"but I can get it for half that at Walmart..."

I was talking with a potential customer about our chickens today.  The topic of price came up.  Our chickens weigh in at 4.5 to 5 lbs.  They are raised on organic or non-gmo feed and pasture.  Most of the feed is produced within 100 miles of where we live.  We work every day to shrink that circle.  Average time from pasture to your freezer would be at most 5 days (mostly shorter, but some of our birds are held for people living farther away.)  The cost comes to $9.00 a bird.  What you get is a naturally raised, young (10 week old) chicken.  Nothing added.  YOU CAN'T BUY THAT AT WALMART.

I welcome comments.

Rules of the road

Seems my soapbox is getting a bit over used lately. Perhaps it's time for me to climb off before I fall on my ass.

First, apologies. Jack-of-all -thumbs, sorry for ranting about you and about microbiologists in general. I wasn't thinking clearly and clicked post when I should have waited. I didn't mean to attack you, your blog or microbiologists (who do a lot of needed, brilliant work). I've been banging my head against a bureaucratic wall on the issue of food safety and the way "regulations" are being applied to small, local producers in my area. I was tired, angry, and lashed out in the wrong direction.

Second, I adding a new rule to my "rules of the road" list. Along with "not texting while driving" (I can't imagine trying that, texting is enough of a challenge for me when I'm sitting still with no distractions) , I'm adding "No posting while angry."

There is a giant, screaming rant burining in my brain, just trying to get out. I feel like railing against the world for allowing stupid bureaucrats to force small local producers (who for the most part produce only a few hundred pounds of cut greens a year) to meet the same requirements as large scale producers and packers. I'm not angry about clean food. I'm all for that. But rather than educating the little guys and helping them adopt methods to ensure their products are safe the DOH in my state is putting people out of business because they don't have separate facilities to process and pack their produce. The list goes way beyond that, but I'm putting my soapbox away for a while until I can be rational.

Hysteria

Today I grumbled about the hysteria surrounding Food Safety Legislation. The chatter on the net is filled with such theories of Grand Conspiracies. I think it gets in the way of rational discussion of the problems with the proposed legislation. When I arrived here (Bioneers) I found another tirade against the Monsanto consortium and their bid to take over the world. I was about to comment when this link popped up on my desktop (a link from a conversation at Wildlife Gardeners-On the heels of HR875). Another 12 bills to add to the 5 I was already following and trying to be rational about. Maybe a bit of hysteria is called for. It does seem that someone is trying to ram "food safety" legislation down our throats. Maybe we should be wondering why!

I find it passing strange that I'm writing about politics. In the political season I didn't and two bloggers I really respect (Jack and Sheria)did. I sniped at their posts, playing the cynic. Now they blog about their lives and I scramble to keep up with the politics. Justice, I suppose.

Food Safety Legislation and The Grand Conspiracy

There has been a lot of chatter on the net about H.R 875, H.R. 759, H.R. 814, and Senate Bills 425 and 510. Doom and gloom. Apocalyptic ranting and raving. The END OF EVERYTHING. I understand the feelings being expressed, but most of these tirades tend to get labeled as the ranting of the lunatic fringe and discounted. That doesn't mean there is no truth in these posts, or that the accusations they make have no validity. It just means they wont be taken seriously by the politicians or the main stream public.

The truth is these bills, H.R 875, H.R. 759, H.R. 814, and Senate Bills 425 and 510, consolidate power in a single bureaucracy, increase safety requirements and regulation of small, diversified producers (with many requirements that would put small producers out of business), and do very little to improve food safety. Large producers are already regulated and the tracking systems are already there for most of the things they produce. The failure has been in the bureaucratic administration of the existing regulations, not in the lack of regulations. Creating a larger bureaucracy with more regulations will not increase food safety. Having a more localized, diverse food system will. These bills deliberately or inadvertently eliminate such diversity from the system. That is why they should be opposed. If the government is truly looking for ways to ensure safer food it would be developing ways to support smaller, more localized, more diverse food production. The "redundancy" and "inefficiencies" in this kind of system make it less susceptible to threat from disease or terrorists.

We need to stop ranting about Monsanto and start calmly expressing our concerns as voters to our representatives in the government. Money may be powerful, but so are voters.

The Food Safety Modernization Act - Trojan Horse?

I'm being told that H.R. 875, The Food Safety Modernization Act, is not going to pass. I shouldn't worry about it. Apparently the bill that has the best chance of passing is H.R. 759, The Food and Drug Administration Globalization Act. It is in committee now. It is much harder to get a handle on. Much of it is written as amendments to Title 21 of Federal Code. That makes it pretty tough for a non-lawyer like me to wade through it and figure out what it means. There is a section dealing with Safety Standards for Fresh Produce that makes me think small farmers who "process" produce on farm should be concerned with this bill as well.

Here is the text of that section.

SEC. 104. SAFETY STANDARDS FOR FRESH PRODUCE.

(a) PROHIBITED ACT.—Section 301 (21 U.S.C. 331), as amended by sections 102 and 103, is amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘(pp) The production or harvesting of produce not in accordance with minimum standards as provided by regulation under section 419A(a) or a variance issued under section 419A(e).’’.

(b) STANDARDS.—Chapter IV (21 U.S.C. 341 et seq.), as amended by sections 102 and 103, is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘SEC. 419A. STANDARDS FOR PRODUCE SAFETY.

‘‘(a) STANDARDS.—The Secretary shall establish by regulation science-based minimum standards for the safe production and harvesting of those types of fruits and vegetables that are raw agricultural commodities for which the Secretary has determined that such standards minimize the risk of serious adverse health consequences or death.

‘‘(b) CONTENTS.—The regulations under subsection

(a)—‘‘(1) shall set forth such procedures, processes, and practices as the Secretary determines to be reasonably necessary—‘‘(A) to prevent the introduction of known or reasonably foreseeable biological, chemical,

12 and physical hazards, including hazards that

13 occur naturally, may be unintentionally intro14

duced, or may be intentionally introduced, in15

cluding by acts of terrorism, into fruits and

16 vegetables that are raw agricultural commod17

ities; and ‘‘(B) to provide reasonable assurances that the produce is not adulterated under section 402;

‘‘(2) shall include, with respect to growing, harvesting, packing, sorting, and storage operations, minimum standards for safety;

‘‘(3) shall include standards addressing manure use, water quality, employee hygiene, sanitation and animal control, temperature controls, and nutrients; ‘‘(4) may include standards for such other elements as the Secretary determines necessary to carry out subsection (a);

‘‘(5) shall provide a reasonable period of time for compliance, taking into account the needs of small businesses for additional time to comply; and ‘‘(6) shall provide for coordination of education and enforcement activities by State and local officials, as designated by the Governors of the respective States.

‘‘(c) PRIORITIZATION.—The Secretary shall prioritize the implementation the regulations under subsection (a) for specific fruits and vegetables that are raw agricultural commodities and have been associated with food-borne illness outbreaks. ‘‘(d) ENFORCEMENT.—The Secretary may coordinate with the Secretary of Agriculture and shall contract and coordinate with the agency or department designated by the Governor of each State to perform activities to ensure compliance with this section.’’.

I'll keep working my way through this as best I can and as time allows. I'd appreciate feedback from others who have looked at it from a small farm perspective.

Food Safety Regulation - Why I am concerned with H.R. 875

I've been asked a number of times why I am spending so much effort on this bill. I get a lot of people saying it wont pass and even if it does it wont be the doom of small farms, so why worry.

Here's a true story that illustrates why I am concerned.

A few years ago I worked on a small farm in Texas. The mission of this farm was to train people who were preparing to go overseas on agricultural missions or peace core deployments. Much of the farm was set up to give people real experience with the conditions they would meet in the field. They learned to build, live with, and maintain composting toilets, rain catchment systems, water pumps, water filtration, wood fire cooking, etc. It was a great learning environment.

To raise some of the money needed to maintain these programs the farm operated a small grade A Raw Milk dairy and a vegetable CSA. There were also farm days held a couple of times a year when community members came for food and fun and donated money. After one of these farm days someone complained to the health department about conditions at the farm. There was no sickness, no problem that I was aware of, just a complaint. An inspector from the Health Department came to check things out. She happened to show up on CSA day. We were just finishing bagging the lettuce for the afternoon pickup. We, the farm staff, interns, and CSA members, were working at tables in the shade on the porch of the learning center. The inspector walked around with the director, asked a few questions, and left. A few days later we were notified that we must cease processing (washing and bagging) lettuce or any other produce until we had a certified, inspected, separate processing facility in which to work. The facility had to be completely enclosed, washable, have a bathroom, a separate hand washing sink, refrigeration, etc. It needed to basically be a commercial kitchen without the cooking equipment. The cost of such a facility, even with donated labor and some donated materials would run to several thousand dollars (much more than that with out the donations and the existence of a concrete pad we could build on.) Everything was put on hold while the farm scrounged the donations, money, and help to build the facility. It came close to permanently shutting down the CSA.

The CSA at this farm had been running for years. The state dairy inspector visited the farm every few weeks to check the dairy and the milk we sold. There was never a problem brought up that was outside the normal operating of a dairy. Yet, one unrelated complaint to the Health Department almost shut down the whole operation and cost the farm thousands of dollars and a huge amount of time. If this had happened to a farm that was not a well known and fairly well funded non-profit teaching center, it could have easily spelled ruin. Very few small farmers have the resource base to create such a facility mid-season. The banks rarely loan money for such projects (the return is too small and takes too long from a business pov.) It would be a disaster.

The proposed Food Safety Modernization Act would link the state and federal systems much more closely with the state doing the ground work of registration, inspection, and data collection. It would also completely open farms to the regulation of the Health Department. Because most small farms process (wash and bag) produce on farm they become subject to the same inspections and regulatory requirements as large processing facilities. Most small farms can't afford to create the required facilities and would be forced out of business.

That is why I'm concerned with this bill and am working to see it doesn't pass. I support safe food and inspections that help insure its safety. I think there is a need for it at all levels of the food production process. But the large scale commercial system is vastly different from the small scale local system. This bill does not address these differences, it lumps everything together. It falls short of the needs at the large scale and doesn't even consider the needs at the small scale.

Here is a link to another look at the bill and some ways to get involved http://www.opednews.com/articles/A-solemn-walk-through-HR-8-by-Linn-Cohen-Cole-090314-67.html Check it out.

Food Safety Bills - more information

There is a summary of H.R 875, H.R. 759, H.R. 814, and Senate Bills 425 and 510 on the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance site. They also have links to more information and to ways to take action.

Judith McGeary, from the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance ended her letter to the editor of Acres Magazine, April 2009 issue, with the following;

"None of the bills recognize the fundamental differences in food safety between the industrial, centralized food system and the sustainable, local food system. To one degree or another, they all attempt to impose expensive, burdensome requirements on all farmers, regardless of the scale of operation or the management methods. True food safety reform needs to recognize that foods such as grass-fed meats, processed in local, small-scale operations, are not the same as - and should not be regulated as - feedlot meats processed at massive facilities and shipped all over the country. Nor should vegetables and fruits from a local farm be treated the same as spinach from mega-farms in California, processed at a multimillion-dollar facility, and shipped all over the country."

If you care about the future of local, sustainable food you should get involved. Follow the link to Farm and Ranch Alliance and take action.

Food Safety Modernization Act - Another Look

Since I posted my take on the Food Safety Modernization Act - H.R. 875, I have been drawn into a number of conversations about the bill and what it means or does not mean for small farmers. In these conversation a fact sheet put out by Food and Water Watch has been referred to often, either by people who support the bill or people who work for Food and Water Watch. Their reading of this bill and mine differ on a few points. Here is what Hayley, an employee of Food and Water Watch, posted in the comments on the Garden Rant discussion of this bill.

Hayley said...

Hello everyone,

My name is Hayley and I work for Food and Water Watch. In the posts, Jill, mentioned our fact sheet, well I think it's important to clear up the bill, so I'm going to post it here. Our policy experts have read and interpreted the entire bill and basically there are 6 food safety bills being circulated in Congress, but only this one seems to be receiving a lot of attention. H.R. 875 – would overhauling the totally dysfunctional Food and Drug Administration. But the rumor mill has this legislation pegged as something entirely different. Now it’s time to set the record straight. Here are a few things that H.R. 875 DOES do:

- It addresses the most critical flaw in the structure of FDA by splitting it into two new agencies –one devoted to food safety and the other devoted to drugs and medical devices.
- It increases inspection of food processing plants, basing the frequency of inspection on the risk of the product being produced – but it does NOT make plants pay any registration fees or user fees.
- It does extend food safety agency authority to food production on farms, requiring farms to write a food safety plan and consider the critical points on that farm where food safety problems are likely to occur.
- It requires imported food to meet the same standards as food produced in the U.S.

And just as importantly, here are a few things that H.R. 875 does NOT do:
- It does not cover foods regulated by the USDA (beef, pork, poultry, lamb, catfish.)
- It does not establish a mandatory animal identification system.
- It does not regulate backyard gardens.
- It does not regulate seed.
- It does not call for new regulations for farmers markets or direct marketing arrangements.
- It does not apply to food that does not enter interstate commerce (food that is sold across state lines).
- It does not mandate any specific type of traceability for FDA-regulated foods (the bill does instruct a new food safety agency to improve traceability of foods, but specifically says that recordkeeping can be done electronically or on paper.)

HOWEVER Several of the other bills include provisions that should worry small farmers – like H.R. 814, which calls for a mandatory animal identification system, or H.R. 759, which is more likely to move through Congress than H.R. 875 and calls for electronic recordkeeping on farms and registration fees for processing plants.

I hope everyone found this helpful!

Hayley says the bill "- It increases inspection of food processing plants, basing the frequency of inspection on the risk of the product being produced". What she doesn't mention is that if you "process" (as in cut and bag, or otherwise package food or produce) you are reclassified as a food establishment and subject to these inspections. Many small farms do this. Most large farms do not. She also points out that this bill "extends food safety agency authority to food production on farms." Food and Water Watch think this is a good thing, and it may be for large commercial farms. The requirement to "write a food safety plan and consider the critical points on that farm where food safety problems are likely to occur" (and submit it for review, approval, and inspection, I'm sure) is a good thing for giant producers of some kinds of produce, but would be burdensome and unnecessary for small farms.

Hayley goes on to point out things the bill "does not" do. Some of these are true as far as the wording of the bill is concerned (except that if you process anything on farm you instantly become a food establishment and subject to all the requirements of this law.) Other things, like "- It does not call for new regulations for farmers markets or direct marketing arrangements." are true. The bill isn't aimed at the marketing methods, and contains nothing about farmers markets or direct marketing. But, (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. the small farmer taking his bags of lettuce to market and holding them there for sale could also fall subject to the inspection and requirements for a Category 5 Food Establishment. That could mean refrigerated trucking, refrigeration at the market, etc. This would have a huge impact on small farms and small Farmers Markets.

She says "- It does not apply to food that does not enter interstate commerce (food that is sold across state lines)." I didn't find this anywhere in the bill.

On the topic of traceability Hayley says the bill will not "establish a mandatory animal identification system." and that "- It does not mandate any specific type of traceability for FDA-regulated foods (the bill does instruct a new food safety agency to improve traceability of foods, but specifically says that recordkeeping can be done electronically or on paper.)" But the bill states "SEC. 210. TRACEBACK REQUIREMENTS.

(a) 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.

(b) APPLICABILITY.—Traceability requirements under this section shall apply to food from food production facilities, food establishments, and foreign food establishments." Seems like a traceability requirement for all food to me.

I still think this bill addresses some efficiency issues that need to be looked at. But it is written with an eye for large producers. The regulatory part takes into account their needs and the problems associated with them. It does NOT consider small farms at all. That is a different system and needs to be addressed in different ways. This bill as it is written has the potential to severely damage the small farm and local food movements. Not from maliciousness, but from ignorance of the issues at this level.