<html>
<body>
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@igc.org)<br><br>
<div align="center"><b>Going Organic- Great Idea!<br>
H.R. 875 Food Safety Modernization Bill- Bad Idea!<br><br>
</b></div>
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
<b><i>Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic
Manipulation</i></b>, genetically modified organisms, pose an
unprecedented threat to human health. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
<b>H.R. 875 Food Safety Modernization Act of
2009</b>, 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 <b><i>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</i></b>; a pioneer of the biointensive method
of mini-farming (See <b><i>growbioinstensive.org</i></b> &
<b><i>johnjeavons.info</i></b>.) encourages public debate on food issues
and notes that-<br><br>
“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.<br><br>
“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”<br>
<br>
His concerns include:<br>
*Inadequate oversight on the <b>Food Safety Administration</b>.<br>
*Need for more <b>independent and unbiased </b>research and data for
sustainable agricultural practices, which
also promote improved health.<br>
*Classifications for Food Establishments or Food Production Facilities
are too broad and subject <b>all</b> producers of food to the same
standards and requirements, regardless of size.<br>
*Administrative requirements for compliance with standards to be created,
which are as yet vague, appear to be burdensome for small producers.<br>
*Substantial fines and penalties, without needed language to
differentiate between size of producers.<br>
*Language related to what constitutes an <b>outbreak</b> needs to be
considered and defined more carefully so as to avoid excessive response
that may be ultimately counter to the public good.<br><br>
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.”<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br>
<br>
(By Carol Brouillet)<br><br>
US Green Party Press release:<br>
<img src="http://www.gp.org/press/images/gp-globe.jpg" width=100 height=86 alt="Green Party Logo">
<h2><b>Greens urge amendment to food safety bills, citing need to protect
family farms and organic farming</b></h2>GREEN PARTY OF THE UNITED
STATES<br>
<a href="http://www.gp.org/" eudora="autourl">http://www.gp.org<br><br>
</a>Monday, April 6, 2009<br><br>
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.<br><br>
"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.<br><br>
"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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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"
(<a href="http://www.gp.org/platform/2004/ecology.html#753970">
http://www.gp.org/platform/2004/ecology.html#753970</a>).<br><br>
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)
(<a href="http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_17451.cfm" eudora="autourl">
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_17451.cfm</a>); Action
Alert: Critical Pending Food Safety Legislation
(<a href="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</a>
).<br><br>
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
(<a href="http://www.nofa.org/policy/leafygreens.php">
http://www.nofa.org/policy/leafygreens.php</a>).<br><br>
(From Global Research.ca -
<a href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13025" eudora="autourl">
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13025</a>
)<br>
Unsafe Genetically Modified Food <br>
GMO Proliferation Bills in the US Congress<br><br>
by Stephen Lendman<br><br>
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:<br><br>
-- discussion, <br><br>
-- possible hearings, <br><br>
-- "mark-up" to make changes and add amendments,<br><br>
-- 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.<br><br>
The bill's text is deceptively innocuous. Its header reads:<br><br>
"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."<br><br>
Related bills include:<br><br>
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."<br><br>
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."<br><br>
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."<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
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.<br><br>
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. <br><br>
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.<br><br>
<b>Monsanto Answers Its Critics<br><br>
</b>"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."<br><br>
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."<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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. <br><br>
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.<br><br>
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."<br><br>
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.<br><br>
<b>Some Likely Truths about HR 875<br><br>
</b>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.<br><br>
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."<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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. <br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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. <br><br>
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.<br><br>
<b><i>Stephen Lendman</b> is a Research Associate of the Center of
Research on Globalization.<br><br>
</i>The following is the personal assessment of <b>H.R. 875: Food Safety
Modernization Act of 2009</b> 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. <b>Any statements taken in part from the entirety
of this assessment should be stated as the views of the person
referencing the comment. </b>To review the entire Bill go to:
<a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgibin/query/C?c111:./temp/~c111gv58l2" eudora="autourl">
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgibin/query/C?c111:./temp/~c111gv58l2<br>
</a> <br>
<b>Points of Concern:<br>
</b>
<ul>
<li>Inadequate oversight on the <b>Food Safety Administration</b>.
<li>Need for more <b>independent</b> <b>and unbiased</b> research and
data for sustainable agricultural practices, which also promote improved
health.
<li>Classifications for Food Establishments or Food Production Facilities
are too broad and subject <b>all </b>producers of food to the same
standards and requirements, regardless of size.
<li>Administrative requirements for compliance with standards to be
created, which are as yet vague, appear to be burdensome for small
producers.
<li>Substantial fines and penalties, without needed language to
differentiate between size of producers.
<li>Language related to what constitutes an <b>outbreak</b> needs to be
considered and defined more carefully so as to avoid excessive response
that may be ultimately counter to the public good.
</ul><b> <br>
<br>
Elaboration on the Points of Concern</b>:
<ul>
<li>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.
<li>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 <b>2 or more</b> cases of a similar illness from
eating a common food will be classified as an <b>outbreak</b>, which then
gives the Administration authority for extreme measures, seems excessive.
More reasonable and specific language about what constitutes an outbreak
is needed.
</ul>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.<br>
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.
<ul>
<li>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.
<li>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.
</ul>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.”<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<b><u> <br>
<div align="center"> <br>
Annotated Review Comments<br>
</u>H.R. 875<br>
<br>
</b></div>
<br>
<b>NOTE: </b>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. <br>
<br>
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.<br>
Justification for this consolidation and focused effort is:<br>
<ul>
<li>“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;”
</ul>
<ul>
<li>“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;”
<li>“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;”
<li>“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;”
</ul> <br>
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;”<br>
<br>
<b>More emphasis on independent research or testing is needed. Control is
basically in the hands of the “Administrator.”<br>
<br>
</b>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;”<br>
<br>
<b>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.</b> This Bill suggests: <br>
<ul>
<li>“include, with respect to growing, harvesting, sorting, and storage
operations, <b>minimum standards related to fertilizer use, nutrients,
hygiene, </b>packaging, temperature controls, animal encroachment, and
water;”
<li>“include, with respect to animals raised for food, <b>minimum
standards</b> related to the animal’s health, feed, and environment which
bear on the safety of food for human consumption;”
</ul> <br>
This is too vague and anyone that does not comply with the <b>required
standards </b>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. <br>
<br>
It is stated that the Act would:
<ul>
<li>“provide a reasonable period of time for compliance, taking into
account the needs of small business for additional time to comply;”
</ul> <br>
There are 5 categories of <b>Food Establishments</b> that will be
required to register with Secretary within 90 days of the enactment of
this Act. <br>
<br>
<b>Category 1 Food Establishment</b> – 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.<br>
<br>
<b>Category 2 Food Establishment</b> – 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.<br>
<br>
<b>Category 3 Food Establishment</b> – A food establishment (other than a
category 1 or 2) that processes cooked, pasteurized, or otherwise
ready-to-eat seafood or other animal products, <b>fresh produce in
ready-to-eat raw form</b>, or other products that pose a risk of
hazardous contamination.<br>
<br>
<b>Category 4 Food Establishment</b> – A food establishment that
processes all other categories of food products not described in
paragraphs (5) through (7) [Categories 1, 2 or 3.]<br>
<br>
<b>Category 5 Food Establishment</b> – 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?]<br>
<br>
“FOOD ESTABLISHMENT-<br>
(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, <b>warehouse</b>,
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.”<br>
<br>
<b>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.<br>
</b> <br>
“<b>FOOD PRODUCTION FACILITY</b>- The term ‘food production facility’
means any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or
confined animal-feeding operation.”<br>
<br>
“(c) Program Elements- In carrying out the program, the Administrator
shall<br>
(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;<br>
(2) adopt and implement a national system for <b>regular
unannounced inspection</b> of food establishments;<br>
(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;”<br>
<br>
(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?]<br>
<br>
(10) implement an applied research program to further the purposes of
this Act;”<br>
[Headed by whom and including what groups?]<br>
<br>
<b>“REGISTRATION</b>- Registration under this section shall begin within
90 days of the enactment of this Act.” <br>
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?<br>
<br>
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?<br>
<br>
“The Administrator may suspend the registration of a domestic food
establishment or foreign food establishment . . . <br>
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. . .”<br>
<br>
<b>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?<br>
</b> <br>
“Performance Standards-<br>
(A) health-based standards that set the level of a
contaminant that can safely and lawfully be present in food;
[chemicals, pesticides, and antibiotics?]<br>
(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?]<br>
<br>
“Enforcement-<br>
(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.<br>
(2) INSPECTIONS- If the Administrator determines that a
food establishment fails to meet a standard promulgated under this
section, the Administrator shall, as appropriate<br>
(A) detain, <b>seize</b>, or condemn food from the food
establishment under section 402;<br>
(E) take other appropriate enforcement action concerning the food
establishment, including withdrawal of registration.<br>
<br>
The schedule for inspections seems excessive:<br>
<br>
Category 2 Food Establishments “randomly inspected at least weekly” – Raw
dairy operations<br>
Category 3 Food Establishments “randomly inspected at least monthly” –
Farms<br>
<br>
“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.]<br>
<br>
“MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS- The records in paragraph (1) shall be maintained
for a reasonable period of time, as determined by the Administrator.<br>
REQUIREMENTS- The records in paragraph (1) shall include records
describing<br>
(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?] <br>
<br>
<b>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?<br>
</b> <br>
“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?]<br>
<br>
SEC. 207. FEDERAL AND STATE COOPERATION.<br>
(1) AUTHORITY- The Administrator shall strengthen and expand
food-borne illness <b>surveillance </b>systems. [What kind of
surveillance?]<br>
(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.<br>
<br>
<b>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. <br>
</b> <br>
Further measures include:
<ul>
<li>“conducting rapid and more standardized interviewing of cases
associated with major enteric pathogens, <b>including prior to
designation of clusters as food-borne illness outbreaks</b>; [More
detail on what this could potentially look like is needed.]
<li>conducting and evaluating rapid and standardized interviews of
healthy control persons;” [Who are the healthy control persons?]
</ul> <br>
SECTION 303. RESEARCH<br>
<ul>
<li>Identify ways that animal production techniques could improve the
safety of the food supply; [antibiotics?]
<li>Develop methods to reduce or <b>destroy</b> harmful pathogens before,
during, and after processing; [irradiation?]
<li>Analyze the incidence of antibiotic resistance as it pertains to the
food supply and develop new methods to <b>reduce the transfer of
antibiotic resistance</b> to humans;
</ul> <br>
<br>
SEC. 401. PROHIBITED ACTS<br>
<ul>
<li>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);
<li>To fail to establish and maintain any record or to make any report as
required under sections 205(f) and 206(b);
<li>To refuse to permit entry to or inspection of a food establishment as
required under section 205;
<li>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;
</ul> <br>
SEC. 402. FOOD DETENTION, SEIZURE, AND CONDEMNATION.<br>
<br>
(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 <b>any food
regulated under this Act</b> that the Administrator has reason to believe
is unsafe, is adulterated or misbranded, or <b>otherwise fails to meet
the requirements of the food safety law</b>.<br>
<br>
“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.” <br>
<br>
Appeal of Detention Order-<br>
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.<br>
<br>
[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?]<br>
<br>
SEC. 405. CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES.<br>
(a) Civil Sanctions-<br>
· 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.<br>
· SEPARATE OFFENSE- Each act
described in subparagraph (A) and each day during which that act
continues shall be considered a separate offense.<br>
<br>
(b) Criminal Sanctions-<br>
OFFENSE RESULTING IN SERIOUS ILLNESS- <br>
. . . 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.<br>
<br>
<b>This needs some clarifying language about premeditated contamination,
malicious intent, etc. <br>
</b> <br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
</body>
<br>
</html>