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

[Colorado_west]

Transport for retail selling I thought . I am not sure.

I went though what i thought was the bill and i can not find farms and so under it. just me. It seems to me processing places.warehouses and such. I am at lost too.

Here we can not process things for Farmer's market. Jam,jellies and such. Inless licensed kitchen. They bake a few loaves so bread. Each state has it its rules.

[Colorado_west]

VWTomatoman, I am thinking it should not bother me a all. I raise tomatoes to sell and peppers and few other veggies .

[sliphorn]

Worth1, your post was the funniest thing I've read in a good long time.

Thanks for the laugh.

[nctomatoman]

This bill is getting lots of discussion on other boards. I am going to post someone's opinion (I haven't digested it and don't agree or disagree), but it is the position of someone who thinks it is a good bill (875). Take it for another opinion only.

____________________________________________

House Resolution 875 is the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009.

There are currently some fairly negative and erroneous beliefs about this bill floating around the internet. What caused me to write this thread is a General Discussion post which claimed the bill would outlaw vegetable gardening and ban farmers' markets. Oh my. You should have seen the s*#&storm that followed. There's probably even a "they can have my rake when they take it from my cold dead hands" comment over there. I didn't look, but that's the tenor of the comments. There are also plenty of "this is a gift to Monsanto" posts, which are scary since Monsanto neither grows nor processes food. The company Monsanto, as it is constituted today, makes two things: seed, and agricultural chemicals. But Monsanto is a story for another day.

Today's subject is HR 875. To understand why we need this bill we should look at the current environment.

Right now, food is regulated by the same agency that regulates drugs--the Food and Drug Administration. President Eisenhower appointed the last FDA commissioner who didn't hold a doctorate in a medical field--and of all the commissioners since them, almost all were MDs. One was a pharmacist, one a neurophysiologist and the last a veterinarian who moonlighted as a crook. (Dr. Lester Crawford served the FDA for seven weeks and was rewarded for his work with a $90,000 fine and three years' supervised probation. Needless to say, he was appointed by Shrub.) Now, there's nothing wrong with doctors. They're perfectly fine people, and they do yeoman service in keeping the nation's drug supply reasonably safe. They're also working in a climate where they're underfunded, understaffed, expected to "run the department like a business" and tasked to maintain the safety of four completely different sectors of the American economy--drugs, medical devices, foods and cosmetics. Cosmetics is now essentially self-regulating--it has to be; the FDA doesn't have the resources to step into that industry. The FDA does a decent job with drugs and medical devices. But food? Upton Sinclair would have a field day in today's food marketplace.

HR 875's major purpose is to split the FDA into two organizations--a Federal Drug and Device Administration, and a Food Safety Administration. In the new operation will be all the food-safety operations of the current FDA, plus NOAA's seafood inspection operation. Both will report to the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

The anti-875 contingent claims this bill will get rid of organic farms, farmer's markets and even home gardens by putting them under onerous levels of regulation. None of this is true--in fact, 875 doesn't regulate food producers or retailers. (The rumor going around says 875 will put hot dog stands under some sort of draconian control. The bill doesn't regulate restaurants.)

The bill institutes a good food safety program, including requiring imports to meet the same safety standards domestically-produced food is held to, reducing food adulteration, and--for the first time--giving the government the power to order recalls. At the present time all recalls are voluntary.

The problems I see with this bill--the problems that have caused all the negative publicity to form--are Sections 208 (Imports) and 210 (Traceback Requirements). Check out the introduction to Section 208:

In General- All imported food under this Act shall meet requirements for food safety, inspection, labeling, and consumer protection that are at least equal to those applicable to food grown, manufactured, processed, packed, or held for consumption in the United States.


Now understand, "food" in this bill means any ingredient that can be put in either human food or animal food. Hence, they can't cut powdered milk with plaster of Paris anymore. I think we can all agree that right now China is the Wild Wild West when it comes to their business practices--the *#&$ers would paint sand white and label it "powdered milk" if they thought anyone would buy it. The problem here is, US food companies will have to buy only from accredited Chinese producers, which is bad for the bottom line because you KNOW the price of accreditation and its recurring inspections will be added to the price of a company's wares.

As for Section 210...this will cause severe grief for companies that maintain commodities in bulk. The opening paragraph:

In General- The Administrator, in order to protect the public health, shall establish a national traceability system that enables the Administrator to retrieve the history, use, and location of an article of food through all stages of its production, processing, and distribution.


Every lot of product used in a food item will have to be tracked from field to fork, and it's cumulative--flour makes bread, which makes bread crumbs, which makes meat loaf, which makes frozen dinners. If the flour, bread, bread crumbs, meatloaf and frozen dinners are made by five different companies...well, there ya go. In a perfect world this would be welcomed by a food company--if it turns out the corn meal factory made lot number 3001 without cleaning the peanut meal out of the milling machine, the recall of the tamales they made out of the corn meal will be limited to "Lot 2014" which is the only one that used that corn meal, not "all tamales made between March and August." But recordkeeping costs money all the time, while recalls only cost money when they happen. So screw it, eh?

There's also a requirement that packaged foods be labeled with instructions on how to prepare them so as to eliminate, as much as possible, foodborne pathogens. Most foods are already labeled as such, but things like canned vegetables aren't. Redesigning the labels will be a one-time expense, but the food companies won't want to make it.

Hence the need for astroturfing. Given the fact this bill is going to cost the food industry quite a bit if it passes, even though they can pass the costs on to the consumer, they are most definitely interested in seeing it go away. The cheapest way is to invade the blogosphere and start posting untruths.

It's a good bill. Don't believe the negative hype.

____________________________________________

just posting to add to the dialogue.

[ReaverG]

Yay, does this mean when customers complain about rat heads in their frozen green beans the company will be required to trace it back? (instead of sending the customer a coupon and calling it even)

[barkeater]

With that explanation Craig, then I see immediate good that can come from this bill. Specifically, GMO corn has been shipped to Canada from China for about 3 years now. It enters Canadian commerce and is shipped to the USA as Canadian corn,non GMO. It was discovered 2 years ago, reported to USDA, APHIS, and they have completely ignored and refused to acknowledge the problem. Some is being imported as organic, and noone will test it.

[feldon30]

Uncredited quotes drive me crazy.

[nctomatoman]

I think that quite a lot drives you crazy Feldon.

[DiggingDogFarm]

"The anti-875 contingent claims this bill will get rid of organic farms, farmer's markets and even home gardens by putting them under onerous levels of regulation. None of this is true--in fact, 875 doesn't regulate food producers....."

?????????????????????????????????????????????????

Will everyone who has actually read the Bill, please raise their hand! LOL

Text from H.R. 875......

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

Food Production Facility Requirements:

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.

(c) Regulations- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture and representatives of State departments of agriculture, shall promulgate regulations to establish science-based minimum standards for the safe production of food by food production facilities. Such regulations shall–

(1) consider all relevant hazards, including those occurring naturally, and those that may be unintentionally or intentionally introduced;

(2) require each food production facility to have a written food safety plan that describes the likely hazards and preventive controls implemented to address those hazards;

(3) include, with respect to growing, harvesting, sorting, and storage operations, minimum standards related to fertilizer use, nutrients, hygiene, packaging, temperature controls, animal encroachment, and water;

(4) include, with respect to animals raised for food, minimum standards related to the animal’s health, feed, and environment which bear on the safety of food for human consumption;

(5) provide a reasonable period of time for compliance, taking into account the needs of small businesses for additional time to comply;

(6) provide for coordination of education and enforcement activities by State and local officials, as designated by the Governors of the respective States; and

(7) include a description of the variance process under subsection (d) and the types of permissible variances which the Administrator may grant under such process.


TITLE IV–ENFORCEMENT
SEC. 401. PROHIBITED ACTS.

It is prohibited–

(4) 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);

(5) to fail to establish or maintain any record or to make any report as required under sections 205(f) and 206(b);

(6) to refuse to permit entry to or inspection of a food establishment as required under section 205;

Punishment:

SEC. 405. CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES.

(a) Civil Sanctions-

(1) CIVIL PENALTY-

(A) 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.

Emphasis added (bold and red) to a few of the many troubling provisions of this Bill.


This is an extremely dangerous Bill as written!!!
There are NO exclusions whatsoever to the vague and far-reaching definitions!!!!!

~DiggingDog

[organichris]

Will everyone who has actually read the Bill, please raise their hand!...

This is me raising my virtual hand. I think it is important to err on the side of caution here. I think there are some very real potential dangers with this bill, and the ways in which it may be interpreted proves those dangers. If it becomes law, then it is left up to the enforcers in the bureaucracy to implement the measures based on their interpretation. I won't say the bill is completely bad, but sometimes you have to do without government intervention in order to preserve personal freedom.

If you don't think the powers proposed in this bill could be abused, ask the Mennonite man they arrested for selling raw milk. Not only that, but Pennsylvania state troopers confiscated about $20,000.00 worth of farming equipment.

http://www.counterpunch.org/cohen04262008.html

And now we should give authorities more power? And if you are a rancher, you should feel particularly threatened, because according to "scientists" your cows are significantly contributing to global warming because when they fart they emit methane gas. Since you are a polluter, you must be taxed into submission.

[BattleOfBennington]

Please don't forget the OH family that started a private Co-Op which got in trouble, and everything confiscated due to their "Illegal Hording"

Originally Posted by organichris

This is me raising my virtual hand. I think it is important to err on the side of caution here. I think there are some very real potential dangers with this bill, and the ways in which it may be interpreted proves those dangers. If it becomes law, then it is left up to the enforcers in the bureaucracy to implement the measures based on their interpretation. I won't say the bill is completely bad, but sometimes you have to do without government intervention in order to preserve personal freedom.

If you don't think the powers proposed in this bill could be abused, ask the Mennonite man they arrested for selling raw milk. Not only that, but Pennsylvania state troopers confiscated about $20,000.00 worth of farming equipment.

http://www.counterpunch.org/cohen04262008.html

And now we should give authorities more power? And if you are a rancher, you should feel particularly threatened, because according to "scientists" your cows are significantly contributing to global warming because when they fart they emit methane gas. Since you are a polluter, you must be taxed into submission.

[organichris]

Originally Posted by BattleOfBennington

Please don't forget the OH family that started a private Co-Op which got in trouble, and everything confiscated due to their "Illegal Hoarding"

I hadn't heard about that one. Unbelievable! A SWAT team food raid?

http://www.digitaljournal.com/articl...ts=&newsindex=

[WVTomatoMan]

Originally Posted by DiggingDogFarm

?????????????????????????????????????????????????

Will everyone who has actually read the Bill, please raise their hand! LOL

Text from H.R. 875......

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

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.

So, when you put it in context and you don't delete text it says that farms are excluded from registration.

Yes, the bill is flawed and the ambiguities need to be addressed. BTW, I've had it in for Monsanto since the Percy Schmeiser situation. What Monsanto has to do with this bill is beyond me.

All of these people who ask or tell you to read the bill and go on to quote things don't quote the Purpose section. Gee I wonder why? The purpose of this bill is to address the recent food industry issues (e.g. peanut and ecoli). And, that purpose doesn't help the hype masters arguments so they leave it out.

Craig, I haven't had a chance to read through the post you made, but from the gist in perusing the first couple of paragraphs it would seem that the person is basically on the same page with me. Assuming that's the case thanks for posting I was beginning to feel alone.

Randy

Edit: p.s. 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.

[organichris]

Originally Posted by WVTomatoMan

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.

Even if this is the intention of the bill (and I'm not convinced that it is just because they say so), there are always unintended consequences.

WV, like I said before, if this bill gets passed I hope your take on the exemptions is correct. I have been looking for an expert legal explanation to confirm your conclusions. As of yet, I haven't found none. If you find one, I'd love to read it. To be fair, I haven't found one arguing my position either. Once again, I admit that I'm not a legal scholar, but my opinion is that the bill directly addresses farms rather than exempting them. In fact, I don't see how the bill would have any teeth otherwise.

And since you've restated your understanding of the exemptions as per the bill text, I feel compelled to reiterate my own. The food establishment is only exempt if it does not store, hold, or transport food products prior to delivery or sale as per paragraph (9).

(9) CATEGORY 5 FOOD ESTABLISHMENT- The term `category 5 food establishment' means a food establishment that stores, holds, or transports food products prior to delivery for retail sale.

[feldon30]

Originally Posted by nctomatoman

This bill is getting lots of discussion on other boards. I am going to post someone's opinion (I haven't digested it and don't agree or disagree), but it is the position of someone who thinks it is a good bill (875). Take it for another opinion only.

I found the source of the quote. I'm not going to link it because then this topic would get very political.