The real nitty-gritty on small farms and the food-safety bill
by Bonnie Azab Powell.
As
recently as Monday, the Food Safety Modernization Act (S. 510) seemed
set to sail through the House and to the president’s desk for
rubber-stamping. But now it’s stalled in the Senate yet again,
due to a technical error that could well sink the legislation—and
with it any prospects for food-safety reform for a generation. While
advocates fight for the bill’s life amid the chaos of the lame-duck
Senate, renewed opposition to S. 510 is popping up in some surprising
corners.
Many family-scale farm supporters had been overjoyed at the inclusion of the Tester-Hagan amendment into the Manager’s amendment package.
Tester-Hagan is designed to protect small farms and processors from
onerous regulations more appropriate to mega-scale food manufacturers
and processors.
Yet euphoria around the Tester-ized bill is hardly unanimous. Some advocates are still
sending emails, Tweets, and Facebook posts insisting that the Senate
did Monsanto’s bidding by crafting S. 510. (We’re among the company’s
biggest critics, but even we can’t see the connection on this one.)
According to this surprisingly persistent line of reasoning, S. 510
would criminalize backyard food growing and and end the practice of seed
saving, thus giving Monsanto a complete monopoly over the seed market.
In fact, S. 510 deals with neither gardening nor seed-saving. And to
enforce this new draconian order, 4,000 armed thugs from the FDA will
soon be kicking down the doors of small farms everywhere.
While
such fears are clearly anti-government, Tea Party-fueled fantasia,
Grist contributor David Gumpert has been making a calm, rational case
that S. 510 poses a serious threat to small-scale farming, most recently
in Food Fight series. Spurred by criticism of the Tester amendment from the independent news blog Activist Post,
Gumpert took a closer look at the language of the revised bill, and
didn’t like what he saw. As many of you out there on the Interwebs share
his concerns, we called our battle-weary Food Fight participants back
to duty to really drill down into the nitty-gritty details of the
protections. As Judith McGeary of FARFA said, it’s “very ugly sausage
making”—but the bill did not sacrifice our nascent local-food system to the grinder as some are saying. If you’re in a hurry, jump straight to McGeary’s magisterial, point-by-point defense of Tester’s protections that closes this piece.
We
won’t pretend that this stuff is easy reading: it’s not. But if you—
or someone you love to support—has a small farm or food business,
this exchange should answer most of your questions. And if it doesn’t, post them in the comments, and we’ll see what we can do.
David E. Gumpert,
health and food issues reporter: Shame on me (and nearly everyone else reporting on this) for not having read the Tester amendment in its entirety before the voting began, and instead relying on the mass-media accounts
stating simply that it exempted small food producers—those selling
within a radius of 275 miles and having less than $500,000 annual
revenues. And congrats to Eric Blair, of Activist Post for combing
through the actual text, and reporting on major concerns. A little late, perhaps, but better late than never.
As
Blair sees it, the big problem with the amendment is that it doesn’t
exempt small producers as easily, or completely, as suggested in the
media reports. A small producer would need to be prepared to prove to
the FDA that it qualifies, and to qualify, must show it has “identified
potential hazards associated with the food being produced” and is
“implementing preventive controls to address the hazards, and is
monitoring the preventive controls to ensure that such controls are
effective.” These are similar to what larger food producers must do.
Now,
I’d go further and say that the Tester-Hagan Amendment looks to me to
be a wolf in sheep’s clothes on the long-standing and thorny issue of
farm registration. Here’s why: For years, the USDA sought to implement a
program that would force farmers to register their farms (or
“premises”) and each and every animal—known as the National Animal
Identification System (NAIS). It finally pulled back last year, in the
face of growing farmer outrage that the hidden agenda of NAIS was to
remove any vestiges of privacy enjoyed by farmers, and allow the feds
ever-expanding control over their animals, and their land.
Well,
Tester-Hagan may wind up accomplishing something similar to the NAIS
goals. I had assumed that to qualify for the Tester-Hagan protections, a
small food producer would simply stay away from FDA offices, or tell an
inspector the facility didn’t qualify. Presumably, if the FDA felt
differently from information it might have, it could audit a small
producer to make sure it qualified. Absolutely not so.
Under
Tester-Hagan, small producers need to take the initiative and make the
case to the FDA that they qualify by producing “documentation (which may
include licenses, inspection reports, certificates, permits,
credentials, certification by an appropriate agency (such as a state
department of agriculture), or other evidence of oversight)…”
That’s
not all. They will be required to show additional as yet unspecified
“documentation” specified in a “guidance document” to be produced by the
FDA within a year of passage of S. 510.
You don’t have to have a very fertile imagination to conjure up what might be in that “guidance document.” How
many cows, chickens, pigs, and goats do you have? How is your land
being apportioned to different crops, by exact acreage or square
footage?
Still
skeptical about where I’m going? Then consider this additional
requirement under the Tester-Hagan Amendment: That within 18 months of
enactment of the new law, the FDA and USDA shall
conduct a study of the food processing sector regulated by the
Secretary to determine: (i) the distribution of food production by type
and size of operation, including monetary value of food sold; (ii) the
proportion of food produced by each type and size of operation; (iii)
the number and types of food facilities co-located on farms, including
the number and proportion by commodity and by manufacturing or
processing activity; (iv) the incidence of food-borne illness
originating from each size and type of operation and the type of food
facilities for which no reported or known hazard exists; and (v) the
effect on food-borne illness risk associated with commingling,
processing, transporting, and storing food and raw agricultural
commodities, including differences in risk based on the scale and
duration of such activities.
As
I read this, the FDA and USDA will need to send out an army of
inspectors to each farm and food production facility in the country and
conduct a detailed analysis of the business of each. Not to mention a
detailed assessment of the “incidence of food-borne illness” and “the
effect of food-borne illness”—whatever that means.
And
this is all on top of the requirement that all farms, including those
that might be exempted under Tester-Hagan, need to conform with “Good
Agricultural Practices”. This is the program originated by the United Nations that involves the government in farm operations.
And
what if the small producers simply ignore the whole thing, and don’t
produce all the documentation needed to register and conform with the
“guidance document” and participate in the study and be part of the GAP
program? Presumably they’d be subject to the very strict penalties
articulated in S. 510, which is up to 10 years’ imprisonment.
I
hate to be a cynic, because I like to think that supporters of this
amendment have had the best interests of smaller food producers in mind
in pushing for an exemption. But when you review the fine print, you
can’t help but conclude that Tester-Hagan represents an unprecedented
intrusion by government into the lives of small farms and food
producers.
I
hope the U.S. House has the guts to stand by its inclination to not
vote on S. 510—ostensibly because it’s a revenue-producing
legislation, which is supposed to originate in the House. Whatever
reasons the House might come up with, S. 510 should not stand.
Michael Bulger, master’s candidate in food studies at New York University: Currently, private residences and farms devoted to crop and/or livestock harvest are exempt from the Bioterrorism Act from registering as facilities.
The Tester amendment does nothing to change the definition of facility,
except that it specifies farmers markets and CSAs are also exempt.
I
don’t think we should expect the FDA to visit every single one of the
over 2 million farms and the approximately 160,000 food facilities in
order to conduct the study prescribed by the Tester amendment. For one
thing, it’s not feasible. For another, the amendment calls for a study
of the food processing sector, not the entire food system. In reality,
it will most likely manifest itself in the FDA conducting observations
at registered facilities that make up a representative sample of the
food processing sector.
If
a food facility did not register, you worry that they might be subject
to 10 years’ imprisonment. You also say this is “articulated” in the
bill. Can you quote the section where this appears, or like the Tester
amendment, are you relying upon secondary sources?
Finally,
the authority to collect fees as stipulated by S. 510 is dependent upon
its implementation being revenue-neutral. It does not generate any
additional revenue for the FDA, but merely seeks to pay for its own
costs.
Margie McDonald, regional organizer with the Western
Organization of Resource Council (filling in for McGeary, who was tied up until late in the discussion): David
Gumpert’s analysis and critique of the Tester amendment rests on a
faulty premise that’s critical to understanding the sweep of S. 510.
Gumpert is assuming that the Tester amendment somehow brings into FDA’s
purview a bunch of small facilities that are not already required to
register with the FDA. That premise is in error and that mistake
dramatically undermines the rest of his arguments against the amendment.
The
amendment has two distinct pieces: the exemption for qualifying
facilities and the exemption for qualifying farms. Starting with the
issues related to facilities, it is important to make clear that the
Tester amendment does not change current law, the Bioterrorism Act of
2002, which already requires small facilities to register with the FDA.
Without the Tester amendment, every facility that is required to
register with the FDA under the Bioterrorism Act, which includes tens of
thousands of small local food businesses that are already being
inspected and certified under local health departments, and farms that
add value and sell their produce off-site, would be subject to an
arduous and extensive laundry new laundry list of hoops and steps
detailed in Sec. 103 of S. 510, that might be appropriate for large
industrial processors but are going to swamp small local food business
with costly and ongoing burdens.
The following paragraph summarizes Sec. 103 requirements of all facilities as the bill was written.
Identify
and evaluate known or reasonably foreseeable hazards; develop a written
analysis of the hazards; identify and implement preventive controls;
monitor the effectiveness of the preventive controls; establish
procedures that a facility will implement if the preventive controls are
found to be ineffective; verify that the preventive controls are
adequate and the owner operator is conducting monitoring and is making
appropriate corrective actions and that the preventive controls
implemented are effectively and significantly minimizing or preventing
the occurrence of identified hazards including the use of environmental
and product testing and that there is documented, periodic reanalysis of
the plan to ensure that it is still relevant; maintain for not less
than 2 years records documenting the monitoring of the preventive
controls, instances of nonconformance, testing results and other
verification and corrective actions; prepare a written plan that
documents and describes the procedures used by the facility to comply
with the measurements of this section; and conduct a reanalysis whenever
a significant change is made in the activities conducted at a facility
or every 3 years whichever is earlier.
Tester’s
amendment takes a group of facilities already subject to FDA oversight
and registration under current law (even without passage of S. 510 or
H.R. 2749) and gives them three pathways to avoid the above list of expensive regulatory steps.
1)
First, there is a threshold identifying which facilities are not
subject to the above lengthy and detailed requirements, which is what is
referred to in the Tester amendment as “qualifying facilities.” There
are several screens to define a qualifying facility:
the
FDA is instructed to study and define a new category of very small
business that is not required to comply with the above section
OR
the business does less than $500,000 in sales and sells more than half
of its products directly to qualified end users, which includes not only
consumers, but restaurants, groceries, or institutional buyers such as
schools
and it sells within a geographic foodshed range defined as either in-state or within 275 miles.
2)
There are two avenues for a “qualifying facility” to avoid extensive
hazard analysis and control requirements detailed in S. 510. The
simplest and easiest path is by documenting that the facility is already
being inspected at the local or state level, and the vast majority of
these facilities already are inspected by local public health agencies.
Alternatively, if a facility cannot demonstrate it is subject to state
or local public health oversight, it can submit a much simpler, shorter
statement addressing potential hazards and prevention steps.
3)
With respect to farms, the exemption is simpler. Under the Tester-Hagan
amendment, a qualifying farm—one that grosses under $500,000 and
sells more than half its products directly to qualified end users—is
exempt. Period. There is no need to provide special documentation or
go through any process, beyond putting a label or displaying a sign with
the farm’s name and address.
Without
the Tester-Hagan amendment, under S. 510, these farms would be subject
to the produce safety standards or, as Gumpert discusses, what is often
termed “good agricultural practices” or GAPs. With Tester-Hagan, these
small, direct-marketing farms do NOT have to comply with GAPs.
Jean Halloran, director of food policy initiatives at Consumers Union,
publisher of Consumer Reports: Margie
has it right. Small facilities, for better or worse, are already
required to register with FDA under the Bioterrorism Act of 2002.
Margie
also says correctly that there are two avenues for a small (under
$500,000 in sales), local (selling within state or 275 miles) facility
to avoid extensive HACCP requirements: show FDA it complies with
relevant state law, or develop a simple food safety plan.
Consumer
groups are actually concerned that the second alternative may never
come into play, because there will always be some state, county, or
local law that a food production facility will be governed by, even if
that law only specifies that the cooking utensils need to be washed in
hot water at the end of the day. We are concerned that small producers
need only show they are in compliance with local law. There is no
requirement that the local law be strong. Thus this seems like a pretty
modest requirement.
As
to whether legions of FDA inspectors will be swarming over the country
checking on small farms and facilities, I wish Congress would consider
giving FDA the huge budget increase that would require. However, such a
budget increase seems unlikely to me. Remember, FDA currently visits
food producers on average once every 10 years. S. 510 goes the radical
step of raising that to once every five years, for high-risk facilities.
There
is no minimum inspection frequency for farms, and FDA seldom visits
any. We’ll be extremely lucky if FDA actually visits the Peanut
Corporation of Americas of this country more than once every five years.
I don’t think the average small farm or producer will see much of FDA
unless they, or their crop or product, are involved in an outbreak.
Russell Libby, executive director of the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association: Jean’s
opening sentence is accurate, and points to an essential issue. The
Food Bioterrorism Act of 2002 swept all “facilities” into a registration
program. Simple enough. But Congress, in the original legislation,
said that farms are exempt. Great—except that “farms” were defined
narrowly in the subsequent rules, and “facilities” were defined broadly.
I’ve
been arguing for almost two years now that the facility definition, in
those rules, is the heart of the problem. The Tester-Hagan amendment,
now included in the original bill, at least begins to put some small
bounds around those definitions.
However,
I fundamentally disagree with David Gumpert when he says that it
appears the intention of the Tester-Hagan amendment was to send FDA to
the farms, and that farms have to prove they are exempt to be exempt.
Sen. Tester, with Sen. Hagan, has worked from the beginning to
narrow the number of farms subject to direct FDA oversight. It’s wrong
to say otherwise.
Similarly,
most farmers I know will continue to operate as usual until someone
questions their “exempt” status, at which point they’ll be able to show a
number of state licenses that will support their position.
Nothing
in S. 510 changes the underlying reality that FDA has broad authority,
already, to visit any farm or facility where they suspect any kind of
food safety issue.
The
ongoing debates about raw milk, raw-milk cheeses, and how FDA treats
bacteria more strictly than they do chemical residues and
genetically-engineered foods are not going away, whether this bill
ultimately passes or not. But those issues are not at the heart of the
bill, nor are they the reason the Tester amendment was proposed and
supported by many sustainable agriculture groups.
Gumpert: I
appreciate the input and discussion. I stand corrected about the
information small enterprises must show. I said they had to provide data
on two categories, but in reality they can use either of two ways to
document their exemption—showing a hazard control plan or various
local permits, inspections, and other regulatory documents—but are
not required to do both.
I
would say that there is a fundamental difference between the
requirements under S. 510 and the Bioterrorism Act of 2002. Under
Tester-Kagan, enterprises are actively seeking the FDA’s permission for
the exemption. Registration under the Bioterrorism Act is passive in
that you fill out an information form. Everyone can say the permission
process under Tester-Kagan is routine and pro forma, but that’s not what
the legislation says.
I
am definitely getting bleary-eyed from reading and re-reading the
legislation, but I can’t find anything that says approved small
enterprises are exempt from the Good Agricultural Practices provision,
as Margie says.
Several
people say not to worry about the survey/study that the FDA is supposed
to do of smaller enterprises, that the FDA doesn’t have enough funds to
send the army of investigators that I envision. It may be that FDA
won’t have the funds initially. But the fact that the requirement is on
the books means the FDA will seek funds and, equally significant, has
the legal requirement to carry it out.
No
offense, but the reassurances people are offering now count for
nothing. Everyone affected by this legislation has to assume the
provision is there for a reason, and will be carried out.
Nor
has anyone said anything about what the “guidance document” that FDA
must produce within a year might contain. I presume that’s because no
one knows, and didn’t choose to let their imaginations go a little like I
did.
As
Russell indicates, there is a fair amount of confusion about when a
farm becomes a facility and falls under S. 510. According to the
legislation, when a farm “packages” food, it becomes subject to the
requirements, and lots of farms package food.
He also states, “… most farmers
I know will continue to operate as usual until someone questions their
‘exempt’ status, at which point they’ll be able to show a number of
state licenses that will support their position.” That’s what I was
assuming would happen from the beginning, but once again, that isn’t
what Tester-Hagan necessarily allows. Many farmers will essentially be
on the defensive, potentially vulnerable if the FDA decides for some
reason to do a sweep (as it did earlier this year on more than 100
cheesemakers).
Bottom
line, the FDA controls the exemption process, and is under mandate to
collect vast amounts of new data about smaller enterprises, many of
which will likely be farms. We can hope the agency is benevolent, but
that is not its history.
Bonnie Azab Powell, Grist food editor and Food Fight moderator: David,
it seems to me that the difference here is one of interpretation of
vague language, which is influenced by whether one believes the FDA will
use its new powers to address the source of most food-borne illness or
to harass weaker targets. To me, there’s an analogy in the drug wars:
Law enforcement should be targeting meth distribution networks, not
backyard pot growers. I definitely see your point that the FDA’s recent
actions toward raw-milk and cheesemaking farms does not provide much
reassurance that it will adopt a laissez-faire attitude toward similar
operations going forward.
However,
call me naively optimistic, but I think that the growing visibility of
the real-food, know-your-farmer movement, and the public’s outrage over
these massive recalls and foodborne illness outbreaks, will go a long
way toward ensuring that the FDA’s focus stays where it belongs: on
high-risk industrial plants. The Tester amendment’s language isn’t
perfect, but its incorporation does at least send the message that the
government’s food-safety measures should be scale-appropriate and
risk-based. I don’t think it’s going to get any better than that.
Mainly, even though I too am skeptical, I’d rather be on the side of
small-farm advocates such as Ferd, Russell, and Judith, who feel the
Tester amendment provides enough protections, than get lumped in with FDA-haters such as Glenn Beck.
Patty Lovera, assistant director of Food & Water Watch: I
agree with what Margie, Russell, and Jean have already pointed out
about the structure of the Tester amendment and the underlying issue of
the Bioterrorism Act’s definition of facilities. Just a couple other
points to add:
the Leahy amendment on criminal penalties did not make it into the final version of the bill.
on
the study of food safety and operation size, we are very interested in
the results and are happy this piece was in the amendment. The debate
over the last two years on this legislation, the proposal for a national
Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement, and lots of other food safety topics
have been really limited by a lack of data about the sources of
food-borne illness. Lots of us have very strong opinions about the role
of large vs. small, but there’s not really a lot of actual data—a lot
of discussions and debates are being conducted on the basis of
anecdotal evidence, news reports, and not much else. FDA can gather the
information that already exists in various branches of government about
incidence rates, and when it’s known, attribution data for food-borne
illness outbreaks. That will be useful information to have so we can
all work to focus FDA’s efforts on the right parts of the food system.
on
the question about whether the amendment exempts farms from Good
Agricultural Practices, I think Margie might have been referring to the
Standard for Produce Safety section. The produce standards (which are
not written yet) might be based on GAPs or other guidances the agency
already has, but at this point GAPs are voluntary (although not so
voluntary if your buyer requires them) programs, not regulation. And
the proliferation of different versions of the GAPs, offered by
different entities, is part of the mishmash of private standards that
already exist that we find really frustrating.
Judith McGeary, founder and executive director of the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance: First,
the simpler issue: GAPS, or good agricultural practices. You won’t find
that term anywhere in S. 510, but the basic substance is in Section
105, which authorizes FDA to issue “produce safety standards” that tell
farmers how to grow and raise crops. Page 51 of the bill includes the
Tester-Hagan language and exempts farms that gross under $500,000
(adjusted for inflation) and that sell more than half their products
directly to individual consumers, local restaurants, or local retail
food establishments. There is no requirement for the farm to submit
paperwork to the FDA or to register.
The more complex issue is the one with “facilities.” First, let’s sort through the existing law:
“Facilities”
are any business that processes, manufactures, holds, or stores food.
Under the 2002 Bioterrorism Act, all facilities must register with the
FDA. Those regulations have been in force for several years, although
enforcement has been very lax.
“Farms” are not “facilities.” BUT, if the farm processes or manufactures food, it becomes classified as a facility.
“Retail
food establishments” are also not facilities. Retail food
establishments are entities whose primary purpose is to sell to
consumers, specifically those businesses that sell more than half of
their products directly to individual consumers (not businesses, so the
direct sales does not include sales to restaurants, etc). BUT there is
also a catch on the retail food establishments issue, namely that the
Bioterrorism law is based on each location registering. So, if a
business processes food at one location and sell at another—such as
someone who makes jams in their kitchen and then sells it at the local
farmers market—the existing law is unclear as to whether or not they
would be a retail food establishment. FDA has made conflicting
statements over whether such operations would have to register under the
EXISTING law.
Second,
we look at the issues of S. 510 and the Tester-Hagan amendment. S. 510
would layer extensive HACCP-type requirements on every facility that has
to register under the existing law. The Tester-Hagan amendment’s
purpose was to try to mitigate that harm for small-scale producers.
Politically, it was not going to be able to undo the existing
Bioterrorism Act.
Even
so, the Tester-Hagan amendment DOES fix one of the problems with the
existing Bioterrorism Act requirements. The amendment directs FDA to
clarify its definition of “retail food establishment” to include
businesses that sell more than half their products directly to consumers
at locations such as roadside stands and farmers markets, and through
CSAs. (See pages 11-12 of the bill.)
So,
under existing law, the farmer who makes a few jars of jam from his
produce and sells them at a farmers market may have to register with the
FDA under the Bioterrorism Act because he doesn’t qualify as either a
“farm” or a “retail food establishment.” The same is true for the
small-scale bread-maker or cheese-maker. And under S510, that
farmer/bread-maker/cheese-maker would have to go through the full
HACCP-type process. Under the Tester-Hagan amendment, that
farmer/bread-maker/cheese-maker would now be exempt from both the
registration requirement and the HACCP process as a “retail food
establishment.”
Make no mistake—- this was a hotly negotiated provision.
That
didn’t end the issue, though, because the question is, what about food
producers who sell their products directly to local restaurants, co-ops,
and other local outlets that are very important to the growth of the
local foods movement? The “retail food establishment” exemption, even as
broadened by the Tester-Hagan amendment, requires a majority of sales
to individual consumers, not businesses.
That’s
where the Tester-Hagan amendment kicks in again. A business that is a
“facility” (i.e. that doesn’t qualify for the exemptions for farms or
retail food establishments) can avoid going through the HACCP-type
process by showing that it qualifies, i.e. that it has gross sales under
half a million and sells more than half directly to qualified end users
(individual consumers, or local restaurants and local retailers). Yes,
that will require some paperwork. I would have preferred that it didn’t,
and that the onus rest with the agency, but this is what was
politically achievable.
Final results under the Tester-Hagan amendment:
Farms that grow fruits and vegetables will NOT have to comply with the
produce safety standards (often referred to as “GAPs”) if they gross
under half a million (adjusted for inflation) and sell more than half
their products directly to consumers, local restaurants, or local
retailers. The farms are not required to register. They do have to
either put label on or display a sign with the farm name and address.
And if FDA directly links the farm to an outbreak, the exemption can be
withdrawn for that farm; the onus to prove the basis for the withdrawal
is on the agency, not the farm. See pages 51-53 of the bill.
Businesses that process foods and sell more than half their products
directly to individual consumers (not businesses) will not have to
register with FDA nor comply with the HACCP-requirements. See pages
11-12 of the bill.
Businesses that process foods and sell LESS than half their products
directly to individual consumers may have another option if they qualify
(i.e. gross under half a million and sell more than half their products
to individual consumers, local restaurants, and local retailers
combined). They can produce paperwork showing (1) that they qualify and
(2) that they comply with any applicable local and state laws. If so,
they still have to register because of the existing requirements under
the Bioterrorism Act, but they do not have to go through the extensive
HACCP-type requirements that will be added on under S. 510. Again,
there is withdrawal provision that places the onus on the agency. See
pages 19-24 of the bill.
As
for the study (pages 24-26 of the bill), the bill directs FDA to
conduct a study that would, for the first time, look at the issues of
scale and type of processes in relation to food-borne illness. It does
not mandate that any individual person hand over the information to the
government. Also, FDA is directed to provide a report to Congress
within 18 months. Regardless of the agency’s motivations, it would be
logistically impossible for it to send agents to every small farm and
food processor in the country in that time period. The most feasible
course of action is for the agency to use existing data on food
distribution (from the census) and outbreaks (from CDC and state health
departments), and do follow-up investigations on the source of the
outbreaks. And, as is always the case for local foods producers, we
need to stay informed and be ready to respond if the agency does try to
overstep.
And
there’s a positive reason behind this study. In arguing that local
foods and small farms are safer and should not be regulated by FDA, we
don’t have a lot of hard data to back us up. The directive to do a
study is the first attempt to make a get data to show that smaller-scale
producers who don’t commingle their products and who do less processing
and transportation produce safer food.
None
of this is a perfect solution—S510 and the Tester-Hagan amendment
involved very ugly sausage making. The Tester-Hagan amendment
ultimately fixes some of the existing problems caused by the 2002
Bioterrorism Law and a very significant part of the problems that would
be caused if S. 510 passes.
But
it is, at its heart, damage control. That isn’t the fault of Senators
Tester or Hagan or any of the people who advocated for this amendment.
It’s due to agribusiness’s capture of FDA and much of Congress— a
problem that has developed over decades and that we will need to spend
the next decade fighting.
Gumpert: I appreciate the optimism most have here about the FDA’s good
intentions. That has not been its hallmark for small food enterprises,
but I suppose there’s a first time for everything.
Also, I definitely would use Judith McGeary for my lawyer if I was a
food producer. Unfortunately, I think lots of them will need her. In
that vein, if I was advising entrepreneurs about whether to start a
business in the food production arena (and I’ve advised a fair number
over the years), I would tell them to avoid this entire morass…unless
they are prepared to go entirely private, and never register for a
single permit.
Related Links:
Jon Stewart smacks Glenn Beck over food safety bill
Food safety bill enters horror-movie phase, thanks to Senate snafu
At Youth Farm, kids learn where food comes from and how to enjoy it [VIDEO]
View full post on Grist – the latest from Grist