It's as if the new FDA rules re organic farming had been written Monsanto and Bayer Crop Life

[cali]

this will make any sane person want to

Planned food safety rules rile organic farmers

HUSTONTOWN, Pa. — Jim Crawford was rushing to load crates of freshly picked organic tomatoes onto trucks heading for an urban farmers market when he noticed the federal agent.

A tense conversation followed as the visitor to his farm — an inspector from the Food and Drug Administration — warned him that some organic-growing techniques he had honed over four decades could soon be outlawed.

"This is my badge. These are the fines. This is what is hanging over your head, and we want you to know that," Crawford says the official told him.

Crawford's popular farm may seem a curious place for the FDA to move ahead with a long-planned federal assault on deadly food poisoning. To Crawford's knowledge, none of the kohlrabi, fennel, sugar snap peas or other crops from his New Morning Farm have ever sickened anyone. But he is not the only organic grower to suddenly discover federal inspectors on his land.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-food-safety-20140223,0,6831660.story#axzz2u528ngu5

[Major Nikon]

1. Except they are being written and promoted by food safety activists

http://www.cspinet.org/about/funding.html

[ProSense]

3. Exactly, the piece sounds like anti-regulation whining

From the OP aricle:

<...>

In 2010, after a years-long campaign, food-safety activists persuaded Congress to give the FDA authority to regulate farm practices. The next year, an outbreak of food poisoning that killed 33 people who ate tainted cantaloupes put pressure on the FDA to be aggressive.

Now, farmers are discovering that the FDA's proposed rules would curtail many techniques that are common among organic growers, including spreading house-made fertilizers, tilling cropland with grazing animals, and irrigating from open creeks...from small family operations nestled in the foothills of Appalachia to the sophisticated organic-grower networks that serve Los Angeles and San Francisco, the farms that celebrity chefs and food-conscious consumers jostle to buy from are facing an unexpected adversary.

"They are going to drive farms out of business," said Dave Runsten, policy director for Community Alliance with Family Farmers in Davis, Calif.

"The consumer groups behind this don't understand farming," Runsten says. "They talk out of both sides of their mouth. They demand these one-size-fits-all regulations, then say, 'I don't want to hurt those cute little farmers at the farmers market. I shop at the farmers market.' It is frustrating."

There are other agencies working to regulate and ensure food safety.

Should other than soil based crops be designated as organic? VT Congressional delegations says no
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024515665

Government Moves To Prevent Future Outbreaks By Protecting Food Safety Whistleblowers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024533808

[blackspade]

4. I think the issue is that the Feds are using the regulations to go after

Organic farmers rather than factory farms and processors that appear to be the sources of the majority of food born illnesses.

[ProSense]

5. That's

"I think the issue is that the Feds are using the regulations to go after I think the issue is that the Feds are using the regulations to go after"

...the tone of the complaints. Yet here is the next paragraph to the snip:

Food safety advocates have urged regulators to hang tough. "We don't believe large facilities are the only place where outbreaks are happening," said Caroline Smith DeWaal, food safety director at the Center for Science in the Public Interest in Washington. Farm-to-fork growers, she said, need to accept that emerging strains of E. coli and other bacteria can just as easily seep into the produce sold at a farmers market as into the batches of salad bagged at giant processing plants, and they need to tweak their methods to protect against it.

[blackspade]

7. I read that.

But without actual data to back her statement up that she doesn't believe factory farms and processors are the only places that are the source of food born illness this is a regulation in search of a problem.

If she had data to back this up rather than her belief, she should have included that.

[appal_jack]

17. CSPI is no friend of farmers.

CSPI is no friend of farmers. The regulations, as written, WILL drive small-scale, family-operated organic farms out of business.

Better sources of true food safety policies that are compatible with sustainable organic practices are available from the Pennsylvania Association for Sustainable Agriculture, the Maine Organic Farmer & Grower Association, and/or the Carolina Farm Stewardship Association. See:

http://www.pasafarming.org/policy/food-safety-modernization-act-fsma

http://www.mofga.org/Publications/MaineOrganicFarmerGardener/Winter20132014/FoodSafety/tabid/2713/Default.aspx

http://www.carolinafarmstewards.org/specific-ways-the-food-safety-modernization-act-will-harm-sustainable-agriculture/

I doubt there is a single small-scale organic farmer in this country who is against their harvests being safe. But many of us are overwhelmed with the paperwork and heavy-handed bureaucracy that seeks to impose rules suitable for corporate mega-farms onto family-scale enterprises that may only gross a few thousand dollars per year.

-app

[ProSense]

18. What you're

"The regulations, as written, WILL drive small-scale, family-operated organic farms out of business."

...posting is no different from the RW claim that regulations are burdensome. Ugh!

Victory! Your Food Will Be Safer Thanks to Center for Food Safety Lawsuit
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/2919/victory-your-food-will-be-safer-thanks-to-center-for-food-safety-lawsuit

[appal_jack]

22. Enjoy your gmo-corpo-syntho-snax, Pro

Enjoy your gmo-corpo-syntho-snax, Pro, because that is what the food 'safety' regime for which you advocate will provide.

It's not right wing to question the motivation of Monsanto-executive Michael Taylor arrogating unto himself and the oh-so-clueless FDA power over a system (small-scale, organic, sustainable farms) for which they have no understanding.

By the way, here's a bit about your heroine, Caroline Smith DeWall (a lawyer, not a biologist, and very definitely not a farmer):

She has also participated in several national advisory committees to USDA and FDA, and was recently selected as a member of the Food Safety Modernization Act Surveillance Working Group of the Office of Infectious Diseases, CDC Board of Scientific Counselors. She represents the International Association of Consumer Food Organizations at Codex Alimentarius. DeWaal graduated from the University of Vermont and Antioch School of Law. She has taught university courses on national and global food issues.

(emphases added by appal_jack)

https://www.cspinet.org/about/cspi_staff.html

-app

[ProSense]

26. No thanks, but please know that farmers against consumer advocates is not about Monsanto. n/t

[appal_jack]

30. More than 20,000 commenters to the FDA on the FSMA disagree.

More than 20,000 commenters to the FDA on the FSMA disagree. The FSMA rules, as proposed, will hurt small-scale organic farms while doing nothing to increase the safety of food.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that corporate lawyers in DC might not know all there is to know about organic farming? When you need surgery do you consult a corporate lawyer? When you need a fire put out, do you consult a corporate lawyer? How is handing educational policy over to corporate lawyers (Arne Duncan, 'Race-to-the-Top') working out for educational policy?

-app

[ProSense]

31. Why

"More than 20,000 commenters to the FDA on the FSMA disagree. The FSMA rules, as proposed, will hurt small-scale organic farms while doing nothing to increase the safety of food. "

...is it so "hard for you to understand" that opposing regulation because it will make it harder to do anything is not a valid position?

Why is that a bogus argument when large corporations use it, but valid to use against consumer advocates when they support regulations?

[BarackTheVote]

54. I think the point is less "regulation bad" and more

regulations shouldn't be written by people who have no idea about the industry they're regulating. And that's not so say all regulations should be written by industry insiders, understand, but at least by objective and well-informed third parties with a deep knowledge of what they're regulating. Farming, organic farming, is the world's second oldest occupation, and organic farmers have a vested interest in making sure their product is safe because they're small, have small profit margins, and in the case of farmers' markets, easily traceable. They let a bad crop out, they're done, free market style. This sounds like it isn't about the free market, but about lobbyists for Big Agra who are trying to plow under their competition.

On Edit: I'm also not saying small farms shouldn't be regulated. They should have periodic inspections, their compost should be tested at regular intervals for contaminants, as should their produce and facilities. But simply saying, no you can't use this time-tested ancient technique because of some nebulous *perceived* (rather than actual) threat is not right.

[ProSense]

55. No, I think

I think the point is less "regulation bad" and more regulations shouldn't be written by people who have no idea about the industry they're regulating. And that's not so say all regulations should be written by industry insiders, understand, but at least by objective and well-informed third parties with a deep knowledge of what they're regulating. Farming, organic farming, is the world's second oldest occupation, and organic farmers have a vested interest in making sure their product is safe because they're small, have small profit margins, and in the case of farmers' markets, easily traceable. They let a bad crop out, they're done, free market style. This sounds like it isn't about the free market, but about lobbyists for Big Agra who are trying to plow under their competition.

...it's a combination of selective reporting and spin. Monsanto has nothing to do with the article in the OP or the rule.

Qualified Exemptions and Modified Requirements (Produce Rule)

Background

No farm is exempt from the responsibility to produce safe food, but different scales and types of supply chains pose varying levels of risk to public health. A farm that produces lettuce on a large scale that is shipped across the country and served to thousands of people in institutional cafeterias poses a different level of risk to public health than a farm that produces lettuce on a small scale to sell directly to a consumer at a farmers market. The scale of production and consumption, the complexity of the supply chain, and the time and distance between harvest and consumption are all risk factors that can influence the safety of a food product and how many people get sick if the product is contaminated.

In writing the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), Congress recognized that different scales of farming and different types of supply chains pose different risks to the safety of the food supply. Congress required FDA to take a risk-based approach to the new regulations and to provide sufficient flexibility in the regulations to be applicable to a wide range of farms, including small businesses and farms that sell directly to consumers. Instead of a “one-size-fits-all” approach to food safety, Congress required the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to take into account differences due to scale and supply chain when writing the new food safety regulations.

One of the parts of this risk-based, scale-sensitive approach was a provision that set forth modified requirements for farms that both gross less than $500,000 in all food sales annually and sell the majority of their food directly to consumers or to grocery stores, institutions, or restaurants in-state or within a 275-mile radius. The law allows for these farms – which FDA calls “qualified exempt” – to comply with less burdensome, modified requirements instead of with the full set of produce safety regulations. Congress also stipulated that qualified exempt farms could have their status withdrawn under certain circumstances (see below).

Proposed Qualified Exemptions and Modified Requirements

In its proposed Produce Rule, FDA outlines the modified requirements for qualified exempt farms. A farm is eligible for modified requirements through a qualified exemption if the farm:

1. Has less than $500,000 in annual gross sales (adjusted for inflation) over a previous three-year period AND
   
   
2. Sells the majority of the food directly to a “qualified end-user” (i.e., a consumer, or a restaurant or retail food establishment (e.g., a grocery store) that is located in the same state as the farm or not more than 275 miles from the farm).

The $500,000 threshold applies to the value of all food sales, not just sales of covered produce. This includes sales of processed foods, hay, commodities like corn and soybeans, dairy, livestock, and produce.

- more -

http://sustainableagriculture.net/fsma/learn-about-the-issues/qualified-exemptions-and-modified-requirements/

[BarackTheVote]

56. From the same link:

emphasis mine:

Compliance and Enforcement

Regardless of their status under FSMA, all farms – including qualified exempt farms – are prohibited through pre-existing law from selling adulterated food. Food is considered to be adulterated under a number of circumstances, including if it:

“consists in whole or in part of any filthy, putrid, or decomposed substance, or if it is unfit for food; or
if it has been prepared, packed, or held under insanitary conditions whereby it may have become contaminated with filth, or whereby it may have been rendered injurious to health.”

It is extremely unclear in the proposed Produce Rule whether FDA is expanding the definition of when and how a food is considered adulterated, and whether, in doing so, FDA is also negating the option for a farm to be compliance with the regulations through the modified requirements. If FDA is negating that option, then FDA’s change is a huge issue that contradicts FSMA. We will provide more clarification on this issue once we receive more information.

The proposed standards also state that failing to comply with the Produce Rule is a “prohibited act” subject to penalties and enforcement actions laid out in pre-existing law, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

[ProSense]

58. ? So pre-existing law already prohibts the practice?

The excerpt seems to be about wanting clarification about how the rule affects pre-existing law.

That really has nothing to do with the overall point that the rule exempts small farms.

Interestingly, one of the farms in the OP piece appears to have revenue under $100,000 the other between $2.5 million and $5 million, equivalent to the farm responsible for this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024550776

[BronxBoy]

59. That is a huge issue which I addrssed below....

Some of the more important terms in this bill are not clearly defined and can have major negative impact on many small farming operations. I'd bet my house that the people screaming on this thread that we small farmers who object to this legislation are nothing more that anti-regulatory zealots have never had to farm for a livelihood.

[rhett o rick]

86. There is a huge difference that you seem to be overlooking. Right wingers are against

regulations on the large corporate farms. Yet, the large corporate farms lobby to get Congress to pass regulations that only hurt the small farms.

Not all regulations are good.

Whose side are you on?

[ProSense]

21. And here's the interesting thing

Those organizations supported the Farm bill

http://www.mofga.org/Programs/PublicPolicyInitiatives/2014FarmBill/tabid/2737/Default.aspx

http://www.pasafarming.org/policy/farm-bill

Release: NSAC Statement on Farm Bill Final Passage
http://sustainableagriculture.net/blog/release-nsac-statement-on-farm-bill-final-passage/

[BronxBoy]

63. So what's your point....

Appropriations for sustainable and organic programs in the farm bill were increased across the board with the exception of funding for programs of farmers of color. They did their job for their constituents. We still get crumbs but at least we got more crumbs. The organic cost share program was zeroed out in the original farm bill and through the work of those organizations, we not only got it back but got an increase.

Cutting and pasting links without having any background knowledge of the subject matter makes you look foolish.

[ProSense]

68. You know

"Appropriations for sustainable and organic programs in the farm bill were increased across the board with the exception of funding for programs of farmers of color....Cutting and pasting links without having any background knowledge of the subject matter makes you look foolish."

...what "makes you look foolish"? ^^^^^That^^^^^


Everyone knows Monsanto writes everything out of the FDA, therefore they're responsible for increased "appropriations for sustainable and organic programs" for whites only.

Sheesh!

The premise of this thread and the arguments being used to support it are ludicrous.

[BronxBoy]

70. Once again, you show your ignorance....

I'm a Black farmer who does a lot of work on organic and sustainable policy issues throughout the southeast. I also do a lot of work on helping Black farmers through mentoring and training programs.

The decrease in the funding for Black farmers was actually a self inflicted wound by certain persons within the Black agricultural movement. But once again, you choose to ridicule someone who obviously has a more intimate knowledge of the situation than you do. The sustainable ag programs that did get funding increase also benefit farmers of color and Monsanto has nothing to do with this.

But laugh on Mr Cut & Paste

[ProSense]

72. You mean

"The decrease in the funding for Black farmers was actually a self inflicted wound by certain persons within the Black agricultural movement. But once again, you choose to ridicule someone who obviously has a more intimate knowledge of the situation than you do. The sustainable ag programs that did get funding increase also benefit farmers of color and Monsanto has nothing to do with this. "

...Monsanto had nothing to do with it? Hey, good for you and your "intimate knowledge."

You seem to believe that it prevents anyone else from having an opinion. I'll say it again, the piece in the OP sounds like anti-regulation whining.

I guess I should take that back and defer to your "intimate knowledge," as it makes you the only person who can criticize the report: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024550235#post51

[BronxBoy]

74. Hey Mr "Prosense"...

You posted about a zillion links from NSAC if Monsanto had shit all to do with the decrease in funding to Black farmers in the farm bill which is the 2501 program to educate you. SHow everyone on this thread how wise you are. Contact them and ask them if that;'s the case and post their reply here. If you need some contact information, PM me.

Put up or shut Mr Cut & Paste

[ProSense]

75. That's Ms. ProSense.

"if Monsanto had shit all to do with"

See the OP.

[Major Nikon]

8. At least in regards to some of it I think the whining is warranted

Aquaponics is actually a pretty innovative and straightforward approach to organic farming which would be regulated out of existence if the soil based organic farmers get their way. It's also the most efficient way for small farmers to break into the commercial produce market because it requires very little land (and no soil) to get relatively large yields.

[BronxBoy]

45. Wrong

Food producers across the board have major problems with this bill, be they conventional or sustainable and organic. This is lining up to be a case of grocers, retail outlets and insurers on one side and food producers on the other. In fact, the only major disagreement between conventional and organic farmers is the level at which small farmers would be exempted from regs in the bill. In fact, the general feeling of use folks in agriculture is that if everyone knew of the full extent this legislation beforehand, it would have never passes.

So please stop the BS about this being anti-regulatory whining. This bill was written by the FDA with input from insurers who know jacks hit about farming. The fact that the FDA was hammered with thousands of complaints during the comment period which has slowed adoption of the bill and will lead to another comment period this fall tells you all you need to know about the flaws in the bill. We will see significant changes in this bill for the better.

[ProSense]

47. First,

"So please stop the BS about this being anti-regulatory whining. "

...insisting everybody hates it does not negate that it's anti-regulatory whining.

Food safety bill signed into law

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Consumers Union, the nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports magazine, praised the food safety bill that the President signed into law today.

Consumers Union has long advocated for overhauling the Depression-era laws that currently govern food safety. The bill, which won bipartisan support from Congress, will require more frequent inspections of food facilities and, for the first time, give the Food and Drug Administration the authority to order recalls of tainted food.

Jean Halloran, the director of food policy initiatives at Consumers Union, said, “It’s a great day for consumers. When common foods like spinach and peanut products have to be pulled from stores because people are dying, clearly, there’s a problem. This legislation will go a long way toward making our food safer.”

Ami Gadhia, policy counsel for Consumers Union, said, “When you look at the costs associated with tainted food, from medical costs to business costs to the loss of life, these reforms are a vast improvement over the status quo. This bill needs to be implemented and funded as quickly as possible to protect people from deadly outbreaks.”

http://consumersunion.org/news/food-safety-bill-signed-into-law/

[BronxBoy]

49. Sure it does...

[newfie11]

2. I'm going back to having a big garden this year

And canning a years worth of veggies. I did this for years but got lazy. I also have horses and chickens so can make my own compost. Monsanto can go to hell!

[BronxBoy]

64. This has nothing to do with Monsanto....n/t

[Dr Hobbitstein]

6. So organic farms can't have animals on the crop lands

can't make their own fertilizers, or use creeks for water irrigation. Sounds a bit safer to me...

Maybe stop some of those e.coli outbreaks that have hit foods as of late.

But hey, let's blame a company with about the same net worth as Whole Foods for all our food woes.

[fasttense]

9. Yet most of the outbreaks (even in organic foods) have come from factory farms.

The poisoned eggs, the E.coli in spinach, the bad meats all came from factory processed or farmed foods.

None of them came from a small farm.

So why are they first and foremost applying these regulations to family farms? Why not apply them first to huge factory farms and then see how they can be applied without cost to the small farm?

It seems too convenient to me. Just when farmer's markets and locally grown is starting to make inroads, out come these new regulations to add more expense.

Already here in TN it is costing small farmers lots of money. I raise about 10 head of pasture raised sheep that I get processed and sell frozen to retail customers at the farmers market. Up until last year, the only requirement was to get the meat processed in a USDA approved/inspected slaughterhouse and maintain freezing temperatures throughout sales. But now, I'm required to build a special room for the freezer that stores the meat between the slaughter house and the farmers market. It has to be closed off from everything else and must be fully washable. The only thing allowed in this room is a freezer. Plus I get to pay $50 for an inspector to come out and let me apply for a retail meat sales permit. The inspector and permit aren't too bad. It's the cost of this special room I have to build for the freezer I use.

Then you have to not have any pets (including goldfish) in the house even if those pets do not go in the room or same floor of the holy grail freezer. I'm sure there are other requirements that are going to be added later.

What happens with these requirements is eventually all the small farmers get the word and they all start passing inspections. So, then they change the rules add layers or interpret the rules more and more stringently. Soon no small farmer passes inspection and the ag. agencies wonders why small farmers aren't successful. Then they turn around and change the rules after you have spent all that money building a special room for the holy grail freezer.

I've seen this exact same thing happen with egg washing and it's now going to happen with retail meat sales.

[Major Nikon]

12. "most of the outbreaks"

There's really no way to know this because most of the outbreaks go unreported. Outbreaks from factory farms tend to affect a larger number of people per outbreak, so they are more thoroughly investigated and traced back to their source.

[fasttense]

24. How do we know most of the outbreaks go unreported?

I've heard that said by non-small farmers but what proof is there for such a statement?

I've talked to Ag inspectors and they can only name one or 2 incidents in a 20 year career where products were thought to be dangerous. Turns out even those incidents the products were not dangerous just unsightly.

Think about it. A small farmer is likely to go out of business with just 1 outbreak. The word gets out your meat or produce is bad and no one will buy from you.

If people were getting sick from small farms at the same rate of people getting sick from factory farms, I would think that buying from small farms would slow down or even stop. You know when you buy from a local farmer. You know his name and frequently seen his/her farm. Customers would eventually stop buying from that farmer. I've seen it happen with poor quality products. At first the item looks good and people buy it up. But after a while fewer and fewer people buy it and eventually it remains on the table.

But instead, buying locally from small farmers has increased. It took me 3 years to get my small herd big enough to start slaughtering I've seen the demand actually increase during that time. There has been no decline. AND.......

Now we have regulations to put the breaks on this local buying.

[Major Nikon]

32. That's what the CDC says

It also makes perfect sense. If you get a case of the shits, do you ever even tell anyone? The vast majority of cases either go away on their own or are treated with OTC medications. It's also very difficult to know where the illness came from unless a thorough investigation is performed. Symptoms usually don't show up for days.

[Sunlei]

14. Seems like they over regulate the low hanging easy fruit at the local level and give big ag.

....give big ag. intensive factory 'farms' a pass until they kill people with their product.

[MsLeopard]

25. Yes

And then when they do kill someone or a lot of someone's, they're simply told, "Don't do it again." Wink. Nod.

[BronxBoy]

79. "Mrs" Prosense....

is not interested in hearing from producers on the ground. She stands by her posts and linkies! God forbid their be a producer side to this issue that needs to be addressed

[BrotherIvan]

87. That IS farming

"Making your own fertilizer" can consist of compost which is very natural and healthy. Allowing animals to graze in farmlands keeps bugs and weeds down, all without chemical fertilizers. Manure is one of the best ways to enrich the soil. That is how farming has been done since the beginning. You do know that big ag sprays liquid feces on crops from huge cattle farms, animals that are so sick from overcrowding, poor diet and crowded living conditions they have to be pumped full of antibiotics to keep down the spread of disease? A farmer using manure from healthy animals is not spreading e.coli. Animals are a very important part of the farm ecosystem.

Most of the outbreaks of things like e.coli have come from the big ag farms. The e.coli outbreak in spinach was traced back to pickers not washing their hands. Or poor processing in unsanitary conditions.

These kind of regulations get us even further from healthy food and saving our already sick soil. The movement toward organic was supposed to be not only healthy for the end user, but for the farmland, animals and workers as well who won't be exposed to massive amounts of chemicals used in conventional farming. This is a win for makers of chemical fertilizers and poisons, like say, Monsato.

[Berlum]

10. Scientific Materialism, Inc. (R - BigAg Style)

Ramps up the War on Nature (R), War on Clean Food (R), and the overall War on the Earth (R).

[Sunlei]

11. They look like some good common sense rules, here's the list

pertaining to rules. http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/FSMA/ucm334552.htm#F

Probably a good idea to not allow for example, spread raw manure, human waste, blood/slop tank from the nearby slaughterhouse directly on the food without a waiting period.

The sort-packing sheds where the food is exposed to damp dirty conditions, dirty washing water and workers who don't have a toilet or hand washing to use.

I remember the big cantaloupe problem came from contamination in the sorting shed, sprouts contamination came from dirty sprout seeds, meat contamination came from dragging downer slaughter animals across filthy floors.

More testing and science is a good thing.

[Major Nikon]

33. It depends on what kind of waste you are talking about

I'm not sure to what extent it's going on elsewhere, but we already have commercial acquaponic farmers here in Texas. I visited one of them just last month. Acquaponics is a closed loop system that breaks down the ammonia waste of fish into component nitrogen and uses it to fertilize food crops. Fish are cold blooded and the pathogen risk is much different than warm blooded animals. I don't see any distinction in the rules and it appears as if acquaponic farmers are going to be responsible for their own ongoing pathogen testing if they want to use those methods.

[Sunlei]

35. properly composted waste is perfect for growing plants.

I think a lot of the problems they have is from use of raw, un composted waste and contamination during sorting/distribution.

What feed they use could be a problem too.

[Major Nikon]

42. I agree

However, there is no such need to compost waste from cold blooded creatures because the pathogen risk is virtually nonexistent. The nature of acquaponics farming is that the wast is not composted per se, but is rather broke down on the fly similar to the way in which a biological water filter on a fish tank works. I'm not sure if acquaponics could even survive under the new rules even if the farmer went to the expense of testing because of the fecal coliform requirements. Some coliform bacteria are present in fish waste, but not pathogenic ones like e. coli.

[fasttense]

34. They seem reasonable on the surface but

you would be surprised how these ag. inspectors translate them. There are huge factory farms that have walk-in freezers that are an entire building or truck unto themselves. Yet I have to put my freezer in a specially designed for cleaning room with no other items allowed in there. Yet these walk-in freezers are exposed to the outside environment.

Who would have thought these rules would allow someone to fail inspection for having goldfish in the upstairs bedroom? But goldfish are labeled pets and though they were 2 stories away, I failed inspection when my granddaughter mentioned them. According to the rules no pets are allowed inside the house that has a specially built room to wash eggs for retail sales. And those goldfish just might jump down and contaminate the eggs. Two years later those rules were repealed. After we had built a room outside the house to wash eggs.

And now they are going to apply those weird goldfish rules to the special freezer room. The egg room has become a produce washing room so the freezer can't go in there unless I remove the sink and refrigerator and put in new flooring.

[bkanderson76]

13. Just The Mere Mention of Monsanto makes Me Hurl.....

[ProSense]

15. Well, that's the goal.

I mean, mention Monsanto, which has nothing to do with the regulations, and maybe people will turn against these and they'll be scrapped.

Score one for anti-regulation fever. Thanks Obama.

[laundry_queen]

36. Anti-regulation fever? LOL. Okay. nt

[ProSense]

39. Yes,

"Anti-regulation fever?"

Thanks Obama: http://ww.democraticunderground.com/10024550312

[laundry_queen]

40. OOO, a blue linky! That doesn't work, lol. nt

[ProSense]

41. LOL! I know.

[Autumn]

16. Smells like business as usual. I wonder if they are checking out the big

corporate farms ? Rec.

[BronxBoy]

66. Yes they are....

[L0oniX]

19. What??? You expected them to regulate Monstano and Bayer???

If you did then you don't know this government very well ...do you.

[DamnYankeeInHouston]

20. How many FDA employees used to work for Monsanto?

[Ichingcarpenter]

23. A bountiful Crop that Monsanto grows

?w=600

[BronxBoy]

67. I hate Monsanto as much as the next small farmer...

but FSMA is not a Monsanto issue

[raindaddy]

27. FDA reprimands First Lady for organic farm practices...

This is clearly an attempt to regulate the growing organic, local small family farm movement out of business.

People are changing their lifestyles, moving toward smaller organic farms, avoiding GMOs, chemical fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides and it's scares the piss out of the corporate food industry...
And now that government and corporations share the same bed they're using the FDA to regain control over who produces our food.

[woo me with science]

28. Why does President Obama keep Appointing Monsanto Shills to Key Gov. Positions?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022592785

Corporate corruption of our government is eating this country alive.

[laundry_queen]

37. ^^^this. nt

[bvar22]

62. ...because The Republicans make him do that!

Obama selects former Monsanto lobbyist to be his TPP chief agriculture negotiator
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023662210

Obama appoints Tom "Mr Monsanto" Vilsack to head the USDA

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-kimbrell/obamas-choice-of-vilsack_b_153213.html

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_16159.cfm

Obama Appointed Monsanto Kingpin Michael R. Taylor as the United States FDA Food Safety Czar
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/monsanto-petition-tells-obama-cease-fda-ties-to-monsanto/2012/01/30/gIQAA9dZcQ_blog.html

https://plus.google.com/+MikeMozartToyReviews/posts/CYa8zHXLAeC



...because The Republicans made him do all that.


You will know them by their WORKS.

[ProSense]

29. Farmers in Cantaloupe Outbreak Sentenced to Probation, House Arrest, Fines

Farmers in Cantaloupe Outbreak Sentenced to Probation, House Arrest, Fines
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024550776

[BronxBoy]

61. That farm was neither small nor organic...

While they are an appropriate subject to be discussed in late of the food safety laws, they would most certainly be subject to a lot of the proposed regs in the law

[2naSalit]

38. As If???

They actually ARE.

[woo me with science]

43. +1

CORRUPTION.

[2naSalit]

46. Indeed.

Rather ubiquitous at this point. I wonder what the last straw will turn out to be.

[BronxBoy]

44. Everyone gates this bill

Conventional farmers, big AG, organic and sustainable farmers

[ProSense]

48. Wonder why? I mean,

"Everyone gates this bill Conventional farmers, big AG, organic and sustainable farmers"

...could it be that "everyone" wants to do whatever the hell they please, food safety be damned?

Food safety bill signed into law

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Consumers Union, the nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports magazine, praised the food safety bill that the President signed into law today.

Consumers Union has long advocated for overhauling the Depression-era laws that currently govern food safety. The bill, which won bipartisan support from Congress, will require more frequent inspections of food facilities and, for the first time, give the Food and Drug Administration the authority to order recalls of tainted food.

Jean Halloran, the director of food policy initiatives at Consumers Union, said, “It’s a great day for consumers. When common foods like spinach and peanut products have to be pulled from stores because people are dying, clearly, there’s a problem. This legislation will go a long way toward making our food safer.”

Ami Gadhia, policy counsel for Consumers Union, said, “When you look at the costs associated with tainted food, from medical costs to business costs to the loss of life, these reforms are a vast improvement over the status quo. This bill needs to be implemented and funded as quickly as possible to protect people from deadly outbreaks.”

http://consumersunion.org/news/food-safety-bill-signed-into-law/

[BronxBoy]

50. I answered a lot of that in post #45

It's nice you keep posting the same link and yes there are food safety activists who are pushing for food safety issues. But I'm riding home from an annual statewide sustainable AG conference for the Southeast and spent several hours on the legislative session dealing with this and the farm bill. There are MAJOR issues with this bill and it will be changed

[ProSense]

52. Well,

"It's nice you keep posting the same link and yes there are food safety activists who are pushing for food safety issues. But I'm riding home from an annual statewide sustainable AG conference for the Southeast and spent several hours on the legislative session dealing with this and the farm bill. There are MAJOR issues with this bill and it will be changed"

...here are two more:

New England Farmers Union
http://www.newenglandfarmersunion.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/FSMA.Update.Jan_.2014.pdf

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition
http://sustainableagriculture.net/blog/release-food-and-drug-administration-announces-changes-to-be-made-to-fsma-rules/

[BronxBoy]

53. Uh, well...

I spent close to 4 hours with Sarah Hackney, the Grassroots Legislative director for NSAC yesterday

Once again, thanks for the articles but I'm working with prominent people on the ground on these issues and prefer to continue to get my information from them. Trying to give you some first hand info on the subject. Take it for what you will.

But if you try to paint farmers in the organic movement as whining zealots when you haven't demonstrated even close to a working knowledge if the issue, I'm going to call you on it.

Link to NSAC issues on FSMA
http://sustainableagriculture.net/fsma/overview-and-background/

[bvar22]

65. Well Done. X1000.

[ProSense]

69. LOL!

[bvar22]

81. Well, we ALL know where you stand on the issues:

[font size=3]Either Way Politics[/font]

"I don't think Obama is going to cut Social Security.
I can't be sure, but either way he's got my vote."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021128218

You may have the Upper Class luxury of Not Caring if Social Security is cut,
but do you believe that the quality and safety of our food chain won't affect you either?

[ProSense]

83. "That link is bullshit"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024550776#post3

[ProSense]

71. I said,

"But if you try to paint farmers in the organic movement as whining zealots when you haven't demonstrated even close to a working knowledge if the issue, I'm going to call you on it. "


...in comment 3, that "the piece sounds like anti-regulation whining," and it does.

You posted the background, here's a more recent post.

Release: Food and Drug Administration Announces Changes To Be Made to FSMA Rules
http://sustainableagriculture.net/blog/release-food-and-drug-administration-announces-changes-to-be-made-to-fsma-rules/

[BronxBoy]

73. Once again...

You don't know enough about the issue at hand, so you have to morph into Mr Cut and Paste. Engage me when you are knowledgeable enough to discuss this issue without letting a link make your point.

And please don't post shit from NSAC, cause I actually work with those folks to help make sense of this for farmers in the SE. That don't impress me.

[ProSense]

76. LOL!

You don't know enough about the issue at hand, so you have to morph into Mr Cut and Paste. Engage me when you are knowledgeable enough to discuss this issue without letting a link make your point.

And please don't post shit from NSAC, cause I actually work with those folks to help make sense of this for farmers in the SE. That don't impress me.

I know more than you so shut up and don't post stuff.

[BronxBoy]

77. Real Mature...What's your next post going to be?

"Nah Nah Nah You're a poopyhead"

You certainly do know how to cut & paste items.

Original, analytical thought...not so much.

What is your response to the farmer concerns that FSMA inadequately defines terms such as "processed" and "unadulterated"? Do you think the law as currently proposed adequately defines those terms? If so why? Do you think think the exemptions for small farms are too lenient or too strict or just right? Why? Who should enforce these laws and what should the appropriate penalties be? Why?

Come on Mr. Cut & Paste.....There are people on this thread who legitimately want to learn about these issue from both a food safety and producer standpoint. What's your unvarnished take? Do you have one? Any moron can cut and paste links to articles on the net. And it takes a special type of moron to continually post snippets to support their position from a source where another poster is saying you are dead wrong? You're not a moron are you Mr. Cut and Paste? And if you are, you're really not a special moron, are you?

It's OK, DU will love you unconditionally.

[bvar22]

80. Well Done again... X another 1000

It is clear to everyone reading this thread.

Clear, concise argument with references supporting the position

vs.

Cartoon Smilies

[BronxBoy]

82. I hope that folks on this thread

who are unfamiliar with this law will understand that there are legitimate issues regarding it. I do believe that all parties involved want a safer food system, it's just that the devil is in the details. There have been several posts in this thread where I think people have articulately stated some of the issues they have with this law and to continually just post snippets without engaging folks about their experiences makes me wonder about the motives of that person.

[ProSense]

84. No,

What is your response to the farmer concerns that FSMA inadequately defines terms such as "processed" and "unadulterated"? Do you think the law as currently proposed adequately defines those terms? If so why? Do you think think the exemptions for small farms are too lenient or too strict or just right? Why? Who should enforce these laws and what should the appropriate penalties be? Why?

Come on Mr. Cut & Paste.....There are people on this thread who legitimately want to learn about these issue from both a food safety and producer standpoint. What's your unvarnished take? Do you have one? Any moron can cut and paste links to articles on the net. And it takes a special type of moron to continually post snippets to support their position from a source where another poster is saying you are dead wrong? You're not a moron are you Mr. Cut and Paste? And if you are, you're really not a special moron, are you?

...but you're clearly a condescending one.

[BronxBoy]

51. I wish these reporters.....

Would actually do some research before they post alarmist shit like this. A very salient fact that the reporter overlooks if that if a farms sales are under $500k and over 60% of the sales are within a 275 mile radius of the farm, the farm would be exempted from most of the standards in the business.

Because most small organic and sustainable farms fall into that category, most would be exempt. Furthermore, many of the issues that concern small sustainable farmers such as some if the water quality regs also affect small conventional farmers as well.

We do have issues with this bill but so do conventional farmers and they will be addressed prior to final passage.

[BronxBoy]

57. Here's a brief over view of FSMA....

There is a lot of misinformation out there concerning the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). This law represents a major overhaul of the country's food safety laws and is a massive bill.

For all of its complexity, FSMA basically covers 2 major areas:

1-Production- The growing and harvesting of agricultural products including farming, ranching, aquaculture and most other activities dealing with the production of food for human consumption.

2-Processing-Manufacturing and processing food products for human consumption. Slaughterhouses and meat-packing, vegetable and fruit packing houses, produce processing such as freezing and canning and the manufacture of value added added products such as condiments, ready to eat meals etc are all activities covered under this area.

FSMA was developed and passed with very little input from many of the parties that would be affected by its regulation such as farmers. Hence, when the bill was passed and folks working in the 2 groups listed above saw the regs, shit hit the fan. Hence the additional time allotted for comments and the current work being done to change parts of the bill. And there will be changes.

There have been some posts positing that many of the thousands of complaints received by FDA about this law amount to nothing more that anti-regulatory ranting. That's bullshit. There are significant issues that will impact farmers regardless of size and production practices that need to be dealt with.

One example: For the most part, small and sustainable farmers will be exempt from many of the more onerous regulations. See post #45. However, one of the things many small farmers are concerned about is the lack of clarity and definition of some of the terms used by the law. "Processing" is a a perfect example of this.

If you are a small farmer, conventional or organic, you will be exempt from the more onerous tenants of the bill. To qualify for this exemption, your farm sales have to be less than $500K and 61% of your sales must be direct sales made within a 275 mile radius of the farm. Sounds good right?

However, if your farm is considered to be doing on-farm processing, you can possibly lose your exemption and be subjected to the same regs as say for a produce packing house. And therein lies the rub. What exactly constitutes "processing"? The regs don't exactly spell this out. If I am harvesting green onions or carrots for sale under the small farmer exemption listed above and I am trimming the tops and roots before I take them to market, am I considered a processor? Will I be subject to the same regs as a packing house trimming, washing and bagging green onions for sale to large institutional buyers? If so, why should I be? And when it comes to enforcement, who and how will this be determined?

The ambiguity in a lot of the language is just one of the issues that concern farmers. There are also issues of water quality standards, use of animal manures as a fertilizer and enforcement standards that don't make a lot of sense to a lot of people who will be affected by these laws including many who feel that we absolutely need some stronger food safety regulations.

Unfortunately, articles like the posted as well as the some of the comments posted here contain misinformation of half truths that are muddying the waters when it comes to FSMA. I think that given legislation of this scope and breadth, that we should all understand it and how it will affect us.

[Zorra]

60. Corporations now write most all our rules that relate to economic matters.

Directly or indirectly.

[woo me with science]

85. K&R