A Big Food Safety Bill Could Hurt Small Farms
Safety inspections protocol has been trending toward ‘one-size-fits-all’, leaving many to wonder how much longer small farms will survive.
The farmers that do survive continually frustrate inspection officials. The Polyface farm, featured in the Omnivore’s Dilemma and more recently in Food Inc., demonstrates how of a lot the minutia aimed at large-scale processors is out of place on the Salatin farm. Joel Salatin cannot afford to have a bathroom specifically ordained for the inspector’s use, nor does he have any (blood) drains in his chicken processing room. How could he when he processes his chickens outdoors? As many have said, sunshine is the best disinfectant. With no hazardous contamination to speak of, maybe Joel and the Polyface farm is onto something…
The well intentioned Food Safety Enhancement Act passed by the House House Energy and Commerce Committee last week worries activists that such one-size-fits-all rules are about to get tougher for small farms. One the one hand, the bill orders more frequent inspections of food-processing facilities, gives the FDA actual authority to recall contaminated food, and requires all companies to have an HACCP plan. Groups like the Consumers Union and the Center for Science in the Public Interest applaud the legislation as major steps forward in food safety, which they are.
Unfortunately, the language of the Act is plain confusing when it comes to deciding what to call a small farm versus a processing plant:
Although “farms” are technically exempt from many of the new regulations intended for processing plants, the bill plays fast and loose with the definition of a farm, according to the Defense Fund. For instance, a farmer would no longer be considered a farmer if she sold jam made from fruits produced on her farm. She would become a “facility,” subject to a $1,000 annual fee, and would be required to conduct a full hazard analysis, to maintain detailed records, and to submit to regular FDA inspections. A farmer who made cheese only from his own cows’ milk would still be a farmer. But if he bought milk from a neighbor, he, too, would become a “facility.” An Amish producer who failed for religious reasons to register in an electronic format, as required by the law, would be in violation of the act, and like any violator, subject to fines of $100,000 per day, or up to ten years in jail.
If the language of the bill weren’t complex enough, the particular provisions make it even worse for small farms to get on with their business of feeding people. The Davis, CA-based Community Alliance with Family Farms (CAFF) is particularly concerned about provisions that give the FDA power to “promulgate mandatory on-farm food-safety practices for fruits and vegetables”—in other words, dictate exactly how produce is to be grown. They write, “there is a tendency in such regulations to create ‘one-size-fits-all’ metrics that are in fact inappropriate for most farmers who do not grow large tracts of individual crops.” CAFF contends that even by the FDA’s own data, food contamination problems are limited to large, industrial-scale processors, not small farmers who sell raw, unprocessed products.
The Farm-to-Consumer Defense Fund, which is dedicated to protecting the right to buy and sell food directly from farms, says the bill “would adversely impact small farms and food producers, without providing significant reforms in the industrial food system.”
Want to change the direction of this bill? CAFF suggests contacting your U.S. Representative and giving him/her this simple message: “Keep the FDA off the farms. Focus on the high-risk activities—food processing and imported food.”
Let’s all make a big difference for small farms. Click here to find your representative.
June 29, 2009
Tags: farmers, food safety, policy, USDA Posted in: Health, Politics, Science & Technology
4 Responses
I wrote to my representative. Here is what I had to say:
Representative Kennedy,
Consumer confidence in the safety of our food system has plummeted:
“A new IBM study reveals that less than 20 percent of consumers trust food companies to develop and sell food products that are safe and healthy for themselves and their families. The study also shows that 60 percent of consumers are concerned about the safety of food they purchase, and 63 percent are knowledgeable about the content of the food they buy.
The survey of 1,000 consumers in the 10 largest cities nationwide shows that consumers are increasingly wary of the safety of food purchased at grocery stores, and their confidence in – and trust of – food retailers, manufacturers and grocers is declining.”
I realize that the Food Safety Enhancement Act passed by the House House Energy and Commerce Committee last week is making great strides to improve our food system. However, I worry that there will be a “one-size-fits-all” solution that will make it difficult for small farmers to prosper.
I agree with the Community Alliance with Family Farms and the Farm-to-Consumer Defense Fund when they argue for a nuanced approach to food safety. My message is simple: Focus on the high-risk activities—food processing and imported food. Let small farms keep up their good work without more bureaucratic interference.
Thank you for your time.
Patrick Kennedy Responds To Food Safety Query | Food Bubbles - August 14, 2009
[...] can read the letter I wrote here (in the comments section). I had nearly forgotten about it when into my (electronic) mailbox [...]
A Relentless Focus On Prevention, Or Something | Food Bubbles - September 14, 2009
[...] while Congress focuses on health care and climate bills. The House passed a transformative food safety bill just before the summer recess. The Senate is expected to secure its own version of a food safety [...]
Hi. Please check out this article:
http://www.californiachronicle.com/articles/view/122637
and this link:
http://www.citizens.org/?page_id=40
Many thanks.
—James
Leave a Reply