Shop Products
Houzz Logo Print
rjinga

Be afraid, or speak up and put a stop to this

rjinga
15 years ago

http://cofcc.org/?p=4186

I am not affiliated with this site, nor do I have a political agenda or position on this. But it is very concerning that this kind of thing could even be considered.

The American people better wise up and start speaking up, because if SOME have it their way, we will be one big government run, controlled, communistic society.

Where do we draw the line?

When is enough enough?

Comments (32)

  • lazy_gardens

    rjinga ... yes, if you want to SELL your produce to the public (whether you have a 1200 acre farm, .2 acres in your yard, or just 2 pots on your balcony), you can expect to have some standards to follow so that if your production methods are unsanitary or your labeling is screwed up and people get sick from your produce you can be traced and told to clean up your act or shut down.

    Here's some incidents I have heard about over the years from various health departments, where tiny producers caused health problems:

    • Gardener's produce processing table was in the barn with free-range chickens wandering and pooping over it.

    • Gardener's lettuce bed was fertilized with fresh chicken manure.

    • Gardener threshed dry beans on the cow barn floor.

    • Gardener made a home-brew insecticide from a really old recipe in a gardening book ... and made Paris Green.

    • Farm produce stall owner scooped water out of the irrigation

      ditch to "freshen" the produce.

    Y'all are going to say, "But I know better," and maybe you do. But food regulations and inspections are meant to save the general public from the worst case.

  • lazy_gardens

    rjinga ... yes, if you want to SELL your produce to the public (whether you have a 1200 acre farm, .2 acres in your yard, or just 2 pots on your balcony), you can expect to have some standards to follow so that if your production methods are unsanitary or your labeling is screwed up and people get sick from your produce you can be traced and told to clean up your act or shut down.

    Here's some incidents I have heard about over the years from various health departments, where tiny producers caused health problems:

    • Gardener's produce processing table was in the barn with free-range chickens wandering and pooping over it.

    • Gardener's lettuce bed was fertilized with fresh chicken manure.

    • Gardener threshed dry beans on the cow barn floor.

    • Gardener made a home-brew insecticide from a really old recipe in a gardening book ... and made Paris Green.

    • Farm produce stall owner scooped water out of the irrigation

      ditch to "freshen" the produce.

    Y'all are going to say, "But I know better," and maybe you do. But food regulations and inspections are meant to save the general public from the worst case.

  • lazy_gardens

    rjinga ... yes, if you want to SELL your produce to the public (whether you have a 1200 acre farm, .2 acres in your yard, or just 2 pots on your balcony), you can expect to have some standards to follow so that if your production methods are unsanitary or your labeling is screwed up and people get sick from your produce you can be traced and told to clean up your act or shut down.

    Here's some incidents I have heard about over the years from various health departments, where tiny producers caused health problems:

    • Gardener's produce processing table was in the barn with free-range chickens wandering and pooping over it.

    • Gardener's lettuce bed was fertilized with fresh chicken manure.

    • Gardener threshed dry beans on the cow barn floor.

    • Gardener made a home-brew insecticide from a really old recipe in a gardening book ... and made Paris Green.

    • Farm produce stall owner scooped water out of the irrigation

      ditch to "freshen" the produce.

    Y'all are going to say, "But I know better," and maybe you do. But food regulations and inspections are meant to save the general public from the worst case.

  • rjinga
    Original Author
    15 years ago

    Oh and btw...the bills in question could take control and monitor, regulate and penalize YOU for growing and producing food that is not under the governments thumb. This regulation and control could affect in a very negative way organinc farms, farmers markets, CSA's, the home garden, road side stands, the patch you have in your back yard for your family....The bill is so vague that it seriously could legitamately fine private citizens who attempt to grow their own food.

    HR875
    S425

    But dont take my word for it, you can read it yourself, but dont just read it and do nothing, everyone of us have a vested interest in making sure that this bill is withdrawn from the floors of Congress. The capital switch board number is 202-224-3121, call today and leave messages of speak to your representatives about this bill.

    PLEASE dont think that they wont pursue this, they have much to gain and nothing to lose. Just another example of our corrupt government and the greedy rich getting richer by using OUR government elected officials to further their agendas.

  • kandm
    15 years ago

    I don't think the forums are an appropriate place for political discussion. There is one forum called "Hot Topics" that is reserved for these sorts of posts.

  • rjinga
    Original Author
    15 years ago

    I would disagree in general as I do not see this as a political discussion (my comment at the end is my point of view as to how I view our government). It so happens that the laws of the land, which directly affect people who grow and sell food, could be adversely affected by the changes that are being proposed. So by posting here, and bringing this info to peoples attention, especially anyone out there who could be affected by this, allows them the opportunity to check it out and then to act according to their own desires/conscience. That involvement could make a difference. Knowledge on an issue does not promote a politcal agenda. To the contrary, if average citizens do not get involved, then the fate of many is determined by a few politicians who may or may not have the masses best interest at heart, who instead may be simply furthering their political agendas and very possibly benefiting financially from "helping" mega food companies gain a foothold on the market. Wouldn't be the first time that kind of thing has happened.

  • budb
    15 years ago

    rjinga
    Please direct us to those sections which you are concerned
    about. It is rather lengthly. I printed it out and read
    through it looking for sections, paragraphs, etc. that pertained to the concerns you list above. I found nothing
    really alarming.
    Bud

  • boulderbelt
    15 years ago

    Food & Water Watch s Statement on H.R. 875 and the Food Safety Bills

    The dilemma of how to regulate food safety in a way that prevents problems caused by industrialized agriculture but doesnÂt wipe out small diversified farms is not new and is not easily solved. And as almost constant food safety problems reveal the dirty truth about the way much of our food is produced, processed and distributed, itÂs a dilemma we need to have serious discussion about.

    Most consumers never thought they had to worry about peanut butter and this latest food safety scandal has captured public attention for good reason  a CEO who knowingly shipped contaminated food, a plant with holes in the roof and serious pest problems, and years of state and federal regulators failing to intervene.

    ItÂs no surprise that Congress is under pressure to act and multiple food safety bills have been introduced.

    Two of the bills are about traceability for food (S.425 and H.R. 814). These present real issues for small producers who could be forced to bear the cost of expensive tracking technology and recordkeeping.

    The other bills address what FDA can do to regulate food.


    A lot of attention has been focused on a bill introduced by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (H.R. 875), the Food Safety Modernization Act. And a lot of what is being said about the bill is misleading.

    Here are a few things that H.R. 875 DOES do:

    -It addresses the most critical flaw in the structure of FDA by splitting it into 2 new agencies Âone devoted to food safety and the other devoted to drugs and medical devices.

    -It increases inspection of food processing plants, basing the frequency of inspection on the risk of the product being produced  but it does NOT make plants pay any registration fees or user fees.

    -It does extend food safety agency authority to food production on farms, requiring farms to write a food safety plan and consider the critical points on that farm where food safety problems are likely to occur.

    -It requires imported food to meet the same standards as food produced in the U.S.

    And just as importantly, here are a few things that H.R. 875 does NOT do:

    -It does not cover foods regulated by the USDA (beef, pork, poultry, lamb, catfish.)

    -It does not establish a mandatory animal identification system.

    -It does not regulate backyard gardens.

    -It does not regulate seed.

    -It does not call for new regulations for farmers markets or direct marketing arrangements.

    -It does not apply to food that does not enter interstate commerce (food that is sold across state lines).

    -It does not mandate any specific type of traceability for FDA-regulated foods (the bill does instruct a new food safety agency to improve traceability of foods, but specifically says that recordkeeping can be done electronically or on paper.)


    Several of the things not found in the DeLauro can be found in other bills  like H.R. 814, the Tracing...

  • gardener1908
    15 years ago

    Great post boulderbelt.

  • bagardens (Ohio, Zone 5b)
    14 years ago

    I am sorry to bring back up such a hot topic. I finally got a chance to read over this bill myself and this is what I found. I have copied and pasted the sections from the bill that would affect small farms.

    This first section states that in the document a farm in the United States would be called a "FOOD PRODUCTION FACILITY". There is another section that states that a "FOREIGN FOOD ESTABLISHMENT" is one outside the United States. The section below came from "SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS." in case you wish to read it yourself.

    ----------------------------------------------
    (14) FOOD PRODUCTION FACILITY- The term Âfood production facility means any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined animal-feeding operation.
    ----------------------------------------------

    The below section copied and pasted from the bill explains the regulations for farms in the United States.

    ----------------------------------------------
    SEC. 206. FOOD PRODUCTION FACILITIES.

    (a) Authorities- In carrying out the duties of the Administrator and the purposes of this Act, the Administrator shall have the authority, with respect to food production facilities, to--

    (1) visit and inspect food production facilities in the United States and in foreign countries to determine if they are operating in compliance with the requirements of the food safety law;

    (2) review food safety records as required to be kept by the Administrator under section 210 and for other food safety purposes;

    (3) set good practice standards to protect the public and animal health and promote food safety;

    (4) conduct monitoring and surveillance of animals, plants, products, or the environment, as appropriate; and

    (5) collect and maintain information relevant to public health and farm practices.

    (b) Inspection of Records- A food production facility shall permit the Administrator upon presentation of appropriate credentials and at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner, to have access to and ability to copy all records maintained by or on behalf of such food production establishment in any format (including paper or electronic) and at any location, that are necessary to assist the Administrator--

    (1) to determine whether the food is contaminated, adulterated, or otherwise not in compliance with the food safety law; or

    (2) to track the food in commerce.

    (c) Regulations- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture and representatives of State departments of agriculture, shall promulgate regulations to establish science-based minimum standards for the safe production of food by food production facilities. Such regulations shall--

    (1) consider all relevant hazards, including those occurring naturally, and those that may be unintentionally or intentionally introduced;

    (2) require each food production facility to have a written food...

  • veggierosalie
    14 years ago

    a backyard garden IS NOT a FARM....

    is it just me or do the anti bill people post every other day??

    Food safety is a huge concern. American citizens deserve the highest quality food, without worrying about whether or not spinach is going to kill their children. That is what this bill is about. Plus, and very importantly, this bill tries to establish food safety for food imported from other countries who may not have YOUR best interests in mind. Think about the tainted food from china and then think about where a lot of the processed food comes from.

  • bagardens (Ohio, Zone 5b)
    14 years ago

    veggierosalie,
    I am sorry to have offended you, but I am not sure why my post made you so upset. I did not mention a thing about backyard gardens. I simply copied and pasted the section from the bill that I believed has to do with farms in the United States. I am in no way condemning the entire bill, and agree that food coming into the United States should be regulated better.

    I believe that there are many that are turning this bill into something it is not, but I do not agree that it has nothing to do with farms in the United States. If you can find a section in this bill that proves me wrong please let me know.

    Once again, I am not trying to start any trouble. But I do not what to just ignore something that may be trouble and a hassle to me in the future. I just wanted to point out the section of the bill that I am concerned about and I am sorry for upsetting anyone, I do not wish to start an argument.

  • veggierosalie
    14 years ago

    I wasn't talking about you, but the original poster who said

    "This regulation and control could affect in a very negative way organinc farms, farmers markets, CSA's, the home garden, road side stands, the patch you have in your back yard for your family....The bill is so vague that it seriously could legitamately fine private citizens who attempt to grow their own food"

    This bill is regulating FARMS, and yes there will be consequences for farms that do not comply and who fall under the legislation, no question, but most of the people who post complaints about the bill misinterpret their backyard garden to be a farm, which it is not...if anyone questions whether they are a farmer or a hobbyist they should apply for federal subsidies and see if they qualify, then you will know if you are a farm.

    I still think it is a great idea, I think minimum standards are important, I think anyone who does not want to complete a food safety plan is negligent, and I think as a consumer of USA grown vegetables it is about time that this came into effect.

    sorry if you think otherwise (and this time I am talking to you bagardens) but this is the direction the global market place is moving towards.

    ps, I would use italics rather than capitals if it was an option, so maybe you would know I am not angry just making a point

  • rjinga
    Original Author
    14 years ago

    I was the original poster and I do not post on this every other day, sorry. I found information that appeared to come from a reliable source and felt that people could benefit from knowing about the proposed legislation, speak to their reps and at very least get clarification on what all it entailed and/or if it affected anyone here directly or indirectly. I personally am not convinced that the govt or whoever is put in charge of the oversight and monitoring of "food production systems" is completely trustworthy. I believe that bills like these are intentionally vague, so that there is room for interpretation...who do you suppose gets to "interpret"

    I am not opposed to regulation of imported food and the regulation of food production in general, it is necessary and should be there for our safety.

    If I grow my own food and eat what I grow, I cant see how anyone could control or regulate that, but what if I grow a garden with the intent to end up at the farmers market selling to the general public, what in that is different from a farm, except the size of land I have and the volume of my crops compared to a larger entity? depending on how far someone wanted to control things, I would believe that I could be regulated (which of course would drive me out of business for obvious reasons). Should a small time market gardener be expected to follow the same regulations as a larger farm etc? But if my produce ends up being purchased by the general public then it would seem that the answer would be yes?

  • veggierosalie
    14 years ago

    yep,if you sell at the farmers market it could eventually include you, but do you really think they will have government employees wandering the streets looking for infractions when they have the likes of Tanimura & Antle, Earthbound Farms and other corporate, commercial, intensive farms to worry about?

    and you did include "fine private citizens who attempt to grow their own food" in your list of potential people who could be included in the Bill...so, I was pointing out that those people are not farms and the gov really could care less what you grow in your backyard for your 'own' consumption (unless it is pot, then they might have some objections...lol)

    But if you are selling at a farmers market or to a small grocery chain then yes, you could be included and therefore you should do everything you can to ensure that you are following the recommendations of the bill...if it were to come into effect. But he government does make a distinction between a 'farm' and a hobby already (and yes it has to do with acreage and sales receipts), so they might not think they are talking about you.

    and you are not the only one who has posted this, scroll down the list and look at the other forums, it has been posted repeatedly for the last couple of weeks.

    I was going to offer my perspective as a non-US citizen, and the fact that in Canada a very similar regulation is coming into effect (and your bill HR875 also affects CND farmers who export to the USA), and that it will, in Canada apply to me, a small scale farmer. I still welcome it in my country though because I have seen what some of the other small scale farmers pass off as safe food and I would rather rise to the occasion than be like them...but...when I mentioned it in another forum I was called a "Commie", so I guess that is all I have to say about the subject

  • anoid1
    14 years ago

    Sorry but I can't let this pass. IT'S TIME SOME OF YOU WOKE UP! It's all about control! And yes they will go after the little sap while turning their heads to the huge agri- businesses who will continue to pour millions of pounds of chemicals and sewer sludge on their fields because the agri-business wil be pouring millions of dollars through their lobbyists into Washington. Each inspector will act according to his own interpretation of the rules and his own agenda. Agri-business will have it's permits and exemptions in hand and you with the roadside stand will be shut down because you use water from your farm pond that might be contaminated by a bird flying over! Yes we need food safety but we have laws already in place that aren't enforced that would get us a long way toward it. Let's provide enough USDA and county health inspectors and give them the power to uphold the existing laws befor we overburden ourselves with new ones! Sometimes I think some of you sheep deserve to be led to slaughter, unfortunately I don't want to be forced into the back of the truck along with you!

  • henhousefarms
    14 years ago

    I had to look up Paris Green - wow, sounds like some nasty stuff. Must have been heck on bugs (among other things).

    This is the type of discussion I tend not to become involved in - there will be no winners. It is, however, an important topic to consider and directly affects many of us that read this board.

    We run a small market farming operation - a few acres of fruit and vegies. We understand and respect that the produce we sell has the potential to be dangerous if we do not handle it properly and have procedures to minimize the risk. I know what we do, but I do not know what the people across the isle at the market do so I recognize that there has to be some oversight from a regualtory agency to maintain sanitary minimums. After all, if there is an outbreak of food poisioning at one of the markets we sell at everyone is going to suffer. However, there are already agencies that do this - state, county and in some cases city health departments, the state ag depertment, USDA, FDA, the state's Department of Weights and Measures and a couple other alphabet agencies I can not think of at the moment. We currently are working on setting up a facility to press apples from our orchard - in doing this we have to please the state health department (concerned with the cleanliness of the facility), the regional office of the state health department (they want to inspect the equipment and facility to approve the set up), several county heath departments (as we sell in different markets each wants to verify that we are transporting and storing the product safely), USDA has a set of federal rules we must follow concerning the product (how we can market the product), state weights and measures (is your gallon a gallon, your scales certified, your label correct) not to mention the county building department controling the actual construction of the building. Funny thing is sometimes the requirements are in conflict (one county thinks the product must be stored in refrigeration units at market, another thinks that ice chests are more than satasfactory - both reading from the same rule book). All this for a facility that at most will press less than 500 gallons of cider a year. What is needed is consolidation of regulation, not more regulation in different agencies to muddy the waters. That, however, is not how the government works. All we want is a little clarity and common sense in the process. What is proposed at the federal level looks to be a new tier of regulation - counter to what we feel is needed. In the end, we will comply (what choice is there?) but expect it to cost us more time and money. Right or wrong, that cost will have to be passed on the customers in some way. For some small producers this may well mark the point where it is no longer practical to stay in business. That is the bottom line and why this proposal must be carefully watched.

    Tom

  • lazy_gardens
    14 years ago

    henhouse -
    If you have a problem with different counties interpreting the same state regulation differently, take it up with the state agency. They are supposed to write regs that are not that ambiguous. In AZ, the health department was having similar problems with interpretations, and they re-defined it as temperature control (results), "If we stick a thermometer in there, it has to be _this temperature_", instead of specifying the method of temp control.

    If you read the whole bill, and look up the things it's referring to, they are straightening out the overlaps, and have set up a process to bring the conflicting regulations into alignment. For example, the USDA will no longer be involved in plant material processing - orchard to consumer will be 100% the new agency.

    It's splitting the FDA (food and drug), leaves the "drug and medical devices" in the FDA and moves the food part into a separate agency and combines it with bits and pieces of other agencies that all have to do with food processing. USDA loses a chunk to the new service (keeps the animals, loses the plants), etc.

    The same thing happened quite a while ago with the bits and bobs that are all now in NOAA ... many overlapping activities were moved into the same spot and over a few years they sorted them all out. No sense having one agency responsible for off-shore weather and one for inland weather ... eventually the hurricanes hit land. Same for various kinds of mapping - they now use the same computer systems and map printing services.

  • mornings
    14 years ago

    I suspect we have a great deal more to fear than some nosy bureaucrats looking our gardening shoulders, but I am amazed that there are people who actually want that kind of intrusion.

    My wife and have been doing market gardening for almost 40 years. In that time we've never had a complaint nor anyone even inferring we should use some sort of government standard for our produce.

    At the same time, we buy much of our food from others growing in a similar way. We know the people we buy from and that is good enough -- in fact, that is really as good as it gets. Why would I want or even think the government is competent to create a standard for produce or how it is processed. I certainly wouldn't feel any more secure.

    All this can possibly do -- exactly what it was meant to do -- is discourage small growers and limit competition.

    M

  • rjinga
    Original Author
    14 years ago

    I guess when I see outfits like Monsanto deep in the pockets of (and some in bed with) the same politicians pusing bills like this, this leads me to be a skeptic. I dont trust them. And I'm not too impressed with what's going on in our nation. The old boy cronism is rampant and questionable (people getting fired for digging up dirt on someone's supporter, journalist being banned from WH press rooms simply because they ask some tough questions (albeit it was not a "previously emailed question") these 2 actions alone make me very concerned.

    They (Monsanto) would like nothing more than to be a monopoly. Just look at what they are doing to seeds, this is also very scary, and one source in control is never a good idea. Anyway that's another posting. We are in a big mess and it would be a shame to see the small guy put out of business by our power hungry government and it's highest paying customers/special interest lobbyists.

  • sunnyjo
    14 years ago

    MO Dept of Ag has put out a "survey" for Farmer's Market vendors. Being the suspicious, untrusting, and cynical person that I am when it comes to (big) gov't, I probably won't fill it out. Even though it is done "anonymously", there are questions that name your market, your gross sales, employees, products sold, age, gender, education, ethnicity, and your household size.

    Too much information in the hands of the gov't.

  • lazy_gardens
    14 years ago

    mornings - You are the type of market gardener that the food safety people WANT to hear from. What are you doing that's going well, so they can teach others what works. There is a public input part to the process that needs input from experienced producers.

    sunnyjo - Then when they make a decision, based on the information they did collect, you will be back here griping that the regulations are too __something__ for your size operation.

  • mornings
    14 years ago

    lazygardens,

    I worked for almost 2 decades in sustainable ag, sitting on committees, watching over a whole warehouse full of research projects at the cost of $millions (that will never likely see the light of day), forming grassroots organizations and creating standards.

    My experience has been that the gov't has no business in agriculture. It only makes things worse. The high sounding projects tend to be covers for the benefit of either large corporations, Universities who want funding or politicians hawking "growth". There are certainly many worthwhile things to do to. But the really worthwhile efforts will get done anyway, and they get done better and cheaper without the gov't's participation.

    The gov't's job is protect us from force and fraud, not to tell us how to live or deal with each other. By and large, the gov't is the worst perpetrator of such force and fraud without our hardly even noticing it.

    The notion that somehow the gov't needs to create standards for people who voluntarily deal with one another is just plain ludicrous.

    The gov't has had the benefit of about 20 years of my input, to what seemed no avail.

    M

  • calliope
    14 years ago

    What bothers me, is that there are already regulations in place with standards. The problems come when there are violations in those standards. New regulations don't help that. Better enforcement of the standards on the books do.

    So, are we keeping up with enforcement of existing inspections and standards? Not hardly. My agricultural business has been in operation for two decades. I have all the permits, done it by the book. I haven't seen an inspector in nearly three years. This makes me anxious about what is happening to our food crops coming over the border from other countries where we aren't even allowed to inspect. Given the serious nature of imported pests who could possibly bring our agriculture to its knees and cost the industry many millions of dollars (and has already) in damages.......I think we could accomplish more for food safety by doing properly the job we are supposed to be doing now before biting off more new rules.

    The thing about local agriculture is that if there is a food safety problem, it's easily tracked......even without batch numbers and the damage is self-limiting.

    Good Lordy, we never have found out the source for the salmonella epidemic of last summer, and now the same agencies aren't even sure if it were caused by tomatoes or where they came from. That's the type of situation you get when food comes from 'all over' to central sources to be shipped out everywhere.

    I saw this in England during my many visits a few years ago. Farms with livestock were essentially quarantined so the disease couldn't spread. If you were on a farm, you didn't dare even wear the same shoes back to the states for fear of introducing it here. Everyone was lamenting the demise of the local abattoirs, because outbreaks of problems were kept local and easily contained if kept local.

    That's why it's so important to keep small local farming alive and not have it all go under with so many regulations they can't exist anymore and just give up in exasperation. It's about educating the farmers in food safety, and enforcing the existing rules and exempting suppliers who have little danger of spreading 'cooties' far and wide.

  • lazy_gardens
    14 years ago

    "we never have found out the source for the salmonella epidemic of last summer, and now the same agencies aren't even sure if it were caused by tomatoes or where they came from."

    That's why they are putting the "one link up/down" traceability rules into effect for the packing houses. So they can track the NEXT one.

    If yo haven't seen an inspector for 3 years, you may be small enough they aren't going to worry about you. The chances for you to start a 10-state epidemic are slim, and if you were to sell some salmonella-contaminated produce in a local farmer's market, it's easy to trace.

    Right now, it's not the "market gardeners", except for a few clueless wonders who are oil-packing fresh herbs and sorting thrie produce in the chicken coop while the hens are away, who are in need of inspecting.

  • calliope
    14 years ago

    Exactly and that is what I am getting at. When the new laws go through, do you honestly think the small producer will be exempted? They certainly weren't when the lead test laws were passed for child safety, effectively making a granny who sold a baby blanket at a craft fair a felon.

  • lazy_gardens
    14 years ago

    Calliope -
    Exempted from what?

    Sanitary produce processing and storage practices?

    Sufficient record keeping so you know where (at least which markets) you are selling to? Which restaurants you sell to?

    Unlike that stupid child safety thing, which was a bunch of politicians writing the regs with no clue what they were asking, the food safety law lets the USDA, FDA and FSA consult with producers, public health and epidemiologists. All the law does is authorize them to write the regulations.

    So when the COMMENT PERIOD comes up ... be sure to comment and explain what the ompact of the regulations would be for you AND be sure to offer an alternative that can get the same thing done with less expense or effort to you.

  • boulderbelt
    14 years ago

    Um the bill that is going to be a huge problem is HR 2749, not HR 875 (which is pretty much dead in the water) and this was barely defeated yesterday by 6 votes. It is coming up for a second vote today.

    This will impliment NAIS, set a $500 annual fee for all food facilities (i.e small farms who do value adding, among others).

    Much more at the link below

    Here is a link that might be useful: La Vida Locavore

  • boulderbelt
    14 years ago

    2749 passed the house yesterday. now it goes to the Senate. Get on Farm To Consumer Legal Defense Fund's
    listserve for timely updates to respond to developments in this bill. They are right on top of it.

    this is the Bill to fight!

    Here is a link that might be useful: Farm To Consumer Legal Defense Fund

  • calliope
    14 years ago

    Calliope -
    Exempted from what? Sanitary produce processing and storage practices?

    Of course not. There are certain practices all producers should be held to. I think there are already regulations in place to cover a good deal of food entering the system if they are adhered to, and the most news-worthy outbreaks of food born illnesses lately have been because of infractions of already existing inspections and regulations. If we spent the dollars we will be spending on a new program enforcing the ones we already have, we will have gone a long way toward insuring a safe food supply.

    I am talking about exemptions for small quantities of food, not taken into the mainstream of central processors where products from other sources can be co-mingled for redistribution over large geographical areas. Your own words lazygardens were

    "you may be small enough they aren't going to worry about you. The chances for you to start a 10-state epidemic are slim, and if you were to sell some salmonella-contaminated produce in a local farmer's market, it's easy to trace." You are validating what I have been trying to express.

    Small, local producers are the people who do not need to be sucked into a general category of closely-regulated food producers because the risk of them contributing to any large scale problems are quite slim. They, as a source, are extremely traceable. If for any reason a small producer's goods were to go to a large distribution system, it should be the responsibility of the distributor or processor to keep the data of where and from whom such foods were obtained. If a product were not intended to ship out of county, or if it were available directly from producer to consumer, it doesn't need the added expense of complying to regulations intended to make it traceable.

    If a government has X dollars to spend on a problem, those monies are best spent where it will do the most good. And lately it sounds like most of the morbity has occurred in the large processing and distribution sectors and their failure to document sources.

    I am certainly not opposed to sane and fair food safety legislation. But I did go through enough classes when I studied agriculture in college to know that for decades the cards have been stacked toward large operations. I also know that our country is now referred to being a post-agricultural society. The 'right to farm' written into and understood by so many state governments is slowly being removed from our collective vocabulary and the small farm is being seen as redundant and could soon be regulated out of existence entirely.

  • boulderbelt
    14 years ago

    actually in HR 2794 there are exemptions for people who sell mainly direct to the public (51% IIRC). they will not be assessed the $500 annual fee and will not be inspected by the FDA. If,and it is a huge if now that HR 2749 has passed the house, HR 475 were to make it out of committee and onto the house floor for a vote there will be exemptions written for the small producers who sell direct to the public.

    Now if all you do is value add and sell wholesale that is a whole 'nother ball of wax.

  • lazy_gardens
    14 years ago

    If for any reason a small producer's goods were to go to a large distribution system, it should be the responsibility of the distributor or processor to keep the data of where and from whom such foods were obtained.

    If you are selling to a distributor or processor, you are part of the "production chain" that needs to be tracked. In the case of the grower ... "one up" with sales records of who and when and what. What if the distributor or processor's records are inaccurate, and their records show you as the source for a questionable lot?

    If only for your business records, and business improvement, you should be tracking dates and sales of your produce. Your "gut feeling" and recollections about which markets are best and which markets prefer what might not be accurate, but the bookkeeping about what sold and where is a priceless marketing tool.

    Also, if the city health department is looking for who sold tainted turnips at a farmer's market, and your records record you only retailing rutabagas ... you are off the hook.