Food Safety Bills in Congress
Sep-13-2010

Tell Congress: One size does not fit all when considering food safety bills! Small local farms and food processors are fundamentally different from huge, industrial food suppliers that ship food all over the country. Congress can and should address the problems with the industrial food supply without harming the local food systems that provide an alternative for concerned consumers!

The U.S. Senate is considering a bill, S. 510, to reform the food safety system. Although reform of the industrial food supply is clearly needed, this bill threatens to create more problems than it will solve. S. 510 would undermine the rapidly growing local foods movement by imposing unnecessary, burdensome regulations on small farms and food processors - everyone from your local CSA to the small bakers, jam makers, and people making fermented vegetables to sell at the local farmers market.

AUGUST 20, 2010: The Senate has released a revised version of S. 510. Read our analysis here. In brief, while provisions have been added to try to address the concerns of small and sustainable farms, they are almost entirely left to FDA's discretion. The Tester-Hagan Amendments have not been included in the new version of S. 510. Please call your Senators today and urge them to support the Tester-Hagan amendments if & when the bill comes to the floor.

You can read our earlier action alert, which includes contact information and talking points for talking with your Senators, here. The list of organizations urging Senators to support the Tester-Hagan amendment to exempt small-scale and direct-marketing producers from the most burdensome portions of the bill is now 157 strong!

Q&A; Get the facts about the Tester-Hagan amendment to protect local foods. And then call your Senators to urge them to co-sponsor the amendments!

Briefing on the requirement for "facilities" under S. 510

Briefing on the "produce standards" under S. 510

Take Action

Contact both of your U.S. Senators and ask them to suppport he Tester-Hagan Amendmentsto:
(a) exempt farmers selling directly to consumers, and
(b) exempt small-scale processors.

To find out who your Senators are, go to www.congress.org or call the Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121.

Spread the word in your community! You can download a flyer here

Read more! Kimberly Hartke has collected articles by a wide range of people writing about the food safety bills.

Get ideas for talking points from FARFA's position statement on food safety

TALKING POINTS
1. The major foodborne illness outbreaks and recalls have all been within the large, industrial food system. Small, local food producers have not contributed to the highly publicized outbreaks. Yet both the House and Senate bills subject the small, local food system to the same, broad federal regulatory oversight that would apply to the industrial food system. Increased regulations, record-keeping obligations, and the penalties and fees could destroy small businesses that bring food to local communities.

2. FDA regulation of local food processors is unnecessary and burdensome. Federal regulations may be needed for industrial processors that get raw ingredients from multiple locations (sometimes imported from other countries) and ship their products across the country, but federal regulation is overkill for small, local processors. Existing state and local public health laws are sufficient for local food sources.

3. Relying on HACCP will not make food safer and will harm small processors. S. 510 applies a complex and burdensome Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) system to even the smallest local food processors. Although the concept of preventative controls is a good one, the federal agencies' implementation of HACCP has already proven to be an overwhelming burden for a significant number of small, regional meat processors across the country. In the meat industry, HACCP has not eliminated the spread of e. coli and other pathogens and has resulted in fewer independent inspections of the large slaughter plants where these pathogens originate. At the same time, small, regional processors have been subject to sanctions due to paperwork violations that posed no health threat. Applying a HACCP system to small, local foods processors could drive them out of business, reducing consumers' options to buy fresh, local foods.

4. S. 510 puts FDA on the farm by calling for FDA regulation of how farms grow and harvest produce. Given the agency's track record, it is likely that the regulations will discriminate against small, organic, and diversified farms. The House version of the bill directs FDA to consider the impact of its rulemaking on small-scale and diversified farms, but there are no enforceable limits or protections for small diversified and organic farms from inappropriate and burdensome federal rules.

5. S. 510 favors foreign farms and producers over domestic. It creates incentives for retailers to import more food from other countries, by burdening domestic producers with requirements that, in practice, will not be equally enforced on foreign producers. The bill will create a significant competitive disadvantage for ALL U.S. agriculture and food production.

Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance Statement on Food Safety

Food safety is a priority for every person, and FARFA supports efforts to protect the safety of the American food supply.

The major outbreaks of foodborne illnesses have all been traced to industrial-scale food producers and processors shipping to multiple states or across international boundaries. In several cases, the outbreaks have resulted from failure to comply with existing laws and regulations and/or failure by the government to properly inspect the food.

In contrast to the industrial agricultural system, local food systems provide significant food safety benefits due to the limited scale and distribution and the increased traceability and accountability inherent in these systems. There has been no evidence of significant food safety problems due to farms or food processors selling in local markets.

A local, diversified food system can provide critical access to food in cases of a terrorism attack or natural disaster. Local food systems also increase food security, benefit the local economy, reduce reliance on oil, and provide other economic, social, and environmental benefits. Direct marketing and other local distribution options provide increased economic opportunity for producers, while also providing consumers with options for nutritious, fresh food.

Despite the critical differences between industrial agriculture and local agriculture, the bills currently before Congress apply a one-size-fits-all approach to food safety. Moreover, the USDA and FDA have frequently promoted programs, including the National Animal Identification System, Good Agricultural Practices, and proposed leafy green protocols, which benefit industrial agriculture at the expense of local agriculture. The bills and programs fail to address the source of the problems within the industrial agriculture system and would impose unfair and onerous burdens on local food sources. The result would be to drive small farms and food processors out of business, depriving consumers of the option to purchase safe, fresh, and healthy foods from the producers of their choice.

The Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance therefore resolves to work to advance food safety policies that:

- enforce existing food safety laws first;
- focus on high-risk food production, in particular imports and large processing facilities that ship foods to multiple states;
- are scale-sensitive, ensuring that small farms and processors are not unfairly disadvantaged;
- support the continued development of local food systems; and
- provide options for direct marketing between consumers and food producers.

Posted by Clay Kohut at 12:43 AM - Link to this entry  |  Share this entry  |  Print