• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Final Food Safety bills from the Senate passed

PORKER

Well-known member
S510 - A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to the safety of the food supply sponsored by Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) has 8 co-sponsors currently.

This bill addresses the concerns of government to the use of or exposure to certain foods. If the Secretary of Agriculture believes that there is a reasonable probability that the use of or exposure to an article of food will cause serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals, each person who manufactures, processes, packs, distributes, receives, holds, or imports such article shall provide access to that food article and to all records relating to such article.

HACCP and preventive controls would be required for all manufacturers, processors, packers, distributors, receivers, holders, or importers. Safety standards would be established for production and harvesting of fruits and vegetables. All premises would be required to be registered and pay annual inspection fees.


The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Agriculture, would facilitate public-private partnerships to help unify and enhance the protection of the agriculture and food system of the United States; including the sharing of information and intelligence relating to agriculture and the food system.

The three agencies would identify best practices and methods for improving the coordination among Federal, State, local, and private sector preparedness and response plans for agriculture and food defense and would recommend methods to protect the economy and the public health of the United States from the effects of animal or plant disease outbreaks, food contamination and natural disasters affecting agriculture and food.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Produce Marketing Assocation Field To Fork

Wednesday, August 05, 2009 by Lee Mannering
PTI best practices on tap for Fresh Summit 2009

Two years ago at Fresh Summit, PMA, CPMA, and United launched the Produce Traceability Initiative. Since then, the PTI has established milestones toward industry-wide traceability adoption. Industry members are working diligently toward meeting these goals. Interestingly, as the industry works on traceability solutions, there is no shortage of legislative proposals circulating in Capitol Hill that contain some reference to product tracing. FDA is also preparing to release its thoughts about product tracing. It’s a hot topic no matter where you are.

During Fresh Summit 2009 in Anaheim, attendees will learn about the latest PTI developments, best practices, and operational tips to implement these milestones. This workshop will give you a unique opportunity to get answers to your traceability questions, and to gain a clear picture of the PTI’s long- and short-term impact on your business.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, August 5th, 2009 at 10:00 am and is filed under Food Safety, Traceability. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Responses to “PTI best practices on tap for Fresh Summit 2009”
William Kanitz Says:
August 8th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
The comment above; (the industry works on traceability solutions).
The only working solution that covers best practices with the documentation as it travels in real time with the product is www.ScoringAg.com Whether field GAP’s, packing shed, shipping BMP’s, distrubition or warehousing, processing, retailing only ScoringAg labels can connect the food chain in real time with pallet, case, and item-level labeling and stickering codes that the consumer can see while they are shopping by using their cell phone logged into http://www.traceback.com .Nothing has to be built as ScoringAg’s database runs everyday and satisfy’s the retailer and the consumer’s need of knowledge of what, whom, how, and when or where the product has been and its quality. Now everyone is interested in safe food and products to feed their families after all of these monthly food problems we have seen across our country.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
First we look to jurisdiction in HR2749….

"Nothing in this Act or any amendment made by this Act shall be construed to alter the jurisdiction between the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, under applicable statutes and regulations…" (p.3&4)

Then, tossing our preconceived notions to the wind and looking to law instead, we find that congressional testimony of the FDA on establishing a single food safety agency and a myriad of other sources including the FAO (Food and Ag Organization of the UN), the FDA statements on the Bioterrorism Act of 2002, and many books on food law affirm that FDA has jurisdiction over live food animals:

"FDA is the Federal agency that regulates 80 percent of the nation’s food supply-everything we eat except for meat, poultry, and certain egg products, which are regulated by our partners at USDA. FDA’s responsibility extends to live food animals…"

So then what is the authority of the USDA? It is over agricultural disease, animals in the slaughter channel or transport, marketing (like grading of eggs and certification of processes) and the end product of many (but not all) food animals; meat. This is why NAIS always had to be "about disease" because the USDA couldn't run it otherwise! The exemption section on USDA regulated products is a dust up. Most people think the USDA has authority over live food animals, but it is the FDA after all. They surrender "cow, sheep or goat for milk production", but the FDA retains authority of the fluid milk and when the animal is no longer productive for milking, it's into the slaughter channel (under USDA) or out to pasture (back to FDA) anyway!
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Link to the latest news on the FOOD SAFETY bills;

http://www.foodconsumer.org/newsite/Politics/32/food_safety_enhancement_act_-_update_191020090655.html
 

PORKER

Well-known member
by: Marti Oakley and the PPJ Alliance

Update: On page 7, there is the whole list of “best practices” On the surface this would seem to be about giving grant money, and they are focusing on “small and medium size farms and processors. (Why don’t the train and educate the BIG PRODUCERS causing the food safety problems?!)
Anyhow, at a glance, I’m bothered that most definitions will be “determined by the Secretary” or “meaning given by the Secretary”
I’m really bothered that the “Agricultural Producer Group” (and what is their purpose – are they a board of some sort to advise?) seems like it might consist of BigAg since the wording is so vague. Dee West

Happy Holidays!

Another special gift from congress just in time for the 2009 Holiday Season!

S.2758: “The National Food Safety Training, Education, Extension, Outreach and Technical Assistance Program Act.”

S2758 introduced by Debbie Stabenow (MI) with co-sponsors:
Bingaman (NM),
Boxer (CA),
Gillibrand (NY),
Leahy (VT),
Merkley (OR),
Sanders (VT).
I have no doubt this bill is nothing less than the consolidation of S510 and HR 2749 and if presented as such, it may not be necessary to refer it back to any committee for further debate. I suspect it will simply be introduced in the middle of the night and passed with tons of added pork barrel spending and arm twisting.

At this point I suppose we should be encouraging all of you to write or call your senators and representatives, but as we don’t have millions of dollars to contribute to political campaigns, nor are we in a position to have six highly paid lobbyists for each and every elected official we already know they have no time for us. None of them will answer your calls, respond to your letters or in any way give any time or attention to your concerns. They’ll do whatever they are paid to do and then collect a nice big fat salary from us on top of that.

THIS IS YOUR GOVERNMENT AT WORK; THIS IS YOUR GOVERNMENT WORKING AGAINST YOU!

We are to be in full compliance with the unconstitutional and treasonous Codex Alimentarius, resulting in the forced forfeiture of private property rights, the freedom to choose what we eat and where it comes from; the right to determine the course of our own lives.

The corporation that is the government of the United States has committed to this illegal agreement, and has agreed to be in full compliance by December 31, 2009. Congress doesn’t have much time left to meet this deadline before it breaks for the holidays. We already know they will sell us out in a heartbeat whether there is an (R) or (D) after their respective names.

With obvious premeditation and with willing accomplices who are still howling about S510 and how we need to watch out for that because it has been marked up for debate…here’s the icing on the cake.

S 2758 has been in the planning and staging process for quite some time just as was HR.2749, the fake food safety bill that came out of nowhere and got passed in just under two weeks while many of us were still reeling from the contents of HR 795 & 850. While we were diverted fighting these “bait” bills, Hr 2749 was prepped up and shoved down our throats. The same thing is happening here with S 510. We are being diverted while this coup’ against independent and family farms goes on unimpeded.

This “new and improved!” piece of legislative crap is the codification and full compliance with Codex Alimentarius. Loaded with “Good Farming Practices’, Good Land Management”, all kinds of good this, good that; all of it nothing but Codex and the seizure of the US food production and supply. It will mean the total takeover of agriculture by multi-national corporations of our agricultural sector using OUR government to get the job done, handing it neatly over to the corporate sector who I am sure will reward them all handsomely.

We’ll keep you updated.

PPJ Alliance
 

PORKER

Well-known member
DeLauro Urges Inquiry Into Beef Testing

by Helena Bottemiller | Nov 13, 2009

Congressoman Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) sent a letter yesterday to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Office of the Inspector General (IG) calling for an investigation of beef testing protocol.


DeLauro requested that the IG look into the scientific merits and identify any shortcomings of the USDA's N-60 testing system for beef, which requires the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) to to remove 60 pieces of product from a lot to allow for testing for pathogens like E. coli O157: H7.


The N-60 protocol is the method most large beef trim manufacturers use to try to verify their beef is E. coli-free.


"To protect public health, verification testing must be robust and ensure that adulterated product is not sold to the American consumers," DeLauro wrote in the letter. "I am troubled by the shortcomings of the N-60 test and the associated food safety implications, and that is why I am requesting an investigation into the scientific merits of this beef testing protocol."


DeLauro's letter, addressed to Phyllis K. Fong, who has been IG at USDA since 2002, asks the agency several specific questions regarding the N-60 testing program's statistical validity, sample collection and analysis, and application of test results.


DeLauro sent the following list of questions to the IG:

Statistical Validity of N-60 Testing

What is the prevalence of E. coli O157:H7 in domestic beef trim used for raw ground beef production at processing facilities in the United States? When and how was this estimate reached? How frequently will it be re-assessed?What is the confidence level of the N-60 sampling method as currently performed? Is that level appropriate for ground beef?What is the definition of a product "lot" used in the N-60 testing and how was this definition determined?
How is this definition applied to individual processing establishments? Is this an appropriate application?How does this definition affect the statistical viability of this test? How confident are we that lots testing negative are truly negative if the definition of "lot" varies among establishments? Sample Collection and Analysis

Are all samples collected, stored, shipped, and analyzed by trained FSIS employees?Are laboratories instructed to reject samples that do not meet minimum quality standards? If so, what are those minimum quality standards? How is it assured each sample meets them? Are the minimum standards associated with sample collection, storage, shipment, and analysis adequate?
What type of testing standards must be met by laboratories analyzing the samples?Because E. coli O157:H7 is not necessarily distributed homogenously in a product, how did the agency decide on its current collection methodology? Are samples collected truly representative of the entire lot? Application of N-60 Test Results

Has FSIS established a protocol for reassessing an establishment's HACCP plan based upon N-60 test results? What actions are taken at an establishment after a positive N-60 test result?What is the implication of a positive N-60 test result on the individual lot tested?

On other lots from the same establishment produced on the same date?How are the FSIS N-60 test results and the establishment's N-60 test results correlated? How do N-60 testing protocols differ between FSIS and the industry?What are the implications of the USDA label associated with a negative N-60 test?
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Food Safety Bill Approved by Senate Panel today



The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee met this morning to mark up the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (S. 510).



The Committee unanimously approved the food safety bill by voice vote. The bill, similar to the House Bill HR 2749 passed in July, would expand the FDA’s regulatory authority over food products. Specifically, it would allow the agency to order mandatory recalls of tainted food products (a power it does not currently possess) and implement a program to collect fees from certain food facilities to fund increased safety inspections, among other provisions.

One of the features of this legislation is that it mandates end-to-end traceability of produce and other raw material inputs into processed foods.

Not one of the existing known software and traceability programs are capable to do the required All-Up, All-Down traceback.



Only ScoringAg has an

All-up and All-Down item-level traceback system

from Field-to-Fork

including Container or Case

in the required electronic Record format (E-Records)

for instantaneous access in case of a recall

with unique identifier SSI-EID traceback code

Facility registration fee is required every year with two year records retention

Unique traceback identifier for product coding with standardized recordkeeping


Testing Labs must report all food contamination to FDA with unique food code for all feeds and foods.

New: for Produce CONTENT in S 510:

—The proposed rulemaking under paragraph (1) shall—

‘‘(A) include, with respect to growing, harvesting, sorting, and storage operations, minimum standards related to soil amendments, hygiene, packaging, temperature controls, animal encroachment, and water; and

‘‘(B) consider hazards that occur naturally, may be unintentionally introduced, or may be intentionally introduced, including by acts of terrorism.

Penalties in HR 2749 for unintentional violations is between $20,000 and $ 250.000. The fine for intentional violations is $ 500.000 up to $ 7.5 million and can result in imprisonment for up to ten years. It doesn’t make any difference if the operations is commercial, organic, natural or in any way certified.

This law includes HACCP for all facilitys.
 
Top