URGENT ACTION ALERT
FOOD SAFETY LEGISLATION MOVING TOWARDS SENATE VOTE
The Senate has returned home without voting on S.510, the Food Safety Modernization Act, but unfortunately the bill is still alive. Before returning home, the Senate started the process to bring S.510 to the floor for a vote, and it is likely that they will finally vote on it shortly after they re-convene on November 15.
This bill greatly expands FDAs authority over both processed foods and fresh fruits and vegetables, and would give FDA authority to impose extensive, burdensome requirements on even the smallest processing facilities and farms who sell to local consumers.
We need the Tester-Hagan amendment to protect our vulnerable local businesses!
The Senators are back in their home States for the election season. This is an important time to publicize this issue and get their commitment to support the Tester-Hagan amendment!
ACTION TO TAKE
1) Contact your Senators local office. You can find your Senators contact information at www.Senate.gov . Call and ask them if the Senator will be attending any events near you, so that you can meet with them.
Urge your Senators to:
a)Support the Tester-Hagan amendment to exempt small-scale, local producers, AND
b)Oppose the addition of criminal penalties unless there is actual harm to human health
2)Educate your community by writing a letter to the editor. See the sample below
SAMPLE LETTER TO THE EDITOR
NOTE: It is VERY important to write your own, personal letter to the editor. Newspapers will NOT print form letters! The letter below is simply to provide you with some ideas. Remember to keep your letter short (100-150 words) and try to connect it with you, your family, and/or your community.
Dear Editor:
The U.S. Senate is likely to vote on a Food Safety bill (S. 510) when it reconvenes after the election. Unfortunately, as the bill is currently written, small local farms and processing facilities will come under a sweeping new industrial regulatory standard that threatens to put many of them out of the food business. These small producers provide food for our local community through CSAs, farmers markets, and local co-ops.
Sen. Jon Tester (MT), with Sen. Kay Hagan (NC), has an amendment to exempt small, direct-marketing farms and facilities. This amendment is critical to protecting local food systems and giving consumers a choice to buy fresh local products. It would be counter-productive and deeply disturbing if a bill designed to curb the abuses of Big Agribusiness snuffs out local food businesses as an "unintended consequence." Please call your Senators to urge them to vote for the Tester-Hagan amendment.
Signed,
Name
City, State
MORE INFORMATION
All of the well-publicized incidents of contamination in recent years including the recent egg recall occurred in industrialized food supply chains that span national and even international boundaries. The food safety problems in this system can and should be addressed without harming the local food systems that provide an alternative for consumers.
The growing trend toward healthy, fresh, locally sourced vegetables, fruit, dairy, and value-added products improves food safety by providing the opportunity for consumers to know their farmers and processors, to choose products on the basis of that relationship, and to readily trace any problems should they occur.
Farmers and processors who sell directly to consumers and end users have a direct relationship with their customers that ensures quality, safety, transparency and accountability. In addition, small-scale food producers are already regulated by local and state authorities, and the potential risk their products pose is inherently limited by their size. For these farmers and processors, new federal requirements are unnecessary and would simply harm both the food producers and their consumers.
Although S. 510 includes some provisions for flexibility for small and diversified producers and processors, the bills new hazard analysis and risk-based preventive controls would affect these facilities and authorize FDA to dictate growing and harvesting practices for produce. These requirements will impose significant expenses and burdens on individuals and small businesses.
Below are answers to some of the frequently asked questions.
QUESTION: What would S.510 do to farmers?
S.510 authorizes FDA to issue standards for production and harvesting of fruits and vegetables. Given the agencys track record, it is likely that the regulations will discriminate against small, organic, and diversified farms. While the bill directs FDA to consider the impact of its rulemaking on small-scale and diversified farms, there are few enforceable limits to protect small, sustainable farms from inappropriate and burdensome federal rules.
The only enforceable limit is that FDA's new regulations cannot contradict the regulations for certified organic producers. But many local food producers are not certified organic. And even certified organic can still be subject to additional regulations by FDA imposing impractical or unfair burdens, so long as the regulations dont directly contradict the organic regulations.
The Tester-Hagan amendment would exempt farms that have gross sales under $500,000 and that sell more than half of their produce directly to consumers and other qualified end users such as local restaurants and local stores.
QUESTION: Are direct marketing farms exempt from the bill?
No, direct-marketing farmers are not exempt from the produce safety standards. Under the bill as currently written, all farmers raising produce are subject to the produce safety standards (section 105 of the bill), regardless of how they market their fruits and vegetables.
The Tester-Hagan amendment is needed to protect direct marketing produce farmers from being told how to grow and harvest their crops by FDA bureaucrats.
QUESTION: What does S.510 require of people who process food?
Under S.510, anyone who processes food for sale would have to comply with extensive new regulations over every step of its process. This includes people who make such things as jam, bread, and cheese for local markets. S. 510 would require that all facilities would have to comply with a Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based Preventative Controls, which would require:
--Hazard analysis: Identify and evaluate known or reasonable hazards and develop written analysis of the hazards.
--Preventive Controls: Identify and implement preventive controls, to provide assurances that hazards indentified will be significantly minimized and prevented.
--Monitor effectiveness of the preventive controls.
--Establish procedures that a facility would implement if the preventive controls are found to be ineffective through monitoring.
--Verify that the preventive controls are adequate; that monitoring is in accordance with 103(d); that the owner is making appropriate decisions about corrective actions under 103(e); that the preventive controls are effectively and significantly minimizing or preventing the occurrence of identified hazards, including the use of environmental and product testing programs; that there is documented, periodic reanalysis of the plan to ensure that it is still relevant.
--Recordkeeping: Maintain, for not less than two years, records documenting the monitoring of the preventive controls implemented, instances of nonconformance, the results of testing, instances of corrective actions, and the efficacy of preventive controls.
--Written plan and documentation: Prepare a written plan that documents and describes the procedures used by the facility to comply with the requirements of this section, including analyzing the hazards under subsection 103(b) and identifying the preventive controls adopted under subsection 103(c) to address those hazards.
All of this would be subject to FDA approval, inspections, and fees for re-inspection. The paperwork burdens would drive many small-scale processors out of business.
The Tester-Hagan amendment would exempt processors that have gross sales under $500,000 and that sell more than half of their products directly to consumers and other qualified end users such as local restaurants and local stores. The amendment also exempts very small businesses, to be defined by FDA.
QUESTION: I heard that S.510 doesnt require anyone to register who isnt already required to do so. Is that true?
Technically, S.510 does not change the law on registration. But, in practical terms, there are thousands of small-scale processors who are not even aware that they have to register who will now be subject to extensive new requirements.
In 2002, Congress required all food facilities to register with the FDA under the Public Health Security and Bioterrrorism Preparedness and Bioterrorism Response Act of 2002. The rationale for such a sweeping federal reach into the smallest of food facilities was national security and bioterrorism.
While S.510 does not add new registration requirements, the reality is that there are many small-scale facilities that have not registered and are probably unaware that they are required to do so. FDA estimates that there are 37,000 facilities that have not yet registered.
In addition, S. 510 superimposes a significant regulatory burden on all of those facilities, regardless of the need from a food safety perspective. It is one thing to require a small-scale processor to register with the FDA; it is entirely different to require that small-scale processor to comply with extensive regulations on every step of its business. Small-scale producer and facilities that sell direct to consumers are inherently transparent and accountable and do not require federal oversight. Such facilities are already sufficiently regulated by state and local authorities.
QUESTION: Are direct marketing food processors exempt from the bill?
It depends. Based on FDAs guidance documents, food processors who market directly to individual consumers might be exempt from the requirements for HACCP-type programs. But the language is far from clear.
The bills provisions for facilities are dependent on the definition of facility under the 2002 Bioterrorism Act, which exempted retail food establishments from being categorized as facilities, but did not define the term. FDAs definition of the term does not address the majority of our local food producers. The specific examples of retail food establishments are establishments such as grocery stores, convenience stores, and vending machine locations. Not only are farmers markets, farm stands, and CSAs not listed, but they may not qualify because they typically sell food at a different physical location than where the food is held, packed, or processed. Consider the typical example of a small-scale processor who buys local ingredients and makes jams, breads, cheeses, etc. to sell at the farmers market. It may be that the farmers market itself qualifies as a "retail food establishment" -- but the commercial kitchen where the goods were prepared would not qualify, because the main purpose of that location is to process food, not sell to consumers. Different physical locations may mean different requirements under the FDAs definitions.
In addition, the current definitions specifically limit the exemption to producers who sell directly to individual consumers. It excludes producers who sell directly to end users such as restaurants, local grocers, and schools. So many food producers who provide healthy, safe foods to these institutions would be subject to the extensive new regulations under S.510.
The Tester Hagan amendment would do two things: (1) it would clarify that people selling directly to individual consumers are exempt, even if the physical location of the sale is different from the physical location of the processing; and (2) it would add a new exemption for processors who gross less than $500,000 and who sell directly to both individual consumers and other end-users such as local restaurants and local stores.
QUESTION: Does S. 510 help small farmers and local food producers?
No. The bill does include provisions to try to reduce the burdens that will be imposed on small producers, such as providing for longer deadlines for compliance and directing FDA to consider various issues facing organic farms and small businesses. But none of these actually prevent FDA from imposing new, burdensome requirements. The provisions essentially tell FDA to be nice to local food producers, but do not create enforceable limits on the agency's power.
IN SUMMARY: The Tester-Hagan amendment is a reasonable way to protect small-scale businesses from overly burdensome and unnecessary regulations, and thus also protect consumers options to buy from local producers whom they trust.
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Monday, September 27, 2010
Organic Valley's Anti-Raw Milk Policy
This just in from the Weston A. Price society:
INFORMATION UPDATE
ORGANIC VALLEYS ANTI-RAW MILK POLICY
Dear Members,
As many of you may have already heard, the CROPP cooperative, producer of dairy products and other foodstuffs under the Organic Valley (OV) and Organic Prairie labels, voted at their May 13 board meeting to prohibit any of the CROPP farmer members from selling raw milk as a side business. The vote was a close onefour in favor, three againstreflecting the division of opinion among the CROPP board members themselves. After the Board vote, the cooperative took the decision to their Dairy Executive Committee (DEC) for further discussion and another vote. The result was a split, 20 votes in favor and 20 against. This policy is to take effect January 1, 2011.
We at WAPF did not immediately publicize this new policy, instead writing privately to CROPP CEO George Siemon and the members of the board, urging them to reconsider and take the issue back to the board for further discussion and another vote. In our letter, we addressed some of what we felt were misguided issues that led to the cooperatives anti-raw milk stance, such as potential liability to CROPP and marketplace competition, pointing out that these were grossly inflated and not legitimate concerns; we noted the potential downside to CROPPs reputation as a supporter of family farms; and, most importantly, we pointed out that the new policy would impose severe economic hardship on many farmers, farmers the co-op was founded to protect. (For a discussion and rebuttal of CROPPs concerns about raw milk, see below.)
Many of CROPPs farmers have high levels of debt, and they have, over the past few years, faced new financial burdens with lower pay prices and quotas that CROPP had in place for the past yearin some cases amounting to a 30 percent reduction in income. Their financial situation is recovering somewhat now, but many are challenged to make up for past losses.
Many of their farmers had active raw milk businesses established before they even joined the cooperative, many operating in states where the enterprise is unquestionably legal. Others developed raw milk customers after their incomes droppedallowing these farms to remain solvent. The new policy will force these farmers to choose between remaining a CROPP member or selling raw milk exclusively, either of which will likely lead to severe financial stress or even bankruptcy and possible loss of the family farm.
Despite our grave concerns, I received a response from George Siemon dated June 21, 2010, stating that the anti-raw milk policy would remain in effect. In the letter, Siemon insisted that CROPP is not against raw milk, and that we are standing on the same side of the river in supporting organic and local food, agricultural reform and corporate reform.
Is that true? CROPP did indeed start small, as a local cooperative of just a few dozen vegetable farmers, the Coulee Region Organic Produce Pool. The co-ops seven dairy producers soon branched out from produce to include cheese and eventually other dairy products. Unfortunately, in so doing, they opted for the industrial model. Instead of producing what consumers were asking fordairy products as natural as possible, such as low-temperature, non-homogenized milkCROPP chose to market ultra-high temperature (UHT), homogenized industrial-style milk and cream. (UHT processing takes milk to 230 degrees F, way above the boiling point, thereby killing every enzyme and immune-supporting factor in the milk.) When they branched out into eggs, they chose the industrial organic confinement model, instead of pastured poultry, something their grass-based farmers were perfectly positioned to do. Their raw cheese is actually heated to above 150 degrees. They also sell an Organic Valley brand of soy milk.
We then further delayed making any announcement about the OV decision because we were working behind the scenes with representatives of the co-op, and hoping that OV would reconsider. However, at their most recent board meeting, the board voted 7-0 that raw milk sales by their producers must not exceed 1 percent of their volume, and must be limited to family, friends and neighbors. While some board members have insisted that this anti-raw milk policy will not be enforced, we hear from others in the organization that OV is planning to strenuously enforce the policy.
In any event, for the average OV farmer, 1 percent is probably about three to six gallons per day, so the updated policy merely puts a gloss on the original anti-raw milk stance. The new policy will mean that thousands of consumers who need raw milk for their own and their childrens health will no longer be able to obtain it.
Ironically, the $12 billion dairy industry giant, Dean Foods, which owns the Horizon Organic label, the largest conventional and organic dairy producer in the United States, has specifically stated that its farmers are free to sell or provide raw milk on the side. Dean Foods/Horizon the good guys and Organic Valley hurting family farmersthis picture seems upside down.
This isn't the first time CROPP seems to have lost its bearings. A couple of years ago, the management opted to buy some of their milk from a 7200-cow industrial dairy located in an arid part of Texas, until some of their farmer-members found out and put an end to the lunacyboth their farmers and consumers saw the move as a violation of trust. Organic Valley has always represented itself as being pro-family farmertheir management shouldn't need to be reminded that a 7200-cow dairy is not a family farm!
Just as in the case of buying from factory farms, we hope CROPP farmer leadership will come to their senses and rescind their destructive anti-raw milk policy.
The unfortunate decision by the CROPP board should galvanize all of us to renew our efforts to purchase as much of our food as possible directly from local farmers; if your only choice for dairy foods and eggs is the local health food store or cooperative, make a point of purchasing from the local dairy producers listed in our Shopping Guide. Farmer-friendly brands such as Natural by Nature and farmstead dairy producers such as Traders Point Creamery, among many others, are highly rated in The Cornucopia Institute's organic dairy scorecard (ratings of all 120 organic brands www.cornucopia.org) and deserve our food dollars. Another good choice is to purchase raw grass-fed butter from one of our many advertisers in Wise Traditions and have it shipped to you.
If the farm family you get your raw milk from faces the dilemma of choosing between CROPP and direct raw milk sales, please express your support for them and do everything you can to help them choose the latter. You can help them build their customer base, reduce their expenses by offering help on the farm, and even provide the funding and financial advice they may desperately need to make the transition. The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund can help assist with advice and model cow-share and herd-share agreements.
If you feel betrayed by a cooperative that you had always considered to be an ally, you can also visit their website, www.organicvalley.coop, and let them know how you feel. Maybe if they hear from enough of us, they will realize the damage they are doing to their brands reputation. Please consider forwarding this message to your friends and family members who might also want to convey their feelings to Organic Valley management.
Above all, lets all make the pledge to vote with our pocketbooks in support of small farmers and artisan producers instead of large commercial dairy interests that put their profits before the interests of the hard-working farmers who produce their milk and other commodities.
Sincerely yours,
Sally Fallon Morell, President
The Weston A. Price Foundation
ORGANIC VALLEYS ANTI-RAW MILK POLICY
Dear Members,
As many of you may have already heard, the CROPP cooperative, producer of dairy products and other foodstuffs under the Organic Valley (OV) and Organic Prairie labels, voted at their May 13 board meeting to prohibit any of the CROPP farmer members from selling raw milk as a side business. The vote was a close onefour in favor, three againstreflecting the division of opinion among the CROPP board members themselves. After the Board vote, the cooperative took the decision to their Dairy Executive Committee (DEC) for further discussion and another vote. The result was a split, 20 votes in favor and 20 against. This policy is to take effect January 1, 2011.
We at WAPF did not immediately publicize this new policy, instead writing privately to CROPP CEO George Siemon and the members of the board, urging them to reconsider and take the issue back to the board for further discussion and another vote. In our letter, we addressed some of what we felt were misguided issues that led to the cooperatives anti-raw milk stance, such as potential liability to CROPP and marketplace competition, pointing out that these were grossly inflated and not legitimate concerns; we noted the potential downside to CROPPs reputation as a supporter of family farms; and, most importantly, we pointed out that the new policy would impose severe economic hardship on many farmers, farmers the co-op was founded to protect. (For a discussion and rebuttal of CROPPs concerns about raw milk, see below.)
Many of CROPPs farmers have high levels of debt, and they have, over the past few years, faced new financial burdens with lower pay prices and quotas that CROPP had in place for the past yearin some cases amounting to a 30 percent reduction in income. Their financial situation is recovering somewhat now, but many are challenged to make up for past losses.
Many of their farmers had active raw milk businesses established before they even joined the cooperative, many operating in states where the enterprise is unquestionably legal. Others developed raw milk customers after their incomes droppedallowing these farms to remain solvent. The new policy will force these farmers to choose between remaining a CROPP member or selling raw milk exclusively, either of which will likely lead to severe financial stress or even bankruptcy and possible loss of the family farm.
Despite our grave concerns, I received a response from George Siemon dated June 21, 2010, stating that the anti-raw milk policy would remain in effect. In the letter, Siemon insisted that CROPP is not against raw milk, and that we are standing on the same side of the river in supporting organic and local food, agricultural reform and corporate reform.
Is that true? CROPP did indeed start small, as a local cooperative of just a few dozen vegetable farmers, the Coulee Region Organic Produce Pool. The co-ops seven dairy producers soon branched out from produce to include cheese and eventually other dairy products. Unfortunately, in so doing, they opted for the industrial model. Instead of producing what consumers were asking fordairy products as natural as possible, such as low-temperature, non-homogenized milkCROPP chose to market ultra-high temperature (UHT), homogenized industrial-style milk and cream. (UHT processing takes milk to 230 degrees F, way above the boiling point, thereby killing every enzyme and immune-supporting factor in the milk.) When they branched out into eggs, they chose the industrial organic confinement model, instead of pastured poultry, something their grass-based farmers were perfectly positioned to do. Their raw cheese is actually heated to above 150 degrees. They also sell an Organic Valley brand of soy milk.
We then further delayed making any announcement about the OV decision because we were working behind the scenes with representatives of the co-op, and hoping that OV would reconsider. However, at their most recent board meeting, the board voted 7-0 that raw milk sales by their producers must not exceed 1 percent of their volume, and must be limited to family, friends and neighbors. While some board members have insisted that this anti-raw milk policy will not be enforced, we hear from others in the organization that OV is planning to strenuously enforce the policy.
In any event, for the average OV farmer, 1 percent is probably about three to six gallons per day, so the updated policy merely puts a gloss on the original anti-raw milk stance. The new policy will mean that thousands of consumers who need raw milk for their own and their childrens health will no longer be able to obtain it.
Ironically, the $12 billion dairy industry giant, Dean Foods, which owns the Horizon Organic label, the largest conventional and organic dairy producer in the United States, has specifically stated that its farmers are free to sell or provide raw milk on the side. Dean Foods/Horizon the good guys and Organic Valley hurting family farmersthis picture seems upside down.
This isn't the first time CROPP seems to have lost its bearings. A couple of years ago, the management opted to buy some of their milk from a 7200-cow industrial dairy located in an arid part of Texas, until some of their farmer-members found out and put an end to the lunacyboth their farmers and consumers saw the move as a violation of trust. Organic Valley has always represented itself as being pro-family farmertheir management shouldn't need to be reminded that a 7200-cow dairy is not a family farm!
Just as in the case of buying from factory farms, we hope CROPP farmer leadership will come to their senses and rescind their destructive anti-raw milk policy.
The unfortunate decision by the CROPP board should galvanize all of us to renew our efforts to purchase as much of our food as possible directly from local farmers; if your only choice for dairy foods and eggs is the local health food store or cooperative, make a point of purchasing from the local dairy producers listed in our Shopping Guide. Farmer-friendly brands such as Natural by Nature and farmstead dairy producers such as Traders Point Creamery, among many others, are highly rated in The Cornucopia Institute's organic dairy scorecard (ratings of all 120 organic brands www.cornucopia.org) and deserve our food dollars. Another good choice is to purchase raw grass-fed butter from one of our many advertisers in Wise Traditions and have it shipped to you.
If the farm family you get your raw milk from faces the dilemma of choosing between CROPP and direct raw milk sales, please express your support for them and do everything you can to help them choose the latter. You can help them build their customer base, reduce their expenses by offering help on the farm, and even provide the funding and financial advice they may desperately need to make the transition. The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund can help assist with advice and model cow-share and herd-share agreements.
If you feel betrayed by a cooperative that you had always considered to be an ally, you can also visit their website, www.organicvalley.coop, and let them know how you feel. Maybe if they hear from enough of us, they will realize the damage they are doing to their brands reputation. Please consider forwarding this message to your friends and family members who might also want to convey their feelings to Organic Valley management.
Above all, lets all make the pledge to vote with our pocketbooks in support of small farmers and artisan producers instead of large commercial dairy interests that put their profits before the interests of the hard-working farmers who produce their milk and other commodities.
Sincerely yours,
Sally Fallon Morell, President
The Weston A. Price Foundation
Friday, September 17, 2010
Urgent Action Alert on S510 Food Safety Legislation
Although it has been delayed many times, the Food Safety Modernization Act (S.510) continues to be a threat. This bill greatly expands FDAs authority over both processed foods and fresh fruits and vegetables, and would give FDA authority to impose extensive, burdensome requirements on even the smallest processing facilities and farms who sell to local consumers.
While the latest version of the bill included some provisions for flexibility and scale-sensitivity, the provisions do not go far enough to protect the small-scale local food businesses that could be destroyed by the new federal regulations.
Take Action:
S.510 could be voted on in the next couple of weeks without much notice. So the time to call your Senators is NOW!
You can find your Senators contact information at www.Senate.gov or by calling the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121 or toll-free at 877-210-5351. When you call your Senators offices, ask to speak to the staffer who handles food safety issues, and tell them these two things:
1) Support the Tester-Hagan amendment to exempt small-scale, direct marketing farms and facilities from some of the most burdensome portions of the bill. This common-sense amendment is critical to protecting local food sources.
2) Oppose criminal penalties for violations that do not endanger human health or safety: Although it is unclear, there may also be an amendment introduced to combine S.3767 (introduced by Senator Leahy) with S.510, which would create criminal penalties for knowingly introducing adulterated or misbranded food into interstate commerce. Adulterated or misbranded food could mean simply that the farmer or producer did not have all his paperwork in order or made a technical violation of some kind that does not endanger human health or safety.
Special Action for OKLAHOMA residents
Senator Coburn is blocking the passage of S.510 by unanimous consent, and has raised a lot of very good objections to the bill. Please call and THANK HIM for taking this stand. Call his DC office at 202-224-5754. You can read Senator Coburns statement at:
http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/rightnow?ContentRecord_id=8df5cb89-91a2-4ae3-b846-7487db0bd4f0
SAMPLE EMAIL
Dear Senator ________:
As you consider sweeping new federal food safety legislation (S. 510, the Food Safety Modernization Act), please vote in support of common sense amendments offered by Senators Tester and Hagan to exempt small-scale direct marketing processing facilities from federal hazard analysis and control regulations and to exempt small-scale direct marketing farms from the produce safety standards. Local and state health and sanitation laws are enough for producers selling into local markets. These small-scale producers do not need and many may not survive new federal regulations.
In August, half a billion eggs were recalled to try to prevent the spread of salmonella that had originated on two related farms in Iowa. Those two farms had sold eggs under at least 25 different labels in 12 different states! The recall is symptomatic of the industrialized food system characterized by mega-farms and long, complex supply chains and distribution systems. This food system needs reform.
But without Senators Tester's and Hagans common sense amendment to S. 510, the bill actually hurts food safety by imposing FDA regulation on the local food businesses who provide consumers with an alternative to the industrialized food system. More and more people are seeking out local producers to buy fresh, wholesome foods from people they trust, and they dont need or want FDA to interfere.
I urge you to vote FOR the Tester-Hagan Amendment to S. 510!
I also urge you to vote against any attempt to create criminal penalties for adulterated or misbranded food. These terms as defined in S.510 could include minor technical violations that harm no one. Criminal violations should be limited to those who knowingly cause serious harm to human health or safety.
Signed,
Your name and state
***
While the latest version of the bill included some provisions for flexibility and scale-sensitivity, the provisions do not go far enough to protect the small-scale local food businesses that could be destroyed by the new federal regulations.
Take Action:
S.510 could be voted on in the next couple of weeks without much notice. So the time to call your Senators is NOW!
You can find your Senators contact information at www.Senate.gov or by calling the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121 or toll-free at 877-210-5351. When you call your Senators offices, ask to speak to the staffer who handles food safety issues, and tell them these two things:
1) Support the Tester-Hagan amendment to exempt small-scale, direct marketing farms and facilities from some of the most burdensome portions of the bill. This common-sense amendment is critical to protecting local food sources.
2) Oppose criminal penalties for violations that do not endanger human health or safety: Although it is unclear, there may also be an amendment introduced to combine S.3767 (introduced by Senator Leahy) with S.510, which would create criminal penalties for knowingly introducing adulterated or misbranded food into interstate commerce. Adulterated or misbranded food could mean simply that the farmer or producer did not have all his paperwork in order or made a technical violation of some kind that does not endanger human health or safety.
Special Action for OKLAHOMA residents
Senator Coburn is blocking the passage of S.510 by unanimous consent, and has raised a lot of very good objections to the bill. Please call and THANK HIM for taking this stand. Call his DC office at 202-224-5754. You can read Senator Coburns statement at:
http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/rightnow?ContentRecord_id=8df5cb89-91a2-4ae3-b846-7487db0bd4f0
SAMPLE EMAIL
Dear Senator ________:
As you consider sweeping new federal food safety legislation (S. 510, the Food Safety Modernization Act), please vote in support of common sense amendments offered by Senators Tester and Hagan to exempt small-scale direct marketing processing facilities from federal hazard analysis and control regulations and to exempt small-scale direct marketing farms from the produce safety standards. Local and state health and sanitation laws are enough for producers selling into local markets. These small-scale producers do not need and many may not survive new federal regulations.
In August, half a billion eggs were recalled to try to prevent the spread of salmonella that had originated on two related farms in Iowa. Those two farms had sold eggs under at least 25 different labels in 12 different states! The recall is symptomatic of the industrialized food system characterized by mega-farms and long, complex supply chains and distribution systems. This food system needs reform.
But without Senators Tester's and Hagans common sense amendment to S. 510, the bill actually hurts food safety by imposing FDA regulation on the local food businesses who provide consumers with an alternative to the industrialized food system. More and more people are seeking out local producers to buy fresh, wholesome foods from people they trust, and they dont need or want FDA to interfere.
I urge you to vote FOR the Tester-Hagan Amendment to S. 510!
I also urge you to vote against any attempt to create criminal penalties for adulterated or misbranded food. These terms as defined in S.510 could include minor technical violations that harm no one. Criminal violations should be limited to those who knowingly cause serious harm to human health or safety.
Signed,
Your name and state
***
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)