Myths and Facts about the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009 Posted by mitcka at 07/29/09 03:05 PM

CENTER FOR SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST ◊ CONSUMER FEDERATION OF AMERICA ◊
CONSUMERS UNION ◊ FOOD & WATER WATCH

July 29, 2009

United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

RE: VOTE “YES” ON H.R. 2749, THE FOOD SAFETY ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2009

Dear Representative:

The undersigned consumer organizations, representing millions of Americans, strongly urge you to pass H.R. 2749, the bipartisan Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009 (FSEA) today on the suspension calendar, and to resist the unfounded claims of a minority of individuals who allege that this bill will harm small or sustainable farms.

The complaints of certain sustainable and organics groups are unfounded. Great pains have been taken by members on both sides of the aisle, and on several House Committees, to address concerns that have been raised about this legislation. Below, we address some of the allegations made by opponents of the bill, and the changes that have been made to the FSEA before or since the unanimous voice vote approval of the bill by the Energy and Commerce Committee on June 17, 2009:

1) Allegation: $500 registration fee for food facility burdens small and sustainable farmers.
Facts: The registration fee was originally $2,000, but was halved, and then halved again to $500, during deliberations. Since then, the bill has been further revised to include additional exemptions to the fee requirement. H.R. 2749 specifically exempts certain entities from the $500 registration fee. These exemptions include: private residences; retail food establishments; retail food establishments that process and sell directly to consumers, provided at least 51% of their sales is direct to consumer sales; and farms that include direct to consumer sales of processed items provide at least 51% of their sales is direct to consumer sales. The FDA that has argued that having a sliding scale would be difficult to administer even though some of us in the coalition support that concept.

2) Allegation: Tracing requirements onerous for farmers who sell their products primarily into the wholesale market.

Facts: H.R. 2749 does not require an electronic tracing requirement for farmers. Rather the bill takes a slow, very deliberate approach in its traceability provision. It requires the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to conduct extensive information gathering, hold public meetings, and develop pilot projects before implementing a traceability system. FDA is required to take into account the impact on farmers and coordinate with the Secretary of Agriculture in developing regulations. In addition, FDA may specifically exempt a food, farm or facility from or modify the requirements for a traceability system if the agency determines that a tracing system is unnecessary for such a food, farm of facility.

3) Allegation: FSEA contains language that can harm wildlife and biodiversity, while failing to specify the positive role that conservation practices can play to address food safety concerns.

Facts: In setting safety standards for raw agricultural commodities like fresh produce, FDA must determine that they are necessary to prevent serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals. Moreover, the bill specifically requires the agency to take into consideration “the impact of small-scale and diversified farms, and on wildlife habitat, conservation practices, [and] water-shed protection efforts.” Recent articles on harm to wildlife and biodiversity caused by food safety regulations were the result not of government regulations but private contractual agreements that companies have set up in the absence of adequate federal regulations to assure safety. FDA regulation would be done only after an open transparent process and required to consider impact on organic and small farms.

4) Allegation: FSEA fails to provide specific guidance to ensure that new food safety standards are harmonized with the National Organic Program with respect to organic farming.

Facts: In addition to the factors listed above, the FSEA requires the agency to take into consideration “organic production methods” in developing safety standards for raw agricultural commodities.

But food safety reform is not just about statistics. It is about real families who have suffered the loss of a loved one, many of whom have made the painful journey to Washington, D.C. to testify in support of food safety reform. The longer we wait for food safety reform at FDA, the more families will have to make the trip to Washington to ask for change.

Our food safety system has been in need of an overhaul for decades. The time for that reform is now. Centers for Disease Control statistics demonstrate that someone dies from foodborne illness every two hours, and children and the elderly are the most vulnerable. Do not let special interests of any kind delay this reform further. Vote “yes” on H.R. 2749 today, on the suspension calendar.

Sincerely,

Consumers Union
Consumer Federation of America
Center for Science in the Public Interest
Food and Water Watch

comments (6)

1 Posted by Harry Hamil at 07/30/09 07:49 AM

The #1 challenge of the local food movement is not supply, it is the inability to distribute high quality, SAFE food efficiently. Small, local food producers cannot access the existing distribution system due to small volume. Thus, it has to create a new distribution system. The financial cost of doing so under HR 2749 is prohibitive to those of us who have spent years accepting low income rebuilding the old, safer, more ecologically appropriate ways of raising food.

HR 2749 is primarily about big versus small.

Your statement and rebuttal of Allegation 4 shows how poor you analysis is. "Requi[ing] the agency to take into consideration 'organic production methods' in developing safety standards for raw agricultural commodities" is NOT the same as "ensur[ing] that new food safety standards are harmonized with the National Organic Program with respect to organic farming." How many times in the last 8 years have Federal agencies not actually "taken into consideration" matter that the statutes said they were to have and groups like y'all have been forced to expend tremendous time, energy and money to force them to do so?

Yesterday, a disastrous bill almost passed because of the foolishness of ignorant NGOs like y'all.

2 Posted by Michael R. Dimock at 07/30/09 12:27 PM

This chaotic fight points out 2 important problems with CU's approach: 1) The backers of the bill fail to recognize that small producers cannot participate in government processes at the same level of influence that industrial agriculture can and will participate. Therefore, in rational behavior, small producers would rather avoid any regulations that MAY impact their operations. FDA's rules related to GMOs make clear they are controlled by industry, not by pubic sentiment. Rule making at FDA will be dominated by the big industrial food companies. 2)The problem of food safety is still framed incorrectly by the bill. The key to fixing the problem is to end the industrialized concentration and processing of food. Decentralization and use of biologically appropriate production systems are the key. Natural systems for controlling bacteria harmful to humans have evolved over millions of years. Let's look carefully at natural biological control and mimic that to keep our food safe. Farmers are learning how this works with bad bugs in fields for farming systems. Ranchers are doing the same with multi-species grazing to produce meat. Food processors and packagers must learn to use a biological control paradigm and they should pay for the enforcement of any regs by themselves and in full.

3 Posted by Bill Marler at 08/02/09 11:25 PM

I may have missed it in reading the final bill - but I did not see this language:

These exemptions include: private residences; retail food establishments; retail food establishments that process and sell directly to consumers, provided at least 51% of their sales is direct to consumer sales; and farms that include direct to consumer sales of processed items provide at least 51% of their sales is direct to consumer sales.

Can you email me the section numbers?

4 Posted by Dan at 08/12/09 09:56 PM

Normally I support CU's petitions, but this one is just WRONG. Do your research CU! This bill will give former Monsanto execs that now sit at FDA, one of them is the head of food safety, the power to put small farms and organics out of business, force them to use ridiculous "science-backed" processes such as irradiation on fruits and vegetables and other big agribusiness practices and regulations that small and organic farmers don't want, and MUST NOT be subjected to. Not in my food!

The real culprits of food-borne illness outbreaks are large agribusinesses - factory farms, not small farms and organics that sell directly to consumer. Even if you are a gardener that sells at a farm stand, or a farm-stand that sells anything that qualifies as processed, you fall under this ridiculous bill. Again CU, the bill does nothing to fix the real problems at factory farms.

I would hate to have this hegemony forced on small farmers that already struggle enough, thanks to you - CU!

5 Posted by Mari at 08/17/09 04:56 PM

Hello CU,

It seems apparent that the backers of this bill, Monsanto et al, want to CONTROL the food supply,
not protect it.

There may well be some specific issues with food safety. Yet, giving the FDA even more power (hey, aren't they the same group that approves drugs that has killed thousands upon thousands of people?), does not give me any confidence here.

Sorry, the FDA needs an over-haul. Can they really be trusted anymore? I think they are too
over-shadowed and manipulated by others who are only serving their own interests.

CU, I hope you re-think and truly re-assess your position on the matter. I agree with the above posters. The measures that the FDA will impose upon the food producers will probably just about kill any natural nutrition left in food.

6 Posted by Lisa Brott at 09/03/09 06:38 PM

As an ecoli survivor, I have an interest in protecting myself and my family in the future with more regulations and inspections with this bill. I also in principle do not like big agri-business (factory farms) right next to overcrowded animals contaminating our produce, anymore than I like big box stores replacing smaller, local, personalized businesses. Americans vote for factory farms by wanting to pay the lowest prices. Let's give local producers financial incentives to be more successful and also lobby for greater food safety with this bill. It is clearly needed.