In response to a number of serious food contamination incidents (such
as the recent salmonella outbreak linked to peanuts) that have
raised concerns about the safety of the U.S. food supply, in
February 2009 Rep. Rosa L. DeLauro of Connecticut introduced to
Congress HR 875, the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009. The main
purpose of the bill is to establish a Food Safety Administration
(FSA) within the Department of Health and Human Services "to protect
the public health by preventing food-borne illness, ensuring the
safety of food, improving research on contaminants leading to
food-borne illness, and improving security of food from intentional
contamination." "This salmonella outbreak represents the full-scale
breakdown of a patchwork food safety system. And it should act as
the final wake up call," said DeLauro. "That is why, today, I am
introducing the Food Safety Modernization Act to separate food
safety regulation from drug and device approvals and to restore the
balance that has long been missing at Health and Human Service. Under the proposal, FDA would be split into an agency responsible
for food safety (the Food Safety Administration) and another
responsible for regulation of drugs and devices. This move creates
an agency solely focused on protecting the public through better
regulation of the food supply. The Food Safety Modernization Act
would establish a farm-to-fork system for protecting foods that are
currently regulated by FDA, which has jurisdiction over 80 percent
of the food supply.
The announcement of HR 875 spawned a number of Internet-circulated
pieces warning about the dire results citizens would face should be
the bill pass, most of them repeating exaggerated claims unwarranted
by anything stated within the text of the bill itself. One oft-repeated claim is that Rep. DeLauro's husband, Stanley
Greenberg, works for the agricultural giant Monsanto corporation,
and therefore Rep. DeLauro has a substantial financial interest in
the passage of HR 875, a substantial conflict of interest. This
information is false. Stanley Greenberg is not a Monsanto employee;
he's the chairman and CEO of Greenberg-Quinlan Research Inc., a
public issues research and polling firm which, as the Las Vegas
Review-Journal noted in a clarification, hasn't had any business
dealings with Monsanto for over a decade: An editorial in the Las
Vegas Review-Journal stated Stanley Greenberg, husband of
Connecticut Democratic Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, who has proposed
legislation imposing new mandates on food producers, "is a leading
Democratic political strategist and consultant with clients
including pesticide and fertilizer giant Monsanto." Both DeLauro's
office and a spokesman for Greenberg's firm said that Monsanto has
not been a client of Greenberg's for more than 10 years.
As for some of the other claims about HR 875 stated in the pieces
quoted above: Effects anyone growing food even if they are not selling it but
consuming it. The bill defines the term "food production facility" to be "any
farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined
animal-feeding operation." It's something of a stretch to interpret
that definition as applying to persons who maintain home-based
vegetable gardens or otherwise grow small amounts of food for
personal consumption. Requires organic farms to use specific fertilizers and poisonous
insect sprays dictated by the newly formed agency to 'make sure
there is no danger to the public food supply.' No language in HR 875 mandates that farms (organic or otherwise) use
of any particular fertilizer or pesticide, or requires the use of
either of those products in general. The bill merely calls upon the
FSA to establish regulations regarding "minimum standards related to
fertilizer use." The power it would give to Monsanto, the criminalization of seed
banking, the 24 hours GPS tracking of their animals No language in HR 875 addresses seed banking or requires GPS
tracking of animals. Many of these same points are addressed in Rep. DeLauro's Myths and
Facts sheet for HR 875: MYTH: H.R. 875 "makes it illegal to grow
your own garden" and would result in the"criminalization of the
backyard gardener." FACT: There is no language in the bill that would regulate,
penalize, or shut down backyard gardens. The focus of the bill is to
ensure the safety of food in interstate commerce. MYTH: H.R. 875 would mean a "goodbye to farmers markets" because it
would regulateand penalize "each farmer who wishes to sell locally." FACT: There is no language in the bill that would result in farmers
markets beingregulated, penalized by any fines, or shut down.
Farmers markets would be able to continue to flourish under the
bill. In fact, the bill would insist that imported foods meet strict
safety standards to ensure that unsafe imported foods are not
competing with locally-grown foods. MYTH: H.R. 875 would result in the "death of organic farming" or
"mandate the use ofchemicals or certain types of seeds on organic
farms." FACT: There is no language in the bill that would stop or interfere
with organic farming.The National Organic Program (NOP) is under the
jurisdiction of the United StatesDepartment of Agriculture (USDA).
The Food Safety Modernization Act only addresses food safety issues
under the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). MYTH: H.R. 875 would implement a national animal ID system (NAIS). FACT: There is no language in the bill that would implement NAIS,
which is under the jurisdiction of the USDA. H.R. 875 addresses
issues under the jurisdiction of the FDA.
Certainly the provisions of HR 875 are subject to legitimate debate
over how effective the bill would be at improving and ensuring the
safety of America's food supply and whether they would place undue
financial and regulatory burdens on smaller farms and businesses
that primarily engage in the local production and sale of food
items, but those concerns aren't being effectively addressed through
the circulation of unwarranted claims similar to those cited above.
Sources such as the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund are better
starting points for grasping some of the issues regarding how HR 875
might affect small farmers. | 
