FDA Regs vs American Farming

[MoGal]

Has anyone seen this article yet???

there are many links within the article and I've not read them all, but your opinion on this???

http://www.opednews.com/articles/RED-FLAG--FDA-regulations-by-Linn-Cohen-Cole-081228-396.html

 

[PORKER]

Honey importing becomes 'nasty'
SEATTLE, Dec. 30 (UPI) -- The seemingly simple business of importing honey has become so rife with international intrigue that one U.S. broker said he was leaving the business.

"It's become so difficult in terms of risk to rewards … I don't want to take the chance anymore," said Rainier Cascade, Wash., honey broker Bob Coyle, a member of the National Honey Board.

The import business is plagued with a "transshipping," a practice of shipping honey to a benign port and re-labeling its origin to avoid testing or tariffs, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported Tuesday.

The Commerce Department's International Trade Commission imposed a duty of $1.20 a pound on Chinese honey eight years ago, after the county was judged to be dumping the product at less than market value. Chinese honey has also been found tainted with an antibiotic, chloramphenicol, which can be deadly to humans in rare cases.

Investigators from departments as diverse as Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs and the Food and Drug Administration have become involved in the issue, the newspaper said.

"There's more crooks than ever, and it has become a real nasty business," said Elise Gagnon, president of Odem International, a Canadian honey importer.

(Source: UPI )

 

[PORKER]

In November 2008 election, California voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot initiative that bans gestation crates, laying hen cages and veal crates. Producers were given until Jan. 1, 2015, to change their housing systems.
The ballot initiative was backed mainly by the Humane Society of the United States, which previously helped pass similar ballot initiatives in Arizona and Florida. Farm groups nationwide were concerned with the measure and its eventual impacts on agricultural production across the country.

 

[PORKER]

FDA fails to reach state food safety audit targets
By Caroline Scott-Thomas, 07-May-2009
Related topics: Financial & Industry, Food safety and labeling

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has taken another blow as a US news organization published figures on Thursday showing it is failing to meet its goals for auditing individual states' food safety inspections.

The FDA aims to audit at least seven percent of food safety inspections that are carried out by state authorities on its behalf, in order to ensure they come up to a satisfactory standard. But it only reached that goal in 17 of the 39 states it paid to carry out inspections during the 2007-08 audit year, according to a USA Today report.

The efficacy of state inspections came under scrutiny earlier this year during the salmonella outbreak linked to peanut products from a Peanut Corporation of America (PCA) plant in Blakely, Georgia.

Speaking in a conference call with reporters in January, the FDA's Michael Rogers said that the federal agency had not inspected the contaminated plant in 2007 or 2008, but had contracted inspections out to Georgia state officials. Those inspections found only a few violations at the facility, even though the PCA's internal food safety assessments found the presence of salmonella at least twelve times.

FDA improvement

The USA Today report said that FDA's figures for auditing food safety inspections have improved, however. In the 2006-07 audit year, it did not meet its seven percent target in 21 of 37 states, and there were no audits at all in eight states. Moreover, in 1998, the FDA carried out no audits in 21 of 38 states.

The report said that one of the reasons for this poor record is that foodborne illness outbreaks divert FDA staff from the audit process.

PCA state inspections

In the Peanut Corporation of America case, Georgia's state officials defended their inspections, saying that they had far fewer resources than the FDA assessment that was carried out after the plant's connection with the salmonella outbreak. While state officials examine a plant in two to three hours, the FDA's later examination involved up to seven inspectors over 14 days. That inspection revealed four strains of salmonella, mold, cockroaches, and a peanut roaster incapable of killing salmonella.

Furthermore, Texas health officials closed down another PCA processing plant in Plainview, Texas, after they discovered dead rodents, droppings and bird feathers in a crawl gap above a food production area. The PCA's Texas plant had not been inspected since it first opened in March 2005 because the company had failed to apply for a Texas license, meaning that state authorities did not know it existed, the Department of Social and Health Services said.

At least 691 people were sickened by the outbreak, which has been linked to nine deaths.

In the wake of the outbreak, the US food safety system has come under sharp scrutiny, with many food industry groups, consumers and politicians calling for FDA reform.

 

[PORKER]

S425 Bill in the Senate

Senator Sherrod Brown (Ohio) [5] introduced the Bill (February, 2009) with the ostensible purpose of

Amending the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
Providing for the establishment of a traceability system for food,
Amending the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Poultry Products Inspections Act, the Egg Products Inspection Act, and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and inter alia
Providing for improved public health and food safety through enhanced enforcement


The core philosophy of S425 is 'traceability.' 'The traceability system (a) shall require each article of food shipped in interstate commerce to be identified in a manner that enables the Secretary to retrieve the history, use, and location of the article through a recordkeeping and audit system, a secure, online database, or registered identification. [Sec. 414A]



Penalties under S425 are also quite severe. 'The Secretary may assess against a person that violates section 411 (including a regulation promulgated or order issued under that section) a civil penalty for each violation of not more than $100,000' and 'Each violation and each day during which the violation continues shall be considered to be a separate offense.' [Sec 413]



If you sold a chicken every day for seven days and suppose you violated three laws, the penalty could be 3x7x1 million dollars, or about 21 million dollars, give or take a few cents at the discretion of the inspector.



As a small farmer you'd be required to maintain where you bought the birds, what did you feed them, what did you add to the watering tray, prove that the brood did not have any disease, and prove to the satisfaction of the inspector that the meat did not contain any contaminant.



Whilst HR875 seeks to prevent contamination of any foods, S425 seeks to ensure traceability in any meat and egg. The wording of the two bills shows that the present US Government seeks to eliminate small farmers.

 

[PORKER]

The core philosophy of S425 is 'traceability.' 'The traceability system (a) shall require each article of food shipped in interstate commerce to be identified in a manner that enables the Secretary to retrieve the history, use, and location of the article through a recordkeeping and audit system, a secure, online database, or registered identification. [Sec. 414A]

This is considered passed as only democrats rule in Washington rule!

 

[PORKER]

Here is more of Bill S 425;

'(ii) Electronic records identifying each prior sale, purchase, or trade of the food and its ingredients, and establishing that the food and its ingredients were grown, prepared, handled, manufactured, processed, distributed, shipped, warehoused, imported, and conveyed under conditions that ensure the safety of the food. The records should include an electronic statement with the date of, and the names and addresses of all parties to, each prior sale, purchase, or trade, and any other information as appropriate.

'(iii) Standardized tracking numbers on all shipments. These numbers would identify the country of origin, the unique facility registration number, date of production, and lot number (if applicable).

We will not need NAIS when this passes .
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-425


Bill Aims to Strengthen "Dangerous" US Food Safety System

by Holly Case
The number of high-profile outbreaks of food contamination have led numerous advocates to call for greater regulation of the nation's food safety system. Despite the widespread support for such reform, so far relatively little has been done to actually enforce and strengthen the food safety and inspection system.

Officials are hoping that could change if recently introduced legislation is passed. The Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009 would increase the number of inspections of food plants, require manufacturers to take more responsibility for the prevention of food-borne illnesses and give the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) further punitive powers. The legislation, which was proposed by Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) and Rep John D Dingell (D-Mich.), would give the FDA the authority to recall contaminated food products, the capacity to quarantine food suspected of being tainted and added authority to impose criminal and civil sanctions on violators.

Rep. Waxman said: "The current state of our food safety system is dangerous not just for the American public, but also for the food industry itself. This bill recognizes that the hallmark of strong food safety legislation must be a shared responsibility for food safety oversight between FDA and industry. This legislation will go a long way toward restoring Americans' confidence in our food supply."

Under the proposals, manufacturers, food handlers and growers would be required to identify contamination risks, record the measures taken to halt them and submit records for federal scrutiny. Private laboratories used by food producers would also be compelled to report the detection of pathogens to the government.

A legislative hearing to discuss the measures contained in the bill has been scheduled for June 3.

 

[PORKER]

Food safety bill would be complex, costly
Complex and costly legislation is being pushed through Congress in the form of the "Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009" that would give the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) authority to conduct on-site inspections of livestock and poultry operations "and take action," although it's unclear what the inspections and action would involve, according to NPPC director of science and technology Dr. Jennifer Greiner.

Speaking to reporters at WPX, she said producers would need records showing that they are compliant with FDA standards for feed and food safety, which would include knowing, for instance, where every ingredient in a batch of feed came from and safety standards for manure disposal and worker hygiene.

The bill is moving through the House Energy & Commerce Committee, with a markup scheduled next week and a full committee hearing later this month, she said.

"From our perspective, it's broad and vague," Greiner said. It does not specify what would prompt FDA visits, what would be inspected and if there would be penalties for noncompliance. There would also be "a lot of fees at a time when none of us can afford them," she said.

"We all want food safety, and we all want food safety reform," she said, "but reform needs to be responsible, risk-based and science-based." Those were the parameters of the hazard analysis and critical control points inspection program that was initiated in the mid-1990s, she said.

 

[Tex]

Food safety bill would be complex, costly
Complex and costly legislation is being pushed through Congress in the form of the "Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009" that would give the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) authority to conduct on-site inspections of livestock and poultry operations "and take action," although it's unclear what the inspections and action would involve, according to NPPC director of science and technology Dr. Jennifer Greiner.

Speaking to reporters at WPX, she said producers would need records showing that they are compliant with FDA standards for feed and food safety, which would include knowing, for instance, where every ingredient in a batch of feed came from and safety standards for manure disposal and worker hygiene.

The bill is moving through the House Energy & Commerce Committee, with a markup scheduled next week and a full committee hearing later this month, she said.

"From our perspective, it's broad and vague," Greiner said. It does not specify what would prompt FDA visits, what would be inspected and if there would be penalties for noncompliance. There would also be "a lot of fees at a time when none of us can afford them," she said.

"We all want food safety, and we all want food safety reform," she said, "but reform needs to be responsible, risk-based and science-based." Those were the parameters of the hazard analysis and critical control points inspection program that was initiated in the mid-1990s, she said.

This should be required of every food import into the United States, not just to domestic food. The Congress should never put higher costs of regulatory compliance on U.S. producers and let foreign producers have a free ride just so WalMart can make more money.

Tex

 

[PORKER]

Lancaster Farmer PA

New Food Safety Bill Generates Lots of Questions at Hearing
Submitted by Editor on Fri, 06/05/2009 - 11:44am.


Legislation Proposes $1,000 Annual Fee for All Food Producers

Linda Voss
Correspondent

WASHINGTON — Contentious issues in the newly proposed draft Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009 came to the fore at the legislative hearing of the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee here Wednesday.

A central point of contention is a $1,000 fee all food producers would have to pay to register with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) annually. The fee would be a user fee needed to pay for the operational costs of moving to a new system of food safety inspection.

The new system would involve risk-based inspection, generally meaning higher risk food facilities would be inspected more often. Committee Chairman Henry Waxman acknowledged the registration fee was contentious, but said that Congress "can't realistically expect appropriations alone to cover the operational costs of inspection." He thought it was "fair to ask industry to chip in."

The bill does not designate how the money raised from the registration fee will be spent. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) agreed that the FDA needed more resources. The FDA is unable to inspect all food sources now. However, he wanted what would amount to around $375 million in registration fees to be specifically designated to go to food safety inspection.

The specifics of how the proposed new system of risk-based inspection would work are missing in the bill. "We all know, especially those of us who are mothers know, you can't inspect your way to food safety," said Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) She was wary of the burden on small business, the economy, and consumers from the cost of growth in the bureaucracy. "They would be harmed in this legislation." She advocated for focusing on high-risk inspection and improving communication between agency organizations and associates.

Representatives from states with a strong farm economy had specific concerns. Tim Murphy, (R-Pa.), pointed out that agriculture is the number one industry in Pennsylvania. He mentioned the presence of Hershey's, Welch's, Del Monte, and grocery chains like Eagle and Giant, as well as small companies. He said all those constituents had talked to him about concerns with unintended consequences of the bill.

Murphy, who represents western Pennsylvania counties including Allegheny, Beaver, Washington and Westmoreland, had a number of questions that needed clarification. Would every ingredient used, say, to make a brand of cookie, have to have traceability? He questioned the value for the cost of requiring labeling on the country of origin for food. He was concerned about the resources for sufficient training for FDA enforcement officers and auditors.

Would family farms that sold to grocery stores have to comply with the requirements of the bill?

"We want small businesses to be encouraged," Murphy said.

Michael Burgess (R-Texas) worried about unintended consequences. "In a few short months, businesses will have to convert from paper to electronic systems, pay registration and whatever other users fees we decide and trace back all food sources."

For the FDA's part, they will have to develop FDA-unique identifiers and a new civil law system for compliance with new requirements — all covered in on piece of legislation.

"This is the legacy we're going to be leaving our grandchildren," Burgess said.

 

[Tex]

Lancaster Farmer PA

New Food Safety Bill Generates Lots of Questions at Hearing
Submitted by Editor on Fri, 06/05/2009 - 11:44am.


Legislation Proposes $1,000 Annual Fee for All Food Producers

Linda Voss
Correspondent

WASHINGTON — Contentious issues in the newly proposed draft Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009 came to the fore at the legislative hearing of the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee here Wednesday.

A central point of contention is a $1,000 fee all food producers would have to pay to register with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) annually. The fee would be a user fee needed to pay for the operational costs of moving to a new system of food safety inspection.

The new system would involve risk-based inspection, generally meaning higher risk food facilities would be inspected more often. Committee Chairman Henry Waxman acknowledged the registration fee was contentious, but said that Congress "can't realistically expect appropriations alone to cover the operational costs of inspection." He thought it was "fair to ask industry to chip in."

The bill does not designate how the money raised from the registration fee will be spent. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) agreed that the FDA needed more resources. The FDA is unable to inspect all food sources now. However, he wanted what would amount to around $375 million in registration fees to be specifically designated to go to food safety inspection.

The specifics of how the proposed new system of risk-based inspection would work are missing in the bill. "We all know, especially those of us who are mothers know, you can't inspect your way to food safety," said Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) She was wary of the burden on small business, the economy, and consumers from the cost of growth in the bureaucracy. "They would be harmed in this legislation." She advocated for focusing on high-risk inspection and improving communication between agency organizations and associates.

Representatives from states with a strong farm economy had specific concerns. Tim Murphy, (R-Pa.), pointed out that agriculture is the number one industry in Pennsylvania. He mentioned the presence of Hershey's, Welch's, Del Monte, and grocery chains like Eagle and Giant, as well as small companies. He said all those constituents had talked to him about concerns with unintended consequences of the bill.

Murphy, who represents western Pennsylvania counties including Allegheny, Beaver, Washington and Westmoreland, had a number of questions that needed clarification. Would every ingredient used, say, to make a brand of cookie, have to have traceability? He questioned the value for the cost of requiring labeling on the country of origin for food. He was concerned about the resources for sufficient training for FDA enforcement officers and auditors.

Would family farms that sold to grocery stores have to comply with the requirements of the bill?

"We want small businesses to be encouraged," Murphy said.

Michael Burgess (R-Texas) worried about unintended consequences. "In a few short months, businesses will have to convert from paper to electronic systems, pay registration and whatever other users fees we decide and trace back all food sources."

For the FDA's part, they will have to develop FDA-unique identifiers and a new civil law system for compliance with new requirements — all covered in on piece of legislation.

"This is the legacy we're going to be leaving our grandchildren," Burgess said.

This will be a barrier to entry for small food producers and just a small, small cost for the large producers.

Do we really want to encourage putting all our eggs in one basket? Did we not learn anything about the spinach or large meat recalls?

Tex

 

[PORKER]

Tex, with my little operation I feel that the fee$1000.00 should be pro rated to the value of sales as Tyson or HyVee should pay according to their size and ranches like maybe a 110 cows +calves herd $100.00 and HyVee or Cisco ,distrubition $10,000 - Tyson $500,000.00 and $10,000,000.00 Dollars to Walmart since all food producers would have to pay to register with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) annually. Maybe I send this idee to Bart Stupak.

This $1000.00 fee for everyone no matter the size is stupid !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to hearings

http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1640&catid=132&Itemid=72

 

[Ben H]

OK, I didn't read everything, but one thing caught my eye, the same issue that Montana is pushing with the gun thing. Interstate commerce, does this mean that intrastate commerce will not be covered under this?

 

[Tex]

Tex, with my little operation I feel that the fee$1000.00 should be pro rated to the value of sales as Tyson or HyVee should pay according to their size and ranches like maybe a 110 cows +calves herd $100.00 and HyVee or Cisco ,distrubition $10,000 - Tyson $500,000.00 and $10,000,000.00 Dollars to Walmart since all food producers would have to pay to register with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) annually. Maybe I send this idee to Bart Stupak.

This $1000.00 fee for everyone no matter the size is stupid !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to hearings

http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1640&catid=132&Itemid=72

"This $1000.00 fee for everyone no matter the size is stupid !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"


I had to go back to see if you were quoting me. I totally agree this is stupid. It would be a real transfer of wealth from small producers to subsidize big producers. It would be like making taxes a once a year $50,000 fee for everyone instead of basing income taxes on amount of income.

 

[PORKER]

Legislation seeks to strengthen FDA's authority
By GREGG CARLSTROM
June 03, 2009
A House committee will vote next week on a bill that would significantly expand the Food and Drug Administration's authority.
The bill, HR 759, would authorize the agency to issue mandatory recalls of unsafe food — now it can only issue voluntary recalls. The agency would also be tasked with reviewing and approving food safety plans by all food producers and creating a national food-tracing system to track the source of contaminated food.
Experts and consumer groups have been demanding many of these changes for years amid a wave of high-profile outbreaks of food-borne illnesses.

"We will not be passing legislation that sets up the agency to fail," Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said at a markup hearing for the bill Wednesday. "One of the most important changes ... is a focus on prevention. The legislation does not anticipate that the FDA alone will prevent us from unsafe food."

Under the bill, FDA would conduct more frequent inspections of food producers: Facilities deemed high-risk would be inspected every six to 18 months; others would be checked every three or four years.
FDA now inspects domestic food producers only once every 10 years on average. Foreign facilities are inspected far less frequently. And that schedule has slowed in recent years as the number of food producers has increased.
FDA Commissioner Dr. Margaret Hamburg said the tougher schedule mandated by the bill would help FDA catch illness outbreaks before they start — like the salmonella outbreak earlier this year in products from the Peanut Corp. of America (PCA), a company FDA inspected only once every eight years.

"You can't detect what you don't inspect," said Caroline Smith DeWaal, director of food safety at the Center for Science in the Public Interest. "It's no surprise that, with FDA's current average inspection frequency ... that misconduct at [PCA] went undetected."
The bill would also create a national registry of food producers; companies would be required to reregister their facilities each year. The PCA outbreak highlighted the need for that provision, too; FDA said after the salmonella outbreak that it had never inspected a PCA facility in Texas.
"We would have been able to see documentation of contamination years earlier that had not been adequately addressed," Hamburg said of the registry and the tougher inspection rules.
But Hamburg also said those increased inspection goals were impossible at FDA's current staffing levels — even with the $511 million increase requested in the agency's 2010 budget proposal.

"The amount of resources required to achieve these inspection goals would far exceed even the historic increases in the president's 2010 budget," Hamburg said. "It would be difficult, if not impossible, for FDA to hire and train thousands of additional staff so quickly."
Hamburg, an Obama administration appointee who was confirmed last month, couldn't say how many extra employees would be needed to conduct the inspections. FDA plans to hire more than 220 new food safety inspectors in 2010, according to its budget request.

 

[RobertMac]

Tex, with my little operation I feel that the fee$1000.00 should be pro rated to the value of sales as Tyson or HyVee should pay according to their size and ranches like maybe a 110 cows +calves herd $100.00 and HyVee or Cisco ,distrubition $10,000 - Tyson $500,000.00 and $10,000,000.00 Dollars to Walmart since all food producers would have to pay to register with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) annually. Maybe I send this idee to Bart Stupak.

This $1000.00 fee for everyone no matter the size is stupid !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to hearings

http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1640&catid=132&Itemid=72

"This $1000.00 fee for everyone no matter the size is stupid !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"


I had to go back to see if you were quoting me. I totally agree this is stupid. It would be a real transfer of wealth from small producers to subsidize big producers. It would be like making taxes a once a year $50,000 fee for everyone instead of basing income taxes on amount of income.

This is exactly how the large packers are using government to regulate their competition out of business.

 

[PORKER]

http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090526/fsea_draft.pdf is the Bill that will affect every producer with or without NAIS tagging.

Also INFLATION ADJUSTMENT for the law.—For fiscal year 2011
20 and each subsequent fiscal year, the fee amount under
21 subsection (b) shall be adjusted by the Secretary by notice,
22 published in the Federal Register, to reflect the greater
23 of—
24 ''(1) the total percentage change that occurred
25 in the Consumer Price Index

37
[Discussion Draft]
1 At the request of an officer or employee duly designated by the
2 Secretary, permit such officer or employee, upon presen3
tation of appropriate credentials, at reasonable times and
4 within reasonable limits and in a reasonable manner, to
5 have access to and copy all records relating to such article
6 bearing on whether the food is adulterated, misbranded,
7 or otherwise in violation of this Act, including all records
8 collected or developed to comply with section 418 or 418A.
9 The requirement under the preceding sentence applies to
10 all records relating to the production, manufacture, proc11
essing, packing, transporting, distribution, receipt, hold12
ing, or importation of such article maintained by or on
13 behalf of such person in any format (including paper and
14 electronic formats) and at any location.''.
15 (b) REGULATIONS CONCERNING RECORDKEEPING.—
16 (1) AMENDMENT.—Subsection (b) of section
17 414 (21 U.S.C. 350c) is amended to read as follows:
18 ''(b) REGULATIONS CONCERNING RECORD19
KEEPING.—The Secretary, in consultation and coordina20
tion, as appropriate, with other Federal departments and
21 agencies with responsibilities for regulating food safety,
22 may by regulation establish requirements regarding the
23
establishment and maintenance, for not longer than 3 years,
24 of records by persons who produce, manufacture, process,
25 pack, transport, distribute, receive, or hold food in the
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:00 May 26, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\TEMP\WAXMAN~4.XML HOLCPC
May 26, 2009 (2:00 p.m.)
F:\M11\WAXMAN\WAXMAN_074.XML
f:\VHLC\052609\052609.051.xml (436207|1)
38
[Discussion Draft]
1 United States or for import into the United States. The
2 Secretary shall take into account the size of a business
3 in promulgating regulations under this section. The Sec4
retary may require such persons to maintain such records
5 in a standardized electronic format.''.

16 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 704(a)(1)
17 (21 U.S.C. 374(a)(1)) is amended—
18 (1) in the first sentence—
19 (A) by inserting ''farm,'' before ''factory''
20 each place it appears; and
21 (B) by inserting ''produced,'' before ''man22
ufactured'';
23 (2) in the second sentence—
24 (A) by striking ''(excluding farms or res25
taurants)'';
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:00 May 26, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\TEMP\WAXMAN~4.XML HOLCPC
May 26, 2009 (2:00 p.m.)
F:\M11\WAXMAN\WAXMAN_074.XML
f:\VHLC\052609\052609.051.xml (436207|1)
39
[Discussion Draft]
1 (B) by inserting ''produces,'' before ''man2
ufactures'';
3 (C) by inserting ''receives,'' before ''holds'';
4 (D) by striking ''described in section 414''
5 and inserting ''described in or required under
6 section 414''; and
7 (E) by striking ''when the Secretary has a
8 reasonable belief that an article of food is adul9
terated and presents a threat of serious adverse
10 health consequences or death to humans or ani11
mals'' and inserting ''bearing on whether such
12 food is adulterated, misbranded, or otherwise in
13 violation of this Act, including all records col14
lected or developed to comply with section 418
15 or 418A''; and
16 (3) in the fourth sentence—
17 (A) by striking ''the preceding sentence''
18 and inserting ''either of the preceding two sen19
tences''; and
20 (B) by inserting ''recipes for food,'' before
21 ''financial data,''.

 

[PORKER]

Food Safety Bill Moves Ahead
Date Published: Thursday, June 11th, 2009



A House subcommittee just approved food safety legislation that would impose annual fees on food processors and enable tougher government oversight, reported the Des Moines Register. If the bill becomes law, every processing facility in this country will be assessed a $500 fee each year to assist in funding the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The legislation was approved on a voice vote.

The agency's newly appointed commissioner—Dr. Margaret Hamburg—recently said that implementing a $1,000 per-facility fee could go a long way toward boosting the nation's food safety, reported Reuters previously; however, key members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, who agreed to the original amount, agreed to halve the yearly fee. Despite the reduction, committee chairman Henry Waxman (California-Democrat), described the fee as a "critical breakthrough," saying the fees "will provide FDA with a much-needed infusion of resources to keep the food supply safe," quoted the Des Moines Register. Some Republicans and members of industry—such as the Grocery Manufacturers Association—disagree with the fees.

In addition to the annual fee, the legislation requires food processors and growers to meet standards meant to prevent food contaminations and food borne illness outbreaks as well as to increase processor inspections, said the Des Moines Register. In an earlier report, the Washington Post explained that, if passed, the legislation would provide the FDA expanded authority such as the ability to recall tainted food—a power the agency does not currently hold. The FDA would also be able to "quarantine" questionable food; impose civil penalties and increase criminal sanctions on violators; and mandate private laboratories hired by food manufacturers to report food contamination to the government.

The FDA has been routinely criticized for lax oversight on drug safety, medical device safety, and food safety issues that include the historic and massive salmonella outbreak linked to horrendous conditions at the Peanut Corporation of America (PCA). That outbreak sickened over 900 people and was linked to at least nine deaths; 46 states were involved and over 3,000 products were recalled, making it the largest food recall in American history. According to a prior Washington Post report, federal officials believe that tens of thousands more people were likely sickened.

Although a number of other deadly and widespread outbreaks have plagued the nation in recent years, it was the disgusting conditions and ongoing negligence involved in the PCA debacle that forced serious food safety reform. The scandals revealed during the outbreak highlighted myriad problems with current food safety processes and prompted attention from President Obama, said the Washington Post; the president continues to take steps to correct the issues hampering the battered agency and has called for an FDA and food safety system overhaul. For instance, we recently wrote that the FDA announced it is creating a task force to develop recommendations for enhancing the transparency of its operations and decision-making processes.

The Des Moines Register noted that while the FDA regulates the vast majority—80 percent—of this country's food supply, is has less authority and a smaller food-safety budget than the Agriculture Department (USDA), which is only responsible for the regulation of meat and poultry. Also, according to U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, about 76 million Americans are sickened with food borne illnesses annually, resulting in about 5,000 deaths.

 

[PORKER]

It passed;
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h2749/text

for a violation of this
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:00 May 26, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\TEMP\WAXMAN~4.XML HOLCPC
May 26, 2009 (2:00 p.m.)
F:\M11\WAXMAN\WAXMAN_074.XML
f:\VHLC\052609\052609.051.xml (436207|1)
7
[ Draft]
1 a violation of this Act that could result in serious adverse health
2 consequences or death to humans or animals.


Today Is The Day For Food Safety Reform!
by Jill Richardson
Share this on Twitter - ACTION: Today Is The Day For Food Safety Reform! Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 03:08:15 AM PDT
1906 was a big year for food safety in US regulatory history. That was the year The Jungle came out and our government decided that maybe our meat oughta be regulated. 1938 was another big year. That was the year they passed the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Will 2009 be another big year? Will we have the biggest food safety reform since 1938? TODAY is a major day in deciding that.

Today is the day the House is marking up the Food Safety Enhancement Act, a new bill just introduced this week by John Dingell. The bill text isn't online yet, but my lawyer and consumer advocate friends have spent the past 2 weeks combing through a draft that was posted on Henry Waxman's website. If the bill was introduced without changes from the draft, we know that we need one major addition to it to really make it a good update to our food safety laws: We need to require mandatory testing for pathogens and reporting of results to the FDA. If we had that already, there are dead people who would be alive today.

Jill Richardson's diary :: ::
What's In The Bill
Here are highlights of the draft bill...

Gives the FDA mandatory recall authority.

Requires all food producers to register with the FDA & pay a registration fee of $500.00 It applies to both US and foreign producers and will fund much of (but not all of) the FDA's activities.


Requires companies to prepare food safety plans. The FDA can audit them and can specify minimum requirements.


The FDA is required to issue food safety regulations for production and harvesting of fruits and vegetables. This worries me A LOT. The California Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement provided "safety" guidelines for leafy greens that were absolutely idiotic and harmful. That is what we DON'T want to see happen here. However, that part will be hammered out by the FDA, not by Congress. It's just something to pay attention to for the future.


Inspections: High risk facilities must be inspected every 6-18 mos. Lower risk facilities can be inspected every 18 mos to 3 years. Warehouses must be inspected every 3-4 years.


Traceability:

FDA would be required to issue regulations that require food producers,( sales barns, stockyards,) manufacturers, processors, transporter, or holders to maintain the full pedigree of the origin and previous distribution history of the food and to link that history with the subsequent distribution history of the food; and to establish an interoperable record to ensure fast and efficient traceback (current law permits facilities to hold a record in any format - paper or electronic - making efficient tracing of foods difficult for FDA). Prior to issuing such regulations, FDA would be required to conduct a feasibility study, public meetings, and a pilot project.

Some farms that sell directly to consumers or restaurants maybe exempted from this provision.


Concerns About The Bill
There are two major areas of concern here. First, we want to make sure that the bill is strong enough to take care of the problem. And we need to keep what that problem actually is in mind:

The major problem are these food safety outbreaks that span the entire country and kill people. What's really hurting us now is that our food system is so convoluted that even the people who make, ship, and sell our food don't always know where the hell it came from. They might know who they bought it from or who they sold it to, but they don't always know beyond that. A law isn't going to prevent a bug from getting into our food ever again, but when something happens we shouldn't be held up from recalling food promptly because the people who made it don't know where it came from.

Another major problem here are "bad actors" (a favorite phrase during the Congressional food safety hearings) who had cockroaches, mold, mice, rats, rodent poop, and leaky roofs in their plant that were selling peanuts that ended up in nearly 4000 products. So it's not as if that's impossible to predict that a plant with dead rats laying around might have a problem with food safety. But right now food facilities get inspected by the FDA on average every 10 years. And you can't find the dead rats if you don't inspect.

Congress also noted that the FDA had trouble once the peanut salmonella DID occur because they have no legal right to view companies' records or call for mandatory recalls.

And going back to the "bad actors" idea, in two recent outbreaks - the peanut one, and another, unrelated pistachio one - the companies at fault tested for pathogens and KNOWINGLY shipped out tainted nuts AFTER getting positive results back from the labs. THAT is why we need to add a testing/reporting measure to this bill to make it more effective.

The second area of concern in the bill is that we don't harm small businesses. If a company is NOT selling peanuts to numerous brands that are sold in all 50 states in nearly 4000 products, the scope of the damage they do is, frankly, quite limited. Given the FDA's limited resources (it was noted in the hearing that the FDA is going to really struggle to hire and train the inspectors called for by the bill within the bill's timeline, for example), we should focus on the companies that pose the highest risk to our food safety.

It seems that what was most concerning to me was also concerning to the industry representatives who spoke in the hearings. A traceability system is needed for huge companies, and the bill exempts farms that sell directly to consumers and restaurants, but what about those that fall in between (especially on the smaller side)? Nearly half of farmers don't have internet access. The industry spokespeople who testified in the hearings represented big business (mostly) but they asked that the bill not prescribe how the FDA implement a traceability system and that instead they be allowed to carry out pilot projects and research before putting in place a system that makes the most sense.

You can see write-ups of the committee hearings over this specific bill above(Part 1 - FDA) and here (Part 2 - industry and food safety advocates) if you want a really solid understanding of the discussion that has gone into the bill thus far. You can also check out this hearing on salmonella in which industry spoke to the FDA. They had 3 hearings - one with industry, one with government officials, and one with PCA (the company at fault for the peanut butter outbreak) testifying. Well, not testifying. I wrote it up here but all I was able to obtain were "tweets" coming from a friend who attended who live-tweeted the hearing on Twitter. The major headline was that the CEO of PCA took the 5th.

Lobbying Efforts
As you can imagine, a lot of money is going into lobbying about this bill - and most of it is coming from industry, of course. By and large, the biggest packaged food makers are actually FOR this bill, even if they are not for every single provision in the bill. Obviously, while they aren't trying to kill the bill entirely, they ARE trying to make sure it looks the way they want it to. And the meat industry is AGAINST the bill. (They testified in front of the ag committee recently that they don't need no stinkin' food safety regulations.HACCP) Fortunately, if you can say that, it seems that the meat industry is totally getting out-spent in lobbying dollars by the packaged food companies and their trade groups.

What's Happening Today
So today, now that the hearings are done and the bill's been introduced, the House Energy & Commerce Committee is marking up the bill. This is going to determine what the bill looks like when it gets voted upon. We've got 2 major goals right now:

Get the changes to the bill that we want made during markup.
Get the votes to pass the bill.
So that means we need to call members of the House Energy & Commerce Committee and ask them to make the changes we want to the bill and also ask them to vote for it.

ACTION
Here's what we're asking for:

Add a provision to the Food Safety Enhancement Act that requires mandatory testing for pathogens and reporting of results.
Please take care to ensure that the bill does not harm or over-burden small farms and businesses.
Please add Rep. Markey's Ban Poisonous Additives Act as an amendment to the bill (more on this below).
Please vote for the bill!
The Ban Poisonous Additives Act would ban the use of bisphenol A (BPA) from use in containers. This is a "gender bending" chemical - an endocrine disruptor - that is used very widely in canned foods (particularly tomatoes) and, most heinously, in baby bottles. More info on it here. There's some talk of getting this passed by adding it to the food safety bill as an amendment, and I'm all for that!!!

Who To Call
UPDATE: From the comments... to choose who to call, first look for your rep, then look for reps from your state. If there's nobody from your state, just pick whoever. If everybody can make 5 calls each, we'd be in great shape.

We need you to CALL (not email) members of Congress, particularly members of the House Energy & Commerce Committee... particularly members of the Health Subcommittee. The are:

Probable Votes FOR The Bill - target these guys to get the improvements we want added to the bill TODAY

John Dingell, D-MI (sponsor)
Frank Pallone, D-NJ (co-sponsor)
Diana DeGette, D-CO (co-sponsor)
Betty Sutton, D-OH (co-sponsor)
Henry A. Waxman, D-CA (co-sponsor)
Lois Capps, D-CA
Jan Schakowsky, D-IL
Tammy Baldwin, D-WI
Anna Eshoo, D-CA
Jane Harman, D-CA
Christopher S. Murphy, D-CT
Kathy Castor, D-FL
Bruce L. Braley, D-IA
Probable Votes AGAINST the bill - Don't bother with these guys

Nathan Deal, R-GA
Ed Whitfield, R-KY
John Shimkus, R-IL
Steve Buyer, R-IN
Tim Murphy, R-PA
Michael C. Burgess, R-TX
Marsha Blackburn, R-TN
Mike Rogers, R-MI
Gene Green, D-TX (worried it will hurt his district's port)
Unknowns (we need 7 of these people to vote for the bill to pass it out of sub-committee)

Bart Gordon, D-TN
Eliot L. Engel, D-NY
Mike Ross, D-AR
Anthony D. Weiner, D-NY
Jim Matheson, D-UT
Charles A. Gonzalez, D-TX
John Barrow, D-GA
John P. Sarbanes, D-MD
Zachary T. Space, D-OH
Ralph M. Hall, R-TX
John B. Shadegg, R-AZ
Roy Blunt, R-MO - wife is Kraft lobbyist
Joseph R. Pitts, R-PA
Sue Wilkins Myrick, R-NC
Phil Gingrey, R-GA
Joe Barton, R-TX
The representatives listed above are on the subcommittee. The following representatives are on the House Energy & Commerce Committee but not on the Subcommittee on Health.

Dems
Edward J. Markey, MA
Rick Boucher, VA
Bobby L. Rush, IL
Bart Stupak, MI
Mike Doyle, PA
Jay Inslee, WA
Mike Ross, AR
G.K. Butterfield, NC
Charlie Melancon, LA
Baron P. Hill, IN
Doris O. Matsui, CA
Jerry McNerney, CA
Peter Welch, VT

Republicans
Fred Upton, MI
Cliff Stearns, FL
George Radanovich, CA
Mary Bono Mack, CA
Greg Walden, OR
Lee Terry, NE
John Sullivan, OK
Steve Scalise, LA

We need a total of 28 votes on the committee to get this thing passed out of committee.

 

[PORKER]

The Change in the FDA food law happened because;

Every few months, it seems, a new food-contamination scandal griped the nation, playing out in the same troubling way. Someone dies of a food-borne infection with a scary Latin name. The government recalls a dinner-table staple and traces its contamination to dirty irrigation water or a processing plant. Everything returns to normal until the next case of killer spinach or poisoned peanuts stalks the nation.

Despite the toll — 5,000 deaths and 325,000 hospitalizations a year — Congress has typically been unwilling to strengthen controls on the growing, manufacturing and handling of food in the face of powerful industry resistance. But as profits and consumer confidence have plummeted with each new outbreak, the political climate has changed — so much so that earlier this week, a House panel reached unusual bipartisan consensus on the most sweeping reform of the food-safety system in at least 50 years.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h2749/text