Good Grief! Could it be true? UPDATED Posted by mitcka at 06/30/09 01:49 PM

The Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FCLDF), a group primarily devoted to preserving the right to sell raw milk, has mounted a vociferous internet campaign to defeat HR 2749, the Food Safety Enhancement Act (FSEA), alleging that the bill will hurt small farms. The bill was recently received unanimous approval from the House Energy and Commerce Committee and is on its way to a floor vote. Food Freedom has made even more alarming allegations, suggesting that the bill might require a $500 registration fee for every backyard garden and lead to a Monsanto takeover of the food system.

Good grief! Is any of this true? Here we take a close look at some of the more frightening claims.

Food Freedom asks whether the registration fee ($500 on any “facility” that holds, processes, or manufactures food) would apply to every home in the U.S. and every home garden.

CU Responds: No, of course not. In fact the bill applies to no homes or home gardens, nor any farms. The $500 registration fee is only for domestic and foreign manufacturing or processing facilities that sell products in the US, facilities that are in fact already required to register with the FDA. The bill does not expand the scope of who has to register as a facility, but it does make "facilities" as defined in the bill bear their fair share of the cost to inspect them.

Food Freedom claims HR 2749 would empower FDA to regulate how crops are raised and harvested. "It puts the federal government right on the farm, dictating to our farmers." The blog goes on to theorize that FDA would use this purported new power to eliminate most organic farming and force all producers to adopt industrialized farming methods such as pesticides, fertilizer and genetically engineered seeds.

CU Responds: The FSEA does empower FDA to establish safety standards related to use of manure, irrigation water and other farming practices specifically to prevent microbial contamination that causes illness, such as the deadly e. coli 0157:H7 that contaminated bagged spinach and cause three deaths including young children in 2007. However the FSEA in no way calls for elimination of manure or for use of GMOs, chemical fertilizer or pesticides. In fact the bill calls on FDA "to take into consideration, consistent with ensuring enforceable public health protection, the impact on small scale and diversified farms, and on wildlife habitat, conservation practices, watershed protection efforts, and organic production methods."

FCLDF says that the bill will create random, warrantless searches of business records.

CU Responds: H.R. 2749 does not in any way empower FDA to conduct random warrantless searches of business records. The FSEA does provide, importantly, that FDA can have access to business records when it conducts an inspection to check whether plants are safe and complying with the law. It must inspect high risk food processors at least once a year. The need for this provision was highlighted by the behavior of the Peanut Corporation of America (PCA), which hid records of 12 positive test results for Salmonella contamination of its peanut products from state inspectors. Salmonella in PCA products eventually caused more than 700 reported illnesses and nine deaths.

FCLDF says that HR 2749 would give FDA the power to order a quarantine of a geographic area, including “prohibiting or restricting the movement of food or of any vehicle being used or that has been used to transport or hold such food within the geographic area.”

CU Responds: H.R. 2749 authorizes quarantine only if there is credible evidence of an imminent threat of serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals from a food item originating in a geographic region. The quarantine is limited to the area that FDA can demonstrate must be isolated in order to protect public health, and to the extent practical, it must be of limited duration.

FCLDF notes that HR 2749 charges the Secretary of Health and Human Services with establishing a tracing system for food. Each “person who produces, manufactures, processes, packs, transports, or holds such food” would have to “maintain the full pedigree of the origin and previous distribution history of the food...” Turning up the heat, Food Freedom theorizes that this could apply to every home.

CU Responds: No, it is not every home. H.R. 2749 H.R. 2749 specifically exempts food sold direct to the consumer (e.g. at a farm stand) or to a restaurant or grocery store from the tracing provisions. The bill does require FDA to issue regulations within two years to establish a system for tracing a food sold in interstate commerce back to its point of origin, whether domestic and imported food, with two days. This is needed because of the difficulty FDA currently has in identifying the source of food borne disease outbreaks. In the summer of 2008 it took the FDA months to ultimately identify and trace back Mexican peppers as the source of a salmonella outbreak that was making thousands of people sick. In addition to the specific exemptions noted above, the bill also exempts animal products, which are regulated USDA, from the tracing provisions. Finally, FDA can also exempt other processors if FDA determines that tracing their products is not necessary to protect public health.

Both FCLDF and Food Freedom complain about the creation of criminal penalties and increased fines.

CU Responds: Yes, the bill provides for criminal penalties: prison terms of up to 10 years and fines of up to $100,000 for each violation. People who sell food that they know is likely to kill or sicken people should be severely penalized. They harm the public as well as damage the business of other food producers and processors. The owner of the PCA plant shipped peanut products that he knew were contaminated and which wound up killing nine people. We believe that the penalties for such behaviors should be severe. Criminal penalties are imposed as a result of criminal prosecutions in the courts under the standard rules of federal criminal procedure.

comments (7)

1 Posted by Gman at 07/01/09 04:10 PM

How does Codex Alimentarious fit in with all of this? It sure sounds like this bill will make it much easier to commit Codex on our food supply. I don't care much for anything that makes it easier for them to implement that horrible concept.

2 Posted by Diana Barbee at 07/02/09 07:15 PM

Thank you for the clarifications! Yes, there does seem to be a lot of confusion in relation to this bill. I have received different conflicting email alerts in relation to this, from groups I usually trust, so I was concerned. I am now taking a look at the bill, and I am wondering if this bill states clearly enough who exactly will and will not be effected by these new measures? If not, perhaps this could be clarified in the bill further. One of the messages I received, which was asking folks to oppose this message, stated that this bill was not clear enough about exactly what the bill would do and who all would or would not be effected, and there seems to be a concern over who is going to oversee the FDA in relation to this? Just wondering how all of this confusion came about. Perhaps the bill is clear, but not clear enough for some folks who have not been working on this or following this closely? I am going to read the bill now.

I expect crazy ideas about things to come from some groups, but I got a message in opposition to this bill from a progressive group (not a group which would state things like Obama should go back to Kenya), which in the past has usually presented accurate information in their messages. This is not a group which exclusively focuses on food safety and consumer protection, however, but which works on a variety of progressive issues, so perhaps they are not as familiar with food safety issues as other issues, thus the confusion in this instance? I don't know, but we certainly need better food safety in this country as the rate of food contamination and food poisoning, from many sources, seems to be out of control. Thank you so much for all of your good work on this!

3 Posted by Diana Barbee at 07/02/09 07:35 PM

I buy organic, but I would prefer to have more access to organic produce which is fertilized with plant matter, compost tea, and so on, according to vegan farming principles rather than with manure. I am vegetarian and think some of these folks who are into organic animal products might not understand or know, or wish to understand, that while these products might be better than non-organic products, there are still many issues surrounding manure and not everyone is thrilled to have their food grown with manure, some folks would like to have organic produce grown under plant based methods, vegan methods, and think all of this manure being generated by all of these animal farms (organic or not, big or small farms) and being spread all over everything is really not okay, not the best practice available. Why anyone would choose to drink milk, raw or organic or otherwise, is beyond me.

Thank you for your good work on this!

4 Posted by pete at 07/07/09 02:14 PM

I'm disappointed to see CU support a bill that would allow the FDA to regulate small farmers. That certainly won't serve consumers, as the FDA has a terrible reputation of regulating anyone who is small. I expect the powerful agribusiness interests to use their power within FDA to make miserable the lives of the small farms, once FDA has control over them. Small, local farms are a consumer's best means to food safety and food continuity; whereas disruption of a small number of large food producers can cause starvation, it is much harder to disrupt thousands of small producers distributed throughout the country. I wish CU would reconsider their review of this bill from the point of view of consumers and small, local farmers (and given the tyranical reputation of the FDA).

5 Posted by KyFarmersMatter at 07/13/09 01:47 PM

Your position on the currently written HR2749 should be re-evaluated. I am a small farmer and a small food processor. This bill (as it is written) could lead to our end. Our concerns are extremely valid. Consumers should take note and take a hard look at this bill if you love your local farmers market or small butcher or small bakery or small anything. While I have no proof, I would suspect this bill is somehow related to Big Food. Please read my comments and reconsider your position on HR2749. If feel that consumers are being deceived to believe that this bill will make their food supply safer. We all want a safer food supply. This is why I am strongly opposed to this bill.

My thoughts on this bill as stated on http://nutritionwonderland.com/2009/07/food-safety-small-farm-perspective-hr2749/

Nutrition Wonderland has been covering the food safety situation in detail over the last couple months and have established a position that enhanced safety procedures are needed to protect our interconnected food system. While we feel our position is well backed by research, our coverage is based more on aggregate numbers than actual farming operations.

We have heard from some small farmers that the provisions in the latest Food Safety Enhancement Act HR 2749 will cause them great hardship. We asked a small farmer to outline the problems to educate our audience. Below is the opinion of one of these farmers [emphasis is all from Nutrition Wonderland - ed]:

Who We Are
My name is Amy Sipes-Rediess of John’s Custom Meats in Southern Kentucky. We are small cattle producers. I run a family farm with just 42 head of cattle that run on 87 acres of farmland. We have a cow-calf operation, meaning we do not bring outside livestock onto our farm. We direct sale to the public via our other “on farm” business.

John's Custom Meats - Farm and Processing Facility
We are also generational butchers. We operate a small, but extremely modern and sophisticated USDA livestock processing facility. Typically, our annual numbers would be around 1000 head per year. This would include both “custom exempt” slaughter/processing and USDA slaughter/processing for resale. We not only process for resale for ourselves, we also provide these services to other area small family farms that are direct marketing their own meats to the local public.

We are VITAL to our community. I serve over 26+ counties in Kentucky and numerous customers in bordering Tennessee. My customer base includes 1000’s, with majority being very small Kentucky family farms just trying to add value and HOLD ONTO THEIR FARMS.

Our Background
I am well educated and well respected in our community. I work directly with Kentucky Department of Agriculture, Tennessee Department of Agriculture, University of Kentucky Meat Science Dept, and have also worked with the University of Tennessee’s equivalent department. We are also strongly connected with the UK extension services in our area counties along with USDA’s rural development office.

I am fully educated and certified in the principles in HACCP. The area IIC (USDA Inspectors in Charge) come to me to get the scientific studies to back processes of other processors in the area because they do not have the access that I have.

We have our own micro laboratory in house, which I operate. We test each and every single beef carcass that passes through our doors. We are unique to the area in our advances of technology and science knowledge. Our facility is praised throughout the state among USDA themselves and bordering states.

We have fully integrated refrigeration in all corners of our facility. Our meats are never exposed to room temperatures above 41 degrees throughout the entire fabrication process. Our aging coolers maintain carcass temperatures of no greater than 30 degrees F (meats freezer point is 28 degrees F) and we also maintain proper humidity levels in these aging coolers through proper air circulation among other factors.

In addition, we purchase livestock at well over market prices from area family farms and market their meats to the public from our butcher shop. We reward them for their efforts in producing quality livestock instead of stealing from them, as is the case in commodity sales through stockyards, etc…Our community needs us.

I could go on, but you get the idea. I should also note that we do all of this with only 4 people. Yes, four.

Our Stance on The Food Safety Enhancement Act
[Adapted from Ms. Sipes-Rediess' advocacy work with the Kentucky Congressional Leaders]

I urge you to stop this Bill. It would create great hardships on small family Kentucky farms and small Kentucky food processors. While I agree that the nation’s food system has its problems, with the majority of that lying on the FDA, this bill is certainly not the answer. I firmly believe this will do the exact opposite of its intention. The hardships imposed would close multitudes of Kentucky small family farms (ours included) and small livestock processors (ours included).

In turn, this bill is putting the nation’s food supply solely in the hands of the few BIG and away from the hands of the multiple small. Historically, food contamination and recalls have been the result of the major food/meat packers/processors and not the small mom and pops of the United States.

Our facilities are typically and traditionally operated by generational craftsman and artisans; true experts in their fields. We have a direct face to face connection with our consumers and a high interest in keeping their foods safe and wholesome. While in contrast, large processors/packers are owned by foreign based companies or large multinational conglomerates with unskilled less trained laborers who never have contact with the end user of the products.

Small USDA facilities are already faced with hindering regulations and mounting fees through the government’s “one size fits all” regulation standards. There are fewer and fewer true butcher facilities in our own state with generational knowledge. Our trade has become a dying art and appears to be threatened by our own country’s pending legislation.

Alarming Provisions
1. HR 2749 would give FDA the power to order a quarantine of a geographic area, including “prohibiting or restricting the movement of food or of any vehicle being used or that has been used to transport or hold such food within the geographic area.” Under this provision, farmers markets and local food sources could be shut down, even if they are not the source of the contamination. The agency can halt all movement of all food in a geographic area.

I would like to remind all of the FDA’s tomato fiasco last year in 2008. This mishap costs America’s tomato farmers millions. What happens when they make another mistake? How many Kentucky farmers will lose their farms because of it? Just ONE single mistake by the FDA would put Kentucky’s small family farms OUT OF BUSINESS.

2. HR 2749 would empower FDA to make random warrant-less searches of the business records of small farmers and local food producers, without any evidence whatsoever that there has been a violation. Even farmers selling direct to consumers would have to provide the federal government with records on where they buy supplies, how they raise their crops, and a list of customers. While this may seem harmless to those who are not involved in agriculture or involved in FDA and/or USDA inspection, to those of us who are and truly know what occurs, this is appalling.

3. HR 2749 charges the Secretary of Health and Human Services with establishing a tracing system for food. Each “person who produces, manufactures, processes, packs, transports, or holds such food” would have to “maintain the full pedigree of the origin and previous distribution history of the food,” and “establish and maintain a system for tracing the food that is interoperable with the systems established and maintained by other such persons.” The bill does not explain how far the traceback will extend or how it will be done for multi-ingredient foods. With all these ambiguities, it’s far from clear how much it will cost either the farmers or the taxpayers.

4. HR 2749 would impose an annual registration fee of $500 on any “facility” that holds, processes, or manufactures food. Although “farms” are exempt, the agency has defined “farm” narrowly. And people making foods such as lacto-fermented vegetables, cheeses, or breads would be required to register and pay the fee, which could drive beginning and small producers out of business during difficult economic times. Each state already has it’s own set of fees for license, etc… Our own small farm and business already has (in Kentucky) fees for 5 licenses.

5. HR 2749 would empower FDA to regulate how crops are raised and harvested. It puts the federal government right on the farm, dictating to our farmers. This could be a disaster to small farms. Past regulations imposed by FDA have historically took a “one size fits all” approach. The latest ridiculous regulation of the “Enhanced Feed Ban” should be a reminder to our state of the necessity to keep Federal Government OFF of our farms. I would like to remind you of the decaying carcasses across the state that have been left to contaminate our ground water due to this ban. Also this particular ban created impossible regulations for small butchers, such as myself, that rely on the rendering companies. Our business has ceased all slaughter of cattle over the age of 2 1/2 years of age. The small farmer, once again, took a hit. A hit that has cost our state millions and our own business thousands in annual revenues.

6. HR 2749 would (at last read) impose fees for service to food processors including USDA. These fees would be a hardship on all small family food processors and meat packers. We could not absorb these fees and could not pass them along to the already struggling family farmer. It would put our business in jeopardy. Most small slaughter facilities are regulated under BOTH agencies.

7. HR 2749 would require electronic system for tracking livestock. I have personally checked the costs on this for our own farm and business. Our business would be required to have readers installed to read the electronic devices. We would be required to submit results of this tracking. This would require additional expenses for the equipment, additional time involved to scan the livestock, additional software to house and upload the data, and additional labor to maintain necessary records. Our farm, which does not currently tag our livestock (we track our livestock by unique names and identifiers) would be required to purchase tags, purchase head catches, corals, gates, etc… to facilitate the tagging, tagging guns to apply the tags, and electronic readers to read the tags, software to house the data, etc… Should this be an implant situation, who will do the implanting?? Will this be the veterinarian? Will the farm be responsible? How are rural areas to transmit the data? Have you tried to use a cell phone in rural Kentucky? It just doesn’t work.

Weak Small Farmer Provisions
Window dressing has been placed in this bill that may appear to exempt small farms from some of the tracing. The wording is contained in section 107 and is as follows:

‘(4) EXEMPTIONS-
‘(A) DIRECT SALES BY FARMS- Food is exempt from the requirements of this subsection if such food is-
‘(i) produced on a farm; and
‘(ii) sold by the owner, operator, or agent in charge of such farm directly to a consumer or restaurant.
The problem with this window dressing is that the exemption would simply not exist.

#1. It is already illegal to slaughter livestock on the farm and sell direct to the public or to a restaurant. The farmer would have to take the livestock to a processor, like myself, who would then be required to have the electronic tracking on the livestock prior to slaughter occurring.

#2. If the farmer is going to take his livestock to the stockyard for sale, the stockyard would also be required to only accept livestock with the electronic tracking system.

So basically, unless the farmer intends to keep their stock on their farm and never sale it in any form, then perhaps they would be exempt. But, then what would the purpose of raising the livestock be for the farmer?

I urge you to take a close look at this bill and vote YES to all Kentucky’s family farmers by voting NO for this bill. The result of this bill’s passage would be the direct opposite of its purpose. This bill will lessen the safety of the US food supply, not enhance it. You will be placing the nation’s food supply into the hands of the “few” largest major corporations and out of the hands of the “multiple” small family farmers and processors.

6 Posted by Diana Barbee at 07/14/09 01:17 AM

Okay. I have to read through all of those comments this last person posted, but I have been reading some other things about this food safety bill, and better understand some of this now. I also ask that Consumers Union reconsider your position in support of this bill.

Below, is one article on this out today, which is very alarming. As an environmentalist, I can not support a food safety policy which would cause further damage to the environment from farming. If the information in this article is accurate, I think you all might want to take a more interdisciplinary thinking approach to this one and get some more folks involved to help look at this issue from many angles? The FDA should be shut down, imo, and replaced with a consumer safety group. I'll never trust that organization for anything much. All consumer products should be managed under one consumer protection group, not all of these separate groups?

Crops, Ponds Destroyed in Quest for Food Safety
by Carolyn Lochhead
Monday, July 13, 2009, The San Francisco Chronicle

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/07/13

Also, I know some of the anti-gmo folks thought that that whole spinach scare a few years ago was some kind of orchestrated attack on manure and thus organics? I did not read much about that, but nothing some of these chemical companies and related entities do would surprise me anymore. I'll have to read more about all of this.

7 Posted by Harry Hamil at 07/30/09 07:25 AM

I find your analysis of the legislation to be tragically inaccurate as partially documented in the Farm-To-Consumer Legal Defense Fund's HR 2749's Real Impact: a Response to Consumers' Union (see http://www.farmtoconsumer.org/HR2749-response.htm).

As someone who has worked for 14 years reviving local agriculture in my area, I am stunned by the constant flow of incompetent self styled analysis that I receive.

The FDA has done a terrible job in its science, its procedures and, even, its written press releases in the area of food safety and this bill rewards the FDA by geometrically expanding its authority and preempting the authority of states in food safety.

This legislation was clearly constructed to support industrial agriculture's efforts to obtain national uniform regulation that small business would be seriously challenged to comply with.

Under HR 2749, my personal efforts to distribute the unsprayed blueberries of a local grower so that he can focus on growing more high quality, SAFE produce would completely subject me to the cost and requirement of complying with the FDA's regulation despite the fact that the total harvest will be sold intrastate and amounts to less than 2500 pints of blueberries.

Furthermore, the version of HR 2769 that came to the House floor on 7-29-09 did not exempt farmers selling directly so, even if the farmer sells those blueberries directly, he would have had to also comply.

CU has blown it in this case, needs to admit its error and put out accurate information so that we can get the food safety bill our country needs and that is not HR 2749.