecting and preserving the viability of small local farms, it is all the best that we have, and I encourage you to support it.
Many blessings.
Fran