The Proposal to Outlaw the Home Garden - HR 875 and S 425

[PaulF]

Lumierefrere asked about giving excess food to food banks and senior citizens and nursing homes.

My state already has regulations prohibiting senior citizens or nursing homes from accepting or using home grown produce. Instead of worrying about the remote possibility that home grown has no regulation for food safety, they would rather have the produce these homes feed the elderly come from commercial produce sellers who often import the produce from the very places where most of the food safety problems arise.

I have spent the last couple of days combing through the bill as written and mostly agree with Craig. There a few troubling sections I will address later if those areas are not brought up in the meantime. I've seedlings to take care of.

[feldon30]

I have read the appropriate sections of the bill:

Originally Posted by HR 875

(13) 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.


(B) EXCLUSIONS- For the purposes of registration, the term ‘food establishment’ does not include a food production facility as defined in paragraph (14), restaurant, other retail food establishment, nonprofit food establishment in which food is prepared for or served directly to the consumer, or fishing vessel (other than a fishing vessel engaged in processing, as that term is defined in section 123.3 of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations).


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

And based on that reading, it appears that the registration aspect of this bill would not affect farms, gardens, or any unprocessed food sources. However it still applies all kinds of regulations to these.

However I think we need to still make it clear to our representatives that we are watching this closely and any legislation that negatively affects farmer's markets, farming, and home gardening will not be appreciated.

The criminalization of sampling tomatoes, melons, etc. in Kentucky farmer's markets is a slippery slope and I cannot believe they even got such a bill passed in KY legislature.

[DiggingDogFarm]

Originally Posted by WVTomatoMan

Raising my hand. I guess I have to add emphasis too because my points don't seem to be getting across.

(B) EXCLUSIONS- For the purposes of registration, the term ‘food establishment’ does not include a food production facility as defined in paragraph (14), restaurant, other retail food establishment, nonprofit food establishment in which food is prepared for or served directly to the consumer, or fishing vessel (other than a fishing vessel engaged in processing, as that term is defined in section 123.3 of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations).

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

That simply means that food establishments and food production facilities are defined and regulated separately!!!!!!


~DiggingDog

[DiggingDogFarm]

Originally Posted by WVTomatoMan

When you look at these things (bills and the like) you have to look at intent. The intent of this bill is not to put farms out of business, stop backyard gardens, etc. The intent is to address food industry issues.

The general intention may be good, but...
For every policy, there is intended effect and unintended effect!!!

There's NO excuse for vague poorly written policy!

~DiggingDog

[organichris]

Originally Posted by DiggingDogFarm

That simply means that food establishments and food production facilities are defined and regulated separately!!!!!!


~DiggingDog

Hmmm...Now I'm going to have to go back and read it again.

[feldon30]

Here we go. I glued it together to make more sense:

EXCLUSIONS- For the purposes of registration, the term ‘food establishment’ does not include any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined animal-feeding operation, restaurant, other retail food establishment, nonprofit food establishment in which food is prepared for or served directly to the consumer, or fishing vessel (other than a fishing vessel engaged in processing, as that term is defined in section 123.3 of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations).

[DiggingDogFarm]

Putting it simply, (13) defines Food establishments, excluding Food Production Facilities from the definition of Food Establishments and (14) defines Food Production Facilities.

They're defined and regulated separately.


~DiggingDog

[organichris]

Legalese is confusing to me, and if it turns out that I'm wrong in saying that this bill applies to any and everyone who grows produce that is stored and transported from one location to another I'll be the first to admit it.

But think about it for a minute, if this legislation is not intended to apply to farms, then would it realistically address public concerns over food poisoning? I mean, when you are dealing with E. coli contamination, the obvious source of contamination is feces since the bacteria lives in the intestine. In the case of the peanut scare, it is believed by some to be the result of factory farming practices involving animal feces. If that is the case, the only way this legislation would make any sense would be if it mandated oversight - not only of food in the preparation and transportation stages - but also in the places it would be stored directly after being harvest, and before it made its way to the next stage of packaging and distribution. I may just be an ol' country boy, but I can't see any way around this legislation being aimed at farms. However, I would remind my fellow cautionary folks that this is not necessarily the final version of the bill; it may be changed for the better...or the worse.

[PaulF]

It may be that because it has not been thought out yet here is a section of interest to organic growers:


(10) CONTAMINANT- The term ‘contaminant’ includes a bacterium, chemical, natural toxin or manufactured toxicant, virus, parasite, prion, physical hazard, or other human pathogen that when found on or in food can cause human illness, injury, or death.
1(11) HAZARDOUS CONTAMINATION- The term ‘hazardous contamination’ refers to the presence of a contaminant in food at levels that pose a risk of human illness, injury, or death or are capable of reaching levels that pose such risk during the shelf life of the product.


Surely an organic grower would sensibly feel any pesticide, herbicide or even chemical fertilizer used on produce could be defined as either of the above therefore strengthening the case for banning the use of those harmful chemicals on our food products. Has Monsanto considered this in their bill?

Here is the troubling part of the bill in my view


SEC. 204. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR CONTAMINANTS IN FOOD.

(a) In General- To protect the public health, the Administrator shall establish by guidance document, action level, or regulation and enforce performance standards that define, with respect to specific foods and contaminants in food, the level of food safety performance that a person responsible for producing, processing, or selling food shall meet.
(b) Identification of Contaminants; Performance Standards-
(1) LIST OF CONTAMINANTS- Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall publish in the Federal Register a list of the contaminants in foods that have the greatest adverse impact on public health in terms of the number and severity of illnesses and number of deaths associated with foods regulated under this Act. Where appropriate, the Administrator shall indicate whether the risk posed by a contaminant is generalized or specific to particular foods or ingredients.

In order to save us from ourselves, the Administrator and the rest of the chosen group will decide the problem areas and sources of contamination after the bill is voted into law. As with any politically charged bureaucracy, the culprit is to be named afterwards. What we think they will watch may not be what they will watch. We may be assured home grown tomatoes are not on the list but with little oversight they may become a target. Far fetched? Probably, but let's be sure this bill is tightened up.

[pooklette]

Okay...I think I understand the concern now. I am in agreement with the posters who say that farms, backyard gardeners, etc. are not required to register as food establishments. Feldon summed that part up nicely here:

Originally Posted by feldon30

EXCLUSIONS- For the purposes of registration, the term ‘food establishment’ does not include any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined animal-feeding operation, restaurant, other retail food establishment, nonprofit food establishment in which food is prepared for or served directly to the consumer, or fishing vessel (other than a fishing vessel engaged in processing, as that term is defined in section 123.3 of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations).

However, later in the document, for food production facilities (any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined animal-feeding operation) it states:

Originally Posted by HR 875

SEC. 206. FOOD PRODUCTION FACILITIES.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(2) to track the food in commerce.

This implies that food establishments (not farms, gardeners, etc) will be required to register with the new Administration. Food production facilities (farms and so on) will not have to register but would have to allow random gov. inspections, regulation, and so on. It almost sounds like production facilities would have to submit to exactly the same rules, just without being asked to 'officially register'.

[feldon30]

Well then I was right to initially have serious issues with the bill.

[lumierefrere]

I have a reply but it's probably too political, so I've self-deleted.

Barb

[nctomatoman]

Something else I've found while Googling around - and there is a name and links associated with it, so it is not anonymous. Just adding information here.

________________________________________________

"There's been some discussion on various threads regarding this bill, along with S425:

Some interesting things I've found while looking into it:

Organic Consumers Association's statement on the bill:

Internet Myth of the Week:
Congress To Pass Bill That Will Outlaw Organic Farming?
This week, we received numerous calls and emails from OCA supporters who came across alarming YouTube videos and emails circulating on the internet that claimed a new food safety bill (HR 875) introduced in Congress would make "organic farming illegal." Although the Bill certainly has its shortcomings, it is an exaggeration to say that is a secret plot by Monsanto and the USDA to destroy the nation's alternative food and farming system. In actuality, HR 875, the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009, is a limited-vision attempt by moderate Democrats and Republicans to craft food safety legislation to address the out-of-control filth and contamination that are inherent in our industrialized, now globalized, "profit-at-any-cost" food system.
This being said, OCA does not support HR 875 in its present form, given the fact that, if the Bill's regulations were applied in a one-size-fits-all manner to certified organic and farm-to-consumer operations, it could have a devastating impact on small farmers, especially raw milk producers who are already unfairly targeted by state food-safety regulators. Although the OCA deems this Bill as somewhat well-intentioned, we are calling on Congress to focus its attention on the real threats to food safety: globalized food sourcing from nations such as China where food safety is a joke and domestic industrial-scale and factory farms whose collateral damage includes pesticide and antibiotic-tainted food, mad cow disease, E.coli contamination and salmonella poisoning. And, of course, Congress and the Obama Administration need to support a massive transition to organic farming practices.

link: www.organicconsumers.org


and

Food & Water Watch’ s Statement on H.R. 875 and the Food Safety Bills
The dilemma of how to regulate food safety in a way that prevents problems caused by industrialized agriculture but doesn’t wipe out small diversified farms is not new and is not easily solved. And as almost constant food safety problems reveal the dirty truth about the way much of our food is produced, processed and distributed, it’s a dilemma we need to have serious discussion about.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-It does not establish a mandatory animal identification system.

-It does not regulate backyard gardens.

-It does not regulate seed.

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

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

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


Several of the things not found in the DeLauro can be found in other bills – like H.R. 814, the Tracing and Recalling Agricultural Contamination Everywhere Act, which calls for a mandatory animal identification system, or H.R. 759, the Food And Drug Administration Globalization Act, which overhauls the entire structure of FDA. H.R. 759 is more likely to move through Congress than H.R. 875. And H.R. 759 contains several provisions that could cause problems for small farms and food processors:

-It extends traceability recordkeeping requirements that currently apply only to food processors to farms and restaurants – and requires that recordkeeping be done electronically.

-It calls for standard lot numbers to be used in food production.

-It requires food processing plants to pay a registration fee to FDA to fund the agency’s inspection efforts.

-It instructs FDA to establish production standards for fruits and vegetables and to establish Good Agricultural Practices for produce.

There is plenty of evidence that one-size-fits-all regulation only tends to work for one size of agriculture – the largest industrialized operations. That’s why it is important to let members of Congress know how food safety proposals will impact the conservation, organic, and sustainable practices that make diversified, organic, and direct market producers different from agribusiness. And the work doesn’t stop there – if Congress passes any of these bills, the FDA will have to develop rules and regulations to implement the law, a process that we can’t afford to ignore.

But simply shooting down any attempt to fix our broken food safety system is not an approach that works for consumers, who are faced with a food supply that is putting them at risk and regulators who lack the authority to do much about it.

You can read the full text of any of these bills at http://thomas.loc.gov

___________________________
Sarah Alexander
Senior Food Organizer
Food & Water Watch

1616 P St. NW Suite 300
Washington, DC 20036
salexander@fwwatch.org
www.foodandwaterwatch.org

__________________________________________________ _____________________

As an organic farmer, I'm as anti-Monsanto and agribusiness as the next old hippie, but I think we need to be careful about where we're placing our outrage, so that it actually does some good. Interesting stuff!"

_______________________________________________

Let the discussion continue. This is a good thread.

[pooklette]

Originally Posted by PaulF

It may be that because it has not been thought out yet here is a section of interest to organic growers:


(10) CONTAMINANT- The term ‘contaminant’ includes a bacterium, chemical, natural toxin or manufactured toxicant, virus, parasite, prion, physical hazard, or other human pathogen that when found on or in food can cause human illness, injury, or death.
1(11) HAZARDOUS CONTAMINATION- The term ‘hazardous contamination’ refers to the presence of a contaminant in food at levels that pose a risk of human illness, injury, or death or are capable of reaching levels that pose such risk during the shelf life of the product.


Surely an organic grower would sensibly feel any pesticide, herbicide or even chemical fertilizer used on produce could be defined as either of the above therefore strengthening the case for banning the use of those harmful chemicals on our food products. Has Monsanto considered this in their bill?

I read that and thought, "Well, that part isn't so bad."

Part of the reason I enjoy gardening is because I get to know exactly what is and is not being fed to my family. The one flaw I see here is:

How do I know that the items I consider to be a "contaminant" would also be considered one by the proposed administration?

I suppose it will depend on how the proposed administration interprets the stated regulations. And since that whole 'contaminant selection process' may or may not end up mired in political shenanegans, I have no further comment at this time.

[pooklette]

Originally Posted by nctomatoman

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

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

I actually do like this concept. I believe the FDA is trying to oversee so many critical things, they don't have enough time/manpower/budget/whatever to do the job well.

For example, if we had one mod in charge of ALL forums at Tville, he or she might not have the time to give each forum as much attention as it needs. With more than one mod, each overseeing his/her area of interest or expertise, all forums get an appropriate amount of attention. Does that make sense?