[Sosfbay-discuss] Organic seeds/seedlings & H.R. 875- One pager

[Carol Brouillet]

I tried to do an umbrella issue/one pager on 
Organic Seeds/Seedlings and the larger political 
issues.  I sent this to Cres for the California 
Green Party publication and was surprised when he 
began arguing with me on it.  I also sent it to 
my son who had an opportunity to ask Ralph Nader 
about it (Ralph hadn't looked into 
it).  Apparently it is a controversial issue, and 
many articles/videos are posted on the internet 
on this topic.  So, in addition to my one pager, 
I will follow it with the press release from the 
National Green Party, an article by Stephen 
Lendman, and the full text of the statement that 
I received from John Jeavons (whom I deeply 
respect considering his experience in this area). 
If anyone wants to use the one pager- feel free- 
but if you want to come up with something better- 
fine by me!!!! I also have a one pager from Seeds 
of Change which we can use when tabling- if you 
want any of this in a word document- let me 
know.  (Carol Brouillet cbrouillet at igc.org)

Going Organic- Great Idea!
H.R. 875 Food Safety Modernization Bill- Bad Idea!

      The loss of biodiversity, topsoil, small 
farmers over the last century, and the increase 
of pollution, chemicals, pesticides, factory 
farms, mono-culture has impoverished the quality 
of our food, the environment, life.  According to 
William Engdahls Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden 
Agenda of Genetic Manipulation, genetically 
modified organisms, pose an unprecedented threat to human health.

      Genetic manipulation and the patenting of 
life forms are being used to gain corporate 
control over food production. In the US, foods 
are not required to be identified as genetically 
modified or disclose if they contain GMOs. An 
estimated 75% of processed foods include them. 
The standards of the organic label which once 
assured people that those foods were produced 
without antibiotics, hormones, pesticides, 
irradiation or bioengineering have been lowered 
by the pressures of industry, wishing to 
capitalize on the trust generated by the term. 
Gardening, local farmers markets, community 
supported agriculture are increasingly popular as 
trust in brands, corporations and government 
wane.  Deceptive labeling includes not only foods, but legislation.

      H.R. 875 Food Safety Modernization Act of 
2009, introduced in February, raises alarms.  The 
legislation would create a Food Safety 
Administration within the Department of Health 
and Human Services.  John Jeavons, Executive 
Director of Ecology Action, author of How to Grow 
More Vegetables, Fruits, Nuts, Berries, Grains, 
and Other Crops Than You Ever Thought Possible On 
Less Land Than You Can Imagine; a pioneer of the 
biointensive method of mini-farming (See 
growbioinstensive.org & johnjeavons.info.) 
encourages public debate on food issues and notes that-

      “Overall the Bill strikes me as a Patriot 
Act for Food. It vests a lot of power in one 
agency, and specifically the Administrator of the Food Safety Administration.

       “The reason many people are demanding 
organic products is exactly because the health of 
the American population has been seriously 
compromised through chemicals that unbalance the 
human body and the environment. This is not 
addressing the real problem, but rather layering another problem on top”

      His concerns include:
*Inadequate oversight on the Food Safety Administration.
*Need for more independent and unbiased research 
and data for sustainable agricultural practices, 
which also      promote improved health.
*Classifications for Food Establishments or Food 
Production Facilities are too broad and subject 
all producers of food to the same standards and 
requirements, regardless of size.
*Administrative requirements for compliance with 
standards to be created, which are as yet vague, 
appear to be burdensome for small producers.
*Substantial fines and penalties, without needed 
language to differentiate between size of producers.
*Language related to what constitutes an outbreak 
needs to be considered and defined more carefully 
so as to avoid excessive response that may be 
ultimately counter to the public good.

      Jeavons asks: “Why is there verbiage in 
this Bill about protection of trade secrets if 
this is truly about food safety? The only time 
trade secrets would come into play would be if 
there were a concern over public health as a 
result of chemical use or genetically modified 
products. Given that the process of genetic 
modification requires the use of viruses to 
introduce a foreign gene into an organism, and 
that this could pose a threat to public health, 
these secrets should not be protected under this Bill.”

       He adds: “Once an outbreak is declared it 
seems extreme measures are taken to contain it, 
both through this newly formed Administration and 
perhaps the other government agencies to whom the 
list was provided. This seems excessive for 2 
people getting sick from ingesting a common food. That happens all the time.

      We need to protect organic farmers, seed 
savers, not burden them with more regulations and 
threats of fines, inspections, 
confiscations.  Greater oversight is needed over 
GMOs, which the US has been trying to push on the 
rest of the world and the factory farms which are 
a major source and cause of disease causing 
foods.  We should recognize and encourage 
healthy, sustainable methods.   The healthiest, 
best tasting, most satisfying produce, is the 
freshly picked variety that comes from organic 
heirloom seeds, lovingly grown, and devoured in your own organic garden.

(By Carol Brouillet)

US Green Party Press release:
Green Party Logo

Greens urge amendment to food safety bills, 
citing need to protect family farms and organic farming

GREEN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES
http://www.gp.org

Monday, April 6, 2009

WASHINGTON, DC -- Green Party leaders voiced 
concerns about the "Food Safety Modernization 
Act" (HR 875 and S 425) and, while supporting the 
goal of food safety and farm inspections, urged 
amendments in the bill to protect small and 
family farms, farmers' markets, and organic farming.

"America needs national food safety guarantees in 
the age of genetic modification, misleading 
labeling, food-borne illnesses and contaminants, 
especially pesticides. But the 'one size fits 
all' approach of the bills endangers family farms 
and local, organic agriculture. Without 
amendments, the result of HR 875 and S 425 may be 
the demise of small farms and organic 
agriculture, increased profits and the expansion 
of giant agri-businesses," said Nancy Allen, 
farmer and member of the Maine Green Independent Party.

"Rather than crushing protocols and penalties, we 
call for regulation that ensures food safety by 
working with family farms, farmers markets, and 
similar small businesses and promotes the selling 
of locally, organically, and sustainably grown produce," Ms. Allen added.

Greens noted that the bills do not address the 
problems of the large corporate farms: poor 
working conditions, limitations on fast marketing 
because of large quantities of produce, 
long-distance markets, overuse of chemicals, 
petroleum dependence, and lack of quality, nutrition, taste, and freshness.

Recent breakdowns in food safety have been the 
result of major corporate farming practices that 
fail to control pathogens, because of indequate 
regulatory oversight caused by the influence of 
agricultural monopolies on state and national 
agencies responsible for protecting consumers. 
Greens said that all farms should be held to 
strict standards and undergo inspections, but 
warned that the cost of paperwork and oversight 
protocols would be prohibitive to small farms and 
would ultimately harm consumers if small farms 
were subjected to the same requirements as huge agribusiness farms.

The Green Party's national platform advocates 
"legislation that assists new farmers and 
ranchers, that promotes widespread ownership to 
small and medium-sized farms and ranches, and 
that revitalizes and repopulates rural 
communities and promotes sustainable development 
and stewardship" 
(<http://www.gp.org/platform/2004/ecology.html#753970>http://www.gp.org/platform/2004/ecology.html#753970).

For more information on the Food Safety bills and 
concerns about their effect on small farms, visit 
the Cornucopia Institute's web pages: "Farmers 
Fear Being Run over by Food Safety Juggernaut" 
(April 2, 2009) 
(http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_17451.cfm); 
Action Alert: Critical Pending Food Safety 
Legislation 
(<http://www.cornucopia.org/2009/03/action-alert-critical-pending-food-safety-legislation>http://www.cornucopia.org/2009/03/action-alert-critical-pending-food-safety-legislation).

See also "Food Safety Hits the Fan: Regulatory 
Action, Inaction and Over-reaction and the 
Effects on Small Scale Growers" by Steve Gilman, 
Northeast Organic Farm Association - Interstate 
Council Policy Coordinator 
(<http://www.nofa.org/policy/leafygreens.php>http://www.nofa.org/policy/leafygreens.php).

(From Global Research.ca - 
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13025 )
Unsafe Genetically Modified Food
GMO Proliferation Bills in the US Congress

by Stephen Lendman

Four in all so far plus another authorizing 
funding under a 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act. 
One is HR 875: "Food Safety Modernization Act of 
2009." Introduced in the House on February 4 by 
Rep. Rosa DeLauro, (D, CT) whose husband has ties 
to Monsanto, with 39 co-sponsors, it's been 
referred to the Agriculture and Energy and 
Commerce Committees for consideration as follows:

-- discussion,

-- possible hearings,

-- "mark-up" to make changes and add amendments,

-- then a vote on further action - to either 
table or send to the full chamber for a vote, the 
regular procedure for House and Senate legislation.

The bill's text is deceptively innocuous. Its header reads:

"To establish the Food Safety Administration 
within the Department of Health and Human 
Services to protect the public health by 
preventing food-borne illnesses, ensuring the 
safety of food, improving research on 
contaminants leading to food-borne illness and 
improving security of food from intentional 
contamination, and for other purposes."

Related bills include:

S 425: "Food Safety and Tracking Improving Act." 
Introduced on February 12 and referred to the 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry. It purports: "To amend the Federal 
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to provide for the 
establishment of a traceability system for food, 
to amend the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the 
Poultry Inspections Act, the Egg Products 
Inspection Act. and the Federal Food, Drug, and 
Cosmetic Act to provide for improved public 
health and food safety through enhanced enforcement, and for other purposes."

HR 814: "Trace Act of 2009." Introduced on 
February 3 and referred to the House Energy and 
Commerce Committee. It's: "To amend the Federal 
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the Federal Meat 
Inspection Act, the Poultry Inspection Act, and 
the Egg Products Inspection Act to improve the 
safety of food, meat, and poultry products 
through enhanced traceability, and for other purposes."

HR 759: "Food and Drug Administration 
Globalization Act of 2009." Introduced on January 
28 and referred to the House Energy and Commerce 
Committee. It's: "To amend the Federal Food, 
Drug, and Cosmetic Act to improved the safety of 
food, drugs, devices, and cosmetics in the global 
market, and for other purposes."

If its critics are right, HR 875 (and the others) 
are what Linn Cohen-Cole calls "Monsanto's dream 
bill" to proliferate the world with GMO 
contamination and control its entire food supply.

In 2007, F. William Engdahl wrote an important 
book on the topic called "Seeds of Destruction: 
The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation." He 
explained how Washington and four agribusiness 
giants plan world domination by patenting all 
life forms to control food production globally - everything, crops and animals.

In 2003, Jeffrey Smith's "Seeds of Deception" 
explained the dangers of untested and unregulated 
GM foods exposing those who eat them to potential 
health risks. Reliable studies show that rats fed 
GM potatoes had smaller livers, hearts, 
testicles, brains, damaged immune systems, and 
showed structural changes in their white blood 
cells making them more susceptible to infection 
and disease than other rats fed non-GM potatoes. 
They also had thymus and spleen damage, enlarged 
tissues, including the pancreas and intestines, 
liver atrophy, and other serious problems.

Humans may be harmed the same way because GMOs 
saturate our diet. Over 80% of all processed 
foods contain them as well as rice, corn, 
soybeans, soy products, vegetable oils, soft 
drinks, salad dressings, vegetables, fruits, 
dairy products, meat, and other animal products 
plus an array of hidden additives and ingredients 
in products like tomato sauce, ice cream and peanut butter.

Because labeling in America is prohibited, 
consumers don't know what they're eating or the 
risks from foods they believe safe. It makes 
everyone part of a mass human experiment, the 
results of which are unknown. Health problems may 
take years to show up. They'll be no way to trace 
the cause, and they may be serious, irreversible, 
and potentially life threatening.

Wheat so far is GM-free, and according to an 
April 1 Reuters report, Monsanto formally 
withdrew "submissions for its genetically 
modified wheat from all regulatory agencies 
except the US Food and Drug Administration, a 
company spokeswoman said. The withdrawal is the 
last step in Monsanto's (earlier) announcement 
that it would" delay but not shelve plans to 
introduce the world's first GM wheat.

Monsanto sought approval in America, Canada, 
Australia, New Zealand, Russia, South Africa and 
Colombia. It's now delayed, not halted. The 
company wants GM control over wheat and all other 
foods, but its official pronouncements deny it.

Monsanto Answers Its Critics

"Monsanto According to Monsanto" is a company 
blog site. Responding to critics on March 20, it 
headlined, "HR 875: Monsanto's Dream Bill - Or 
Just a Hallucination?" It dismisses the notion 
that it's behind the bill that will "give 
incredible power to Monsanto by criminalizing 
seed banking, requiring 24 hour GPS tracking of 
animals, stripping away of property rights, and 
forcing industrialized farming on America."

Not so it says or that "Monsanto is behind the 
bill. (Further), nowhere is there any mention of 
seed banks, loss of property rights, or GPS 
tracking of animals. The bill seems to be nothing 
more egregious than a well-intentioned effort to 
improve food safety laws and processes."

The bill's presumed intentions will be discussed 
below, but one thing is clear. Businesses, not 
politicians, write and/or control virtually all 
legislation affecting them to assure their 
interests are served. Monsanto is an influential 
Ag giant, directly involved in all food-related 
laws, the company's denials notwithstanding. It's 
so powerful, it has virtual veto power over 
anything related to its operations and laws affecting them.

Yet it dismissively claims that the bill stems 
from "public concerns with relatively recent 
incidents with peanut butter, ground beef, (and) 
spinach, etc." False. The way to deal with these 
and related problems is simply enforce existing 
laws, not enact new ones. They're not because 
food giants object at a time they matter, not 
public health and safety that's of no concern to lawmakers.

Case in point: the USDA is woefully understaffed, 
under-budgeted, and only perfunctorily carries 
out inspections. A recent OMB Watch report 
highlights the problem. Headlined, "Federal Meat 
Inspectors Spread Thin as Recalls Rise," it 
explains that USDA's Food Safety and Inspection 
Service (FSIS) is charged with ensuring safe 
meat, poultry and eggs, but its budget and staff 
haven't kept pace with its mandate.

In FY 1981, it had about 190 workers per billion 
pounds of meat and poultry inspected. By FY 2007, 
it was fewer than 88 or less than half as many. 
Yet under federal law, FSIS must inspect all 
meat, poultry, and egg products intended for 
commercial use. Its web site states: "Slaughter 
facilities cannot operate if FSIS inspection 
personnel are not present (and) Only Federally 
inspected establishments can produce products 
that are destined to enter commerce."

Reality, however, belies the mandate as 
processors and manufacturers easily circumvent 
procedures, and according to inspectors 
interviewed, understaffing and lax policies 
contribute to the problem. An unsafe food supply 
results. Government policy is to blame, and 
current legislation is for other purposes, not a 
way to fix things. HR 875 and companion bills are 
for agribusiness, not improved food safety.

Some Likely Truths about HR 875

Several recent articles and the Pennsylvania 
Association for Sustainable Agriculture (PASA) 
offered their analyses. They believe this and 
companion bills are vehicles to let agribusiness 
control the entire US food supply, destroy 
independent local farming, and end the production 
of healthy organic food. They may be right.

Linn Cohen-Cole calls HR 875 "monstrous on level 
after level - the power it would give to Monsanto 
(and other Ag giants), the criminalization of 
seed banking, the prison terms and confiscatory 
fines for farmers, the 24 hour GPS tracking of 
animals, the easement on their property to allow 
for warrantless government entry, the stripping 
away of their property rights, the imposition 
(of) "industrial" standards, (and) planned 
elimination of (independent) farmers through all (the above) means."

It's no secret that Ag giants want all foods to 
be GMOs so they have total control. It's an 
agenda going back decades that Engdahl explained 
in his book. The science came out of US research 
labs in the 1970s when no one noticed or paid 
attention. It became apparent when the Reagan 
administration decided to make America dominant 
in a friendly unregulated environment, unmindful 
of safety and public health concerns, that's 
persisted ever since under Republican and Democrat administrations.

Monsanto is the dominant producer, a company with 
a long record of fraud, cover-up, bribery, 
deceit, and disdain for the public interest, yet 
it has enormous clout in Washington. In the 
1980s, and especially under GHW Bush, it got 
unregulated free reign for its operations. A Bush 
Executive Order assured it. It ruled GMO plants 
and food to be "substantially equivalent" to 
ordinary ones of the same varieties, such as 
corn, wheat or rice. "Substantial equivalence" 
became the standard for the GMO revolution by 
sweeping away all regulatory restraints in spite 
of early concerns about safety that were confirmed overwhelmingly later on.

PASA says don't be fooled by the bill's deceptive 
language that hides its true intentions. Code 
words like "traceability, source verification, 
and best farming practices with proven scientific 
results" will force farmers to tag every animal 
(the requirement for industrial farms is one per 
800,000) and use drugs, pesticides and GM seeds.

Already an Ohio state agricultural department 
swat team raided an organic food coop. The same 
thing happened to Pennsylvania Mennonite farmers 
and Wisconsin Amish ones. Other independents have 
been terrorized by home break-ins, burglaries, 
and treetop helicopter over-flights scaring 
animals to death. Conventional seed farmers like 
North Dakota's Rodney Nelson have been sued by 
Monsanto for infringing on its patent rights 
because wind currents landed GM seeds on his 
land. In Poland, pro-agribusiness laws eliminated 
60% of small farmers. Ones in the UK led to 60 
suicides and in India to over 180,000.

 From 1996 - 2004, worldwide GMO plantings 
expanded to 167 million acres, a 40-fold increase 
on 25% of global arable land. Over two-thirds of 
US farmland grows GMOs, more than 106 million 
acres. Argentina has 34 million acres, and 
production is expanding in Brazil, China, Canada, 
South Africa, Indonesia, Spain, Eastern Europe, 
and wherever else Ag giants have clout. They want 
it all, everywhere, and have complicit government 
allies to help them, here and abroad.

In Iraq, Paul Bremer's Order 81 covers patents, 
their duration, and stated: "Farmers shall be 
prohibited from re-using seeds of protected 
varieties or any (designated) variety." It gave 
Ag giants absolute control over farmers' seed 
usage for 20 years. They're now GMO, owned by the 
transnationals, and Iraqi farmers had to sign an 
agreement to pay a "technology fee" as well as an 
annual license fee. Plant Variety Protection 
(PVP) made seed saving and reuse illegal, and 
even "similar" seed plantings can result in 
severe fines and imprisonment. Agribusiness wants 
the same rights everywhere, including in America. 
If they get it, the future of organic and 
independent farming will be threatened.

PASA says HR 875 doesn't regulate, prohibit or 
penalize private gardens or farmers markets 
directly. It focuses solely on ensuring 
supermarket food safety. But it regulates seeds, 
harvesting, transporting, seed storage 
facilities, and seed cleaning equipment under 
"food safety" provisions to prevent contamination 
- from agricultural water and manure, not 
pesticides, fertilizers, or unsafe GM seeds.

Seed cleaning equipment is crucial as it's how 
organic seed is saved. It's used after plants "go 
to seed" to separate them from plant material so 
farmers can harvest and store them for future 
plantings. HR 875 doesn't mention seeds but PASA 
believes its intent is to criminalize their 
banking through code language and bill 
provisions. Already, some areas of the country 
ban seed cleaning. Monsanto is likely involved, 
and the scheme is to claim the equipment produces contamination.

To prevent it, Ag giants want provisions that 
require expensive storage facilities, per line of 
seed. Organic farmers can't afford them, and this 
has nothing to do with food safety. But HR 875 claims it does.

PASA says FDA and USDA targeted organic and other 
independent farmers for years, at least since the 
early 1980s when high interest rates drove many 
out of business. Today, pro-industry laws have 
the same effect because Ag giants like Monsanto 
demand them. If they succeed, biodiversity and 
organic farming are at risk along with public 
health and safety to a greater degree than 
already given the amount of tainted and dangerous 
foods allowed, not addressed in HR 875.

While bill language doesn't prohibit organic or 
independent farming, that's the likely aim. Its 
provisions are Ag business-friendly, but 
destructive to small competitors by establishing 
heavy fines, imprisonment, onerous rules, and 
letting regulators interpret them as they wish.

Bill language also doesn't mandate a national 
animal ID system (NAIS) but does it by claiming 
it's in current law. It's so deceptive that 
Congress and consumer and food safety groups 
support it. But some are industry funded so look 
the other way when they should know better.

HR 875 and its companion bills are under 
consideration in committees, not yet voted into 
law. Activists feel now is the time to stop them 
before it's too late. Agribusiness wants total 
control over every step in the production, 
processing, distribution, storage, and marketing of foods to consumers.

Using the ruse of food safety and security, they 
aim to eliminate competition to have it all and 
replace wholesome foods with unsafe GMOs. 
Congress is willing to go along. And why not. 
Representatives like DeLauro get large Ag 
business contributions. In return, they assure 
bills like HR 875 are passed. It's for concerned people to stop them.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the 
Center of Research on Globalization.

The following is the personal assessment of H.R. 
875: Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009 by 
John Jeavons of Ecology Action. It is his desire 
that these comments be considered as a part of 
the public debate on this very important Bill. 
Further, the issue is serious enough that he 
encourages others to read the Bill in its 
entirety and formulate their own opinions from 
their perspective. This is will provide a broader 
scope of concerns for consideration for those in 
positions to appropriately revise the legislation 
in the best interest of their 
constituencies.  Any statements taken in part 
from the entirety of this assessment should be 
stated as the views of the person referencing the 
comment. To review the entire Bill go to: 
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgibin/query/C?c111:./temp/~c111gv58l2

Points of Concern:

    * Inadequate oversight on the Food Safety Administration.
    * Need for more independent and unbiased 
research and data for sustainable agricultural 
practices, which also promote improved health.
    * Classifications for Food Establishments or 
Food Production Facilities are too broad and 
subject all producers of food to the same 
standards and requirements, regardless of size.
    * Administrative requirements for compliance 
with standards to be created, which are as yet 
vague, appear to be burdensome for small producers.
    * Substantial fines and penalties, without 
needed language to differentiate between size of producers.
    * Language related to what constitutes an 
outbreak needs to be considered and defined more 
carefully so as to avoid excessive response that 
may be ultimately counter to the public good.


Elaboration on the Points of Concern:
    * Broad categories of inclusion for what is a 
Food Establishment or Food Production Facility. 
There is no qualification for the size of the 
operation and, in fact, this Bill seems to target 
smaller growers or facilities. It states in many 
of the classifications that they pertain to those 
that are not otherwise regulated, which large 
commercial operations already are.
    * There is concern that too much power for 
determining appropriate methods of food 
production, regulating, and penalizing are given 
to the Administrator of the Food Safety 
Administration. The language of this Bill in many 
ways is too vague and sweeping to engender 
confidence on the part of the public as to the 
true intention of the newly formed agency.  This 
feels similar to the Patriot Act in that it seems 
like an over reaction based on fear, and the 
levels of control that stem from it may be 
excessive and detrimental to the greater good. In 
particular, the determination that 2 or more 
cases of a similar illness from eating a common 
food will be classified as an outbreak, which 
then gives the Administration authority for 
extreme measures, seems excessive. More 
reasonable and specific language about what constitutes an outbreak is needed.
Further, the statement that “IN GENERAL- The 
Administrator, in person or by such agents as the 
Administrator may designate, may prosecute any 
inquiry necessary to carry out the duties of the 
Administrator under the food safety law in any 
part of the United States” gives this agency too 
much power. Any legal actions should be handled 
within the court system and the accused afforded 
their standard rights for due process and representation.
There should be some type of oversight committee, 
including citizen advocacy representatives, as 
well as more language in the Bill itself that 
provides checks and balances on Administrative power.
    * Why is there verbiage in this Bill about 
protection of trade secrets if this is truly 
about food safety? The only time trade secrets 
would come into play would be if there were a 
concern over public health as a result of 
chemical use or genetically modified products. 
Given that the process of genetic modification 
requires the use of viruses to introduce a 
foreign gene into an organism, and that this 
could pose a threat to public health, these 
“secrets” should not be protected under this Bill.
    * There is language in the Bill that 
indicates a “standard” will be determined for 
safe production of food that will include things 
like fertilizer use, nutrients, and 
hygiene.  This is all fine so long as that 
standard is not weighted in favor of current, 
large-scale agrochemical methods. The Bill says 
that a variance can be applied for, but again, if 
we are truly talking about health of our food 
supply and our soil, the standard should be for 
the methods that best support that. The burden 
for applying for variances would then be on 
chemical agriculture and not organic farming. 
There are also many small-scale organic growers 
for whom the time and expense of complying with 
obtaining scientific proof for the safety of 
their methods in order to obtain a variance would 
be prohibitive. In general, the time and 
financial requirements for registering, reporting 
and regular inspections, applying for variances, 
and otherwise meeting the stated objectives set 
forth by the Food Safety Administration will be 
too burdensome for small farmers. We need to 
ensure that the valuable resource we have in these farmers is safeguarded.
Additionally, a stated purpose of this Bill is 
the need to protect “a growing number of people 
at high risk for food-borne illnesses, including 
an increasing population of aging and 
immune-compromised consumers, together with infants and children.”

The demand for organically produced food has 
grown out of the need to address increasing 
health challenges and compromised immune systems. 
Both the health of the environment and humans has 
suffered from chemical agriculture. To then opt 
in favor of chemical production, antibiotics, or 
things like irradiation as a standard for food 
safety would be counterproductive to say the 
least. Therefore, there should be more specific 
language in the Bill in favor of organic 
agriculture. Otherwise, it is hard to believe 
that the basis for introducing this piece of legislation is food safety.


Annotated Review Comments
H.R. 875


NOTE: Text in quotes is taken directly from the 
Bill. Where quoted text has been bolded, it is 
for this assessment’s emphasis. Additionally, 
bracketed text is for comment or clarification.

Overall the Bill strikes me as a Patriot Act for 
Food. It vests a lot of power in one agency, and 
specifically the “Administrator” of the Food 
Safety Administration. This will be a 
consolidation of various entities who have 
previously played a role in this regard.
Justification for this consolidation and focused effort is:

    * “lapses in the protection of the food 
supply and loss of public confidence in food 
safety are damaging to consumers and the food 
industry, and place a burden on interstate commerce and international trade;”

    * “the safety and security of the food supply 
require a system wide approach to prevent 
food-borne illness involving the integrated 
efforts of Federal, State and local agencies; a 
thorough, broad-based, and coordinated approach 
to basic and applied science; and intensive, 
effective, and efficient management of the Nation’s food safety program;”
    * “the Food and Drug Administration, an 
agency within the Department of Health and Human 
Services, has regulatory jurisdiction over the 
safety and labeling of 80 percent of the American 
food supply, encompassing all foods except meat, 
poultry, and egg products, as well as drugs, medical devices, and biologics;”
    * “the Food and Drug Administration’s 
effectiveness is further impaired by 
fragmentation of leadership and management within 
the Administration, as major food safety 
responsibilities are dispersed across the 
Administration’s Center for Food Safety and 
Applied Nutrition, Center for Veterinary 
Medicine, and Office of Regulatory Affairs;”

The new Food Safety Administration is to: 
“provide a single focal point with the Department 
of Health and Human Services for food safety 
leadership, both nationally and internationally; 
and provide an integrated food safety research 
capability, including internally generated, 
scientifically and statistically valid studies, 
in cooperation with academic institutions and 
other scientific entities of the Federal and State governments;”

More emphasis on independent research or testing 
is needed. Control is basically in the hands of the “Administrator.”

Further rationalization for the need for this 
massive effort is: “a growing number of people at 
high risk for food-borne illnesses, including an 
increasing population of aging and 
immune-compromised consumers, together with infants and children;”

The reason many people are demanding organic 
products is exactly because the health of the 
American population has been seriously 
compromised through chemicals that unbalance the 
human body and the environment. This is not 
addressing the real problem, but rather layering 
another problem on top. This Bill suggests:

    * “include, with respect to growing, 
harvesting, sorting, and storage operations, 
minimum standards related to fertilizer use, 
nutrients, hygiene, packaging, temperature 
controls, animal encroachment, and water;”
    * “include, with respect to animals raised 
for food, minimum standards related to the 
animal’s health, feed, and environment which bear 
on the safety of food for human consumption;”

This is too vague and anyone that does not comply 
with the required standards must apply for a 
variance, describing the reasons it is necessary 
and the procedures, processes, and practices that 
will be followed to ensure produce is not 
adulterated. There is strong probability for 
standards being set that would include things 
like chemical fertilizers, pesticides, 
irradiation, and antibiotics for animals.

It is stated that the Act would:
    * “provide a reasonable period of time for 
compliance, taking into account the needs of 
small business for additional time to comply;”

There are 5 categories of Food Establishments 
that will be required to register with Secretary 
within 90 days of the enactment of this Act.

Category 1 Food Establishment – A food 
establishment (other than seafood processing) 
that slaughters, for the purpose of producing 
food, animals that are not subject to inspection 
under the Federal Meat Inspection Act or poultry 
that are not subject to inspection under the 
Poultry Products Inspection Act.  It seems this 
would mean ranchers or poultry operations that 
are too small to be regulated by the USDA.

Category 2 Food Establishment – Seafood 
processing establishment or other food 
establishment (other than Category 1) not subject 
to inspection under the Federal Meat Inspection 
Act, the Poultry Products Inspection Act, or the 
Egg Products Inspection Act, that processes raw 
seafood or other raw animal products, whether 
fresh or frozen, or other products that the 
Administrator determines by regulation to pose a 
significant risk of hazardous contamination.

Category 3 Food Establishment – A food 
establishment (other than a category 1 or 2) that 
processes cooked, pasteurized, or otherwise 
ready-to-eat seafood or other animal products, 
fresh produce in ready-to-eat raw form, or other 
products that pose a risk of hazardous contamination.

Category 4 Food Establishment – A food 
establishment that processes all other categories 
of food products not described in paragraphs (5) 
through (7) [Categories 1, 2 or 3.]

Category 5 Food Establishment – A food 
establishment that stores, holds, or transports 
food products prior to delivery for 
resale.  [Co-Ops such as the folks in Ohio that 
recently had their food confiscated? If that sort 
of thing is already being done without this Act, 
what will happen with giving more muscle to the government in this regard?]

“FOOD ESTABLISHMENT-
(A)   IN GENERAL – The term ‘food establishment’ 
means a slaughterhouse (except those regulated 
under the Federal Meat Inspection Act or the 
Poultry Products Inspection Act), factory, 
warehouse, or facility owned or operated by a 
person located in any State that processes food 
or a facility that holds, stores, or transports food or food ingredients.”

Restaurants, retail food establishments, fishing 
vessels (other than those engaged in processing) 
and nonprofit food establishments in which food 
is prepared and served to the public are excluded 
as “Food Establishments.” It seems that the Food 
Establishment categories in this Bill have been 
created to monitor any operations that were 
otherwise “outside” of the regulatory domain.

“FOOD PRODUCTION FACILITY- The term ‘food 
production facility’ means any farm, ranch, 
orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined animal-feeding operation.”

“(c) Program Elements- In carrying out the program, the Administrator shall­
(1)   adopt and implement a national system for 
the registration of food establishments and 
foreign food establishments, as provided in section 202 of this Act;
(2)   adopt and implement a national system for 
regular unannounced inspection of food establishments;
(3)   require and enforce the adoption of 
preventive process controls in food 
establishments, based on the best available 
scientific and public health considerations and 
the best available technologies;”

(6)  implement appropriate surveillance 
procedures and requirements to ensure 
the     safety and security of imported 
food;   [How extensive of surveillance to be and how is it to be regulated?]

(10) implement an applied research program to 
further the purposes of this Act;”
[Headed by whom and including what groups?]

“REGISTRATION- Registration under this section 
shall begin within 90 days of the enactment of this Act.”
It appears that all categories of Food 
Establishments or Food Production Facilities are 
required to register and then reregister 
annually. What happens to small growers who do 
not register?  What are the costs involved?

A “List” will be compiled annually of domestic 
and foreign food establishments. “The 
Administrator may establish the manner of and any 
fees required for reregistration and any 
circumstances by which either such list may be 
share with other governmental authorities. Who 
are the other governmental authorities that would potentially need said list?

“The Administrator may suspend the registration 
of a domestic food establishment or foreign food establishment . . .
The Administrator shall provide notice of an 
intent to suspend the registration of an 
establishment under this paragraph to a 
registrant and provide the registrant with an 
opportunity for an administrative hearing within 3 days. . .”

Is this a reasonable timeframe, particularly for 
farmers living rurally? Where would they have to 
go to request a hearing or for the actual hearing?

“Performance Standards-
(A)   health-based standards that set the level 
of a contaminant that can safely and lawfully be 
present in food;  [chemicals, pesticides, and antibiotics?]
(B)   zero tolerances, including any zero 
tolerance performance standards in effect on the 
day before the date of the enactment of the Act, 
when necessary to protect against significant 
adverse health outcomes;” [what are the zero tolerance performance standards?]

“Enforcement-
(1)    IN GENERAL- In conjunction with the 
establishment of a performance standard under 
this section, the Administrator shall develop a 
statistically valid sampling program with the 
stringency and frequency sufficient to 
independently monitor whether food establishments 
are complying with the performance standard and 
implement the program within 1 year of the promulgation of the standard.
(2)    INSPECTIONS- If the Administrator 
determines that a food establishment fails to 
meet a standard promulgated under this section, 
the Administrator shall, as appropriate­
(A)  detain, seize, or condemn food from the food 
establishment under section 402;
(E) take other appropriate enforcement action 
concerning the food establishment, including withdrawal of registration.

The schedule for inspections seems excessive:

Category 2 Food Establishments “randomly 
inspected at least weekly” – Raw dairy operations
Category 3 Food Establishments “randomly inspected at least monthly” – Farms

“The Administrator may adopt alternative 
inspection frequencies for increased or decreased 
inspection for a specific establishment and shall 
annually publish a list of establishments subject 
to alternative inspections.”  [Could be fine. 
Depends on who is targeted, for what reasons and how it is implemented.]

“MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS- The records in paragraph 
(1) shall be maintained for a reasonable period 
of time, as determined by the Administrator.
REQUIREMENTS- The records in paragraph (1) shall include records describing­
(A) the origin, receipt, delivery, sale, 
movement, holding, and disposition of food or 
ingredients;”  [Is this applied to every Food 
Establishment category? Is it also relative to the size of the operation?]

The recurring question here is what is the effect 
of all of this on the small grower, i.e., those 
producing for local farmer’s markets?

“IN GENERAL- The Administrator shall develop and 
maintain procedures to prevent the unauthorized 
disclosure of any trade secret or commercially 
valuable confidential information obtained by the 
Administrator”  [What does this have to do with 
food safety for contaminants, unless it is to 
protect companies, e.g., Monsanto from having to 
say what is in their products?]

SEC. 207. FEDERAL AND STATE COOPERATION.
(1)   AUTHORITY- The Administrator shall 
strengthen and expand food-borne illness 
surveillance systems. [What kind of surveillance?]
(2)   FOOD-BORNE ILLNESS OUTBREAK – For purposes 
of this section, the term food borne illness 
outbreak’ means the occurrence of 2 or more cases 
of a similar illness resulting from the ingestion of a common food.

Once an “outbreak” is declared it seems extreme 
measures are taken to contain it, both through 
this newly formed Administration and perhaps “the 
other government agencies” to whom the “list” was 
provided. This seems excessive for 2 people 
getting sick from ingesting a common food. That happens all the time.

Further measures include:
    * “conducting rapid and more standardized 
interviewing of cases associated with major 
enteric pathogens, including prior to designation 
of clusters as food-borne illness 
outbreaks;  [More detail on what this could potentially look like is needed.]
    * conducting and evaluating rapid and 
standardized interviews of healthy control 
persons;”  [Who are the healthy control persons?]

SECTION 303. RESEARCH

    * Identify ways that animal production 
techniques could improve the safety of the food supply;  [antibiotics?]
    * Develop methods to reduce or destroy 
harmful pathogens before, during, and after processing;  [irradiation?]
    * Analyze the incidence of antibiotic 
resistance as it pertains to the food supply and 
develop new methods to reduce the transfer of antibiotic resistance to humans;


SEC. 401. PROHIBITED ACTS

    * To refuse to permit access to a food 
establishment or food production facility for the 
inspection and copying of a record as required 
under sections 205(f) and 206(a);
    * To fail to establish and maintain any 
record or to make any report as required under sections 205(f) and 206(b);
    * To refuse to permit entry to or inspection 
of a food establishment as required under section 205;
    * To slaughter an animal that is capable for 
use in whole or in part as human food at a food 
establishment processing any food for commerce, 
except in compliance with the food safety law;

SEC. 402. FOOD DETENTION, SEIZURE, AND CONDEMNATION.

(1)   EXPANDED AUTHORITY- The Administrator shall 
have authority under section 304 of the Federal 
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 334) to 
administratively detain and seize any food 
regulated under this Act that the Administrator 
has reason to believe is unsafe, is adulterated 
or misbranded, or otherwise fails to meet the 
requirements of the food safety law.

“FOOD SUBJECT TO AN ORDER- A food subject to a 
detention order under this subsection shall not 
be transferred by any person from the place at 
which the food is removed, until released by the 
Administrator or until the expiration of the 
detention period applicable under the order, whichever occurs first.”

Appeal of Detention Order-
ACTION BY THE ADMINISTRATOR- Not later than 5 
days after an appeal is filed under paragraph 
(1), the Administrator, after providing an 
opportunity for an informal hearing, shall 
confirm, modify, or terminate the order involved.

[What are the larger implications of this if food 
is detained on a routine basis and not available 
for transfer with an administrative process that 
could potentially be bogged down?]

SEC. 405. CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES.
(a)    Civil Sanctions-
·        IN GENERAL- Any person that commits an 
act that violates the food safety law (including 
a regulation promulgated or order issued under 
the food safety law) may be assessed a civil 
penalty by the Administrator of not more than $1,000,000 for each such act.
·        SEPARATE OFFENSE- Each act described in 
subparagraph (A) and each day during which that 
act continues shall be considered a separate offense.

(b)   Criminal Sanctions-
OFFENSE RESULTING IN SERIOUS ILLNESS-
. . . with respect to an adulterated or 
misbranded food results in serious illness, the 
person committing the violation shall be 
imprisoned for not more than 5 years, fined in 
accordance with title 18, United States Code, or both.

This needs some clarifying language about 
premeditated contamination, malicious intent, etc.






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20090421/8ce25fa8/attachment.html>