Help Preserve the Right to Raise Free Range Poultry

From the Weston A. Price Foundation:
Help Preserve the Right to Raise Free Range Poultry

After initially outlawing raising domestic Muscovy ducks, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) still wants to regulate those that raise domestic Muscovy ducks as livestock, and to ban outright keeping domestic Muscovy ducks as pets.

Muscovy ducks have a long history of domestication dating back to the 1500s. This history of domestication is very similar to that of the turkey. Domestic Muscovy ducks are livestock and have been raised as livestock around the world for hundreds of years.

The public comment period for the most recently revised proposed regulations ended Dec. 31, 2010. The FWS has received numerous public comments insisting that domestic Muscovy ducks are livestock, and therefore not subject to regulation by the FWS. We have been informed that the FWS is considering revising the proposed rule again, but this time exempting domestic Muscovy ducks from any regulation.

ACTION TO TAKE
Letters and e-mails to both Dr Allen at the FWS, and to your elected representatives will help assure that the FWS does exempt domestic Muscovy ducks.

CONTACT INFO

Dr. George Allen at the Fish & Wildlife Service: George_T_Allen@fws.gov

Your congressperson: https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

Your senator: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm


SAMPLE LETTER

I am contacting you in regard to the proposed regulations by the Fish and Wildlife Service regarding Muscovy ducks (Docket No. FWS-R9-MB-2010-0037), urging you not to propose any additional restrictions on raising Muscovy ducks.

The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has failed to recognize the long history of the domestic Muscovy as livestock. Domestic Muscovy ducks have been raised as livestock since the 1500s. As livestock they should not be subject to U S Fish and Wildlife regulations.

The U S Fish and Wildlife Service should recognize a distinction between wild Muscovy ducks and the domestic Muscovy ducks that have been raised as livestock all across the world for hundreds of years.

It is my understanding that the problems with feral Muscovy ducks that prompted these regulations are, for the most part, limited to Florida and possibly Chicago. Considering our country's current budget deficits, why would the FWS propose new regulations that have to be implemented and enforced all across the United States?

I see no problem with the portion of the rules (21.54 Control order for muscovy ducks in the United States) that allows localities to control feral populations of Muscovies that have become a problem. There does not appear to be any conflict between this control order and recognizing domestic Muscovies as livestock and exempting them from this regulation.
I strongly urge the FWS to limit their revision of 21.14 (Permit exceptions for captive-bred migratory waterfowl other than mallard ducks) to include only following:
1) Domestic Muscovy ducks have a long history of domestication and have long been raised as livestock both in the United States and around the world. Muscovy ducks that are owned as livestock (for the production of meat, eggs, or breeding stock), pets, or for exhibition shall be considered domestic Muscovy ducks.

2) No migratory bird permit(s) shall be required to possess, propagate, or sell (as live birds, meat, or eggs) domestic Muscovy ducks.

3) The intentional release of domestic Muscovy ducks to the wild shall be prohibited.

4) You may not take Muscovy ducks or their eggs from the wild , unless such taking is provided for elsewhere in this subchapter.

5) 21.54 Control order for muscovy ducks in the United States shall remain in effect without revision.

Do not place any additional restrictions on domestic Muscovy ducks!

Sincerely,


****

Food Safety Bill Fight Continues

UPDATE:  FOOD SAFETY BILL FIGHT CONTINUES

Last week, the Senate passed S510, the Food Safety Modernization Act, with the Tester-Hagan amendment.  Almost immediately, members of the House of Representatives raised objections that S510 includes provisions for user fees, which they argued were revenue raising provisions that violated the Constitutional requirement that all tax provisions originate in the House.

No one in the Senate apparently noticed this problem, yet unnamed House members supposedly spotted it within hours.  Other bills that have originated in the Senate have included user fees and passed without objection.  There may be Constitutional problems with the provisions, but it also may be a maneuver to stall the bill in order to make changes.

With the clock ticking on the lame duck session, the procedural objections might finally kill this bill.  But don't count on it!  The SAME day that the procedural objections were announced, Agribusiness lobby groups sent letters urging House members to conference S510 with HR 2749 (the House version), for the single specific purpose of stripping out the Tester-Hagan amendment.  Until the procedural objections were raised, the House leadership had pledged to bring S510 to a vote without conferencing the bills.  It's suspicious that the Agribusiness groups were prepared to immediately take advantage of the delay to try to remove the protections of the Tester-Hagan amendment.
  
To quote from Agribusiness: one letter was signed by produce industry groups, which represent the majority of fresh fruits and vegetables sold in the United States, while the second letter was sent by organizations that represent the vast majority of growers, producers, shippers, distributors, processors, packers, and wholesalers. In other words, these lobby groups represent the industrial food system that has been the source of the problems.  Yet they are working to convince House members to impose the same regulations on local farmers market producers as on their huge corporate operations.

To be clear, we dont think S.510 is a good bill even with the Tester-Hagan amendment.  It increases FDA's power, which will undoubtedly lead to even more battles between FDA and local food producers and consumers.  FDA has abused the powers it already has, and that will almost certainly continue, with or without this bill.  But as bad as the bill is now, it would be even worse without the amendment.

Agribusiness's real concern about the Tester-Hagan amendment isn't food safety, but the precedent set by having Congress recognize that small, direct-marketing producers are different, and should be regulated differently, from the large Agribusinesses.

TAKE ACTION

Please CALL or EMAIL your Congressman!  You can call the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 or go to http://www.house.gov/htbin/zipfind  to find their website (if the phone lines are busy, the best way to reach them is through the Contact page on their website)

Message: My name is ____, and I am a constituent who is concerned that FDA will abuse its new authority under the food safety bill to hurt small farmers and local food producers.  IF the food safety bill passes, it's critical that it at least include the Tester-Hagan amendment to protect small-scale producers from the regulations for hazard analysis plans and growing and harvesting standards.  And whether this bill passes or not, I want my Congressman to take steps to rein in the FDA's abuses, through limiting appropriations and overseeing the agency's rulemaking.  I would like to talk with you more about this, please call me back at ________.

MORE INFORMATION

The structure and language of the Tester-Hagan amendment is complex because every piece of this amendment was fiercely fought by the opponents.  To be understood, the amendment needs to be read in the context of S510 and the existing background law, including the 2002 Bioterrorism Act.  

Here are some of the key provisions of the amendment:

*  For farmers selling fresh fruits and vegetables: if the producer grosses under half a million dollars, adjusted for inflation, and sells at least half of their produce directly to qualified end users (see below), then the farmer is exempt from the produce safety standards (i.e. regulations in which FDA would tell farmers how to grow and harvest their crops).  See pages 16-19 of the amendment.  Note that the FDA has already started working on these growing and harvesting standards, and claims that the existing law -- without S510 or Tester-Hagan -- gives it authority to impose the standards on ALL farmers.

* For farmers and producers who sell processed or value-added foods: if they sell more than half of their products directly to individual consumers, they do not have to register with the FDA nor develop a hazard analysis plan.  This is due to the provision entitled clarification of intent that directs FDA how to define retail food establishments, see pages 1-2 of the amendment.

* For farmers and producers who sell processed or value-added foods, but do not sell more than half of their products directly to individual consumers: they are ALREADY under a legal requirement to register with the FDA due to the 2002 Bioterrorism Act.  The Tester-Hagan amendment provides that these producers can avoid having to comply with S510s extensive requirements for hazard analysis plans by:

1)  Submitting documentation that they gross under half a million dollars, adjusted for inflation, and sell more than half their products directly to qualified end users (see below), and

2)  EITHER providing documentation that they comply with state and local laws  such as a copy of their commercial kitchen license  OR preparing a simplified hazard plan.  See pages 5-6 (the or is found on line 4 of page 6)

* Qualified end users are (a) individual consumers, WITHOUT any restriction on their location or proximity to the producer, and (b) restaurants and retail food establishments that are either in-state OR within 275 miles.  The farmers and producers will NOT have to ask individual consumers where they come from.  See pages 7-8 & 18.

* The $500,000 limit on the exemptions is adjusted for inflation.  See page 5, lines 13-14, and page 16, line 12

* The amendment also directs FDA to conduct a study that would, for the first time, look at the issues of scale and type of processes in relation to foodborne illness. The directive to do a study is the first attempt to get data to show that smaller-scale producers who don't commingle their products and who do less processing and transportation produce safer food.  The bill does NOT mandate that any individual person hand over the information to the government.  The FDA is also directed to use the results of the study to define very small businesses that will also be exempt from the hazard analysis plan requirements.  

You can read the Tester-Hagan amendment for yourself at http://tester.senate.gov/Legislation/upload/tester_amendment_agreement.pdf

Update on Food Safety Legislation

Agribusiness shows its true colors!

Last week, the Senate voted 74-25 to move to consideration of S.510, the Food Safety Modernization Act.  After thirty hours of debate and behind-the-scenes negotiations, the Senators released a final Managers Amendment that includes a compromise version of the Tester-Hagan amendment.  Thank you to all our members who have called and written over the last several months to help protect local foods!

But even though an agreement was reached on the Tester-Hagan amendment last week, the issue is still not over.  The final vote on the bill has been delayed until Monday, November 29, due to disagreements over amendments relating to the health care bill and a ban on earmarks.  And, in the meantime, Agribusiness has shown its true colors.

For over a year, the big Agribusiness trade organizations have supported passage of S.510.  From Agribusinesss perspective, the bill was a win-win: they could absorb the costs of the regulations because of their size; they'd gain good PR for supposedly improving food safety practices; and the competition created by local food producers, which is rapidly growing, would be crushed by the regulatory burdens.

This was only speculation until now.  But when the Senators agreed to include the Tester-Hagan amendment in the bill, to exempt small-scale direct-marketing producers from some of the most burdensome provisions, twenty Agribusiness trade organizations fired off a letter stating that they would now oppose the bill.

The letter from the Agribusiness groups states: [B]y incorporating the Tester amendment in the bill, consumers will be left vulnerable to the gaping holes and uneven application of the law created by these exemptions. In addition, it sets an unfortunate precedent for future action on food safety policy by Congress that science and risk-based standards can be ignored.

http://www.unitedfresh.org/assets/files/Letter%20on%20Passage%20of%20S%20%20510%20and%20Tester%20Amendment.pdf

What science and risk?  No one has produced any data or evidence of any widespread problems caused by local producers and marketed directly to consumers.  All of the major food-borne illness outbreaks have been caused by products that went through the long supply chains of Agribusiness.
Agribusinesss real concern about the Tester-Hagan amendment isn't food safety, but the precedent set by having Congress recognize that small, direct-marketing producers are different, and should be regulated differently than large Agribusinesses.

Agribusiness is trying to convince the Senators to pull the Tester-Hagan amendment back out.  While the amendment is currently part of the Managers Package  the amended version of the bill agreed to by six bipartisan sponsors  nothing is certain until the actual vote.

ACTION TO TAKE
This Thanksgiving week, please take a moment to call or email your Senators to tell them to hold firm on KEEPING the Tester-Hagan amendment part of the bill. 

You can call the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121 or go to www.senate.gov to find their website (if the phone lines are busy, the best way to reach them is through the Contact Page on their website)