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

Food Safety Revisited January 2009

Tex

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
Read the next to the last paragraph:

... daily inspections are not happening consistently ...

The problem with the USDA is that it is being run by the wrong people with the wrong attitude. Congressmen are being paid to not investigate and demand that our regulatory agencies actually do their jobs, thus they don't.

The USDA is being run not for the people, but for big Ag who is buying off politicians.

It is the same for many other agencies in the U.S. government.

We have too many politicians who sell their responsibilities of governing to the highest bidder so they can have campaign money to win and keep their seats. Money buys perception in politics and as long as they are not held accountable, they will sell out the public interest for their own self interest.

We have the best government money can buy.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
PORKER said:
Obama staff halts all Federal regulations under review.

Yep-- my understanding is that Vilsack is being asked to immediately:

1. rescind the rule on allowing Canadian OTM cattle into the country- which after the SD ranchers won the Court Case has never been finalized....

2. modify the Final Rule on M-COOL so that it follows the intent of Congress- and the Congressional delegation (including Obama) that had asked Shafer not to do what he did....

3.rescind all the actions taken by USDA to implement the proposed NAIS rule....
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Them Boys are cooking!

In the waning months of the Bush administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has joined the ranks of federal agencies rushing through new regulations that weaken protections for human health and the environment. USDA has released a proposed rule that would significantly weaken oversight of all genetically engineered crops, and which continue to allow companies to grow food crops engineered to produce drugs and industrial chemicals.

The USDA began this process over four years ago by promising stricter oversight. Unfortunately, improvements considered early on have been dismissed, and the proposed rule now has the same gaping holes as the policy it is replacing, and creates a few new ones, as well. For instance:

USDA has created a huge loophole allowing biotech companies to assess their own crops to determine whether USDA should regulate them. And the criteria are open-ended, very subjective, and will certainly reduce USDA's oversight of GE crops.

The proposed rules could also allow companies to grow untested GE crops with no oversight whatsoever: "Over time, the range of GE organisms subject to oversight is expected to decrease...," a move which USDA itself admits will make contamination of conventional/organic crops with untested GE material more likely.

To add insult to injury, USDA has proposed to write into law its "Low Level Presence" policy, which excuses it from taking any action to remove untested GE crops from conventional or organic food, feed and seed. This contamination often occurs through cross-pollination or seed dispersal, and has cost farmers hundreds of millions of dollars in lost sales and lowered profits.

USDA rejected options that would have banned outdoor cultivation of pharmaceutical-producing GE (food) crops, the only way to ensure that untested drugs don't end up in our food, despite strong support from citizens and the food industry.

USDA has refused to propose any controls on pesticide-promoting GE crops, despite increasing pesticide use and an epidemic of resistant weeds that have been fostered by these crops.

Finally, USDA snuck in a last-minute "correction" that bars state or local regulation of GE crops more protective than its own weak rule. CFS strongly opposes such preemptive language that would bar local or state authorities from putting meaningful regulations or restrictions on GE crops in place that best suit their communities. This last-minute change should be cause to extend the public comment period.

The USDA is treading dangerous new ground here. The structure of the new proposal opens loopholes that can be exploited by biotech companies and expose consumers to more untested and unlabeled genetically engineered foods.
 

Yanuck

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
PORKER said:
Obama staff halts all Federal regulations under review.

Yep-- my understanding is that Vilsack is being asked to immediately:

1. rescind the rule on allowing Canadian OTM cattle into the country- which after the SD ranchers won the Court Case has never been finalized....

2. modify the Final Rule on M-COOL so that it follows the intent of Congress- and the Congressional delegation (including Obama) that had asked Shafer not to do what he did....

3.rescind all the actions taken by USDA to implement the proposed NAIS rule....

Yes...and R-CALF are the ones doing the asking, not the President.....but nice try! :wink:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Yanuck said:
Oldtimer said:
PORKER said:
Obama staff halts all Federal regulations under review.

Yep-- my understanding is that Vilsack is being asked to immediately:

1. rescind the rule on allowing Canadian OTM cattle into the country- which after the SD ranchers won the Court Case has never been finalized....

2. modify the Final Rule on M-COOL so that it follows the intent of Congress- and the Congressional delegation (including Obama) that had asked Shafer not to do what he did....

3.rescind all the actions taken by USDA to implement the proposed NAIS rule....

Yes...and R-CALF are the ones doing the asking, not the President.....but nice try! :wink:

Don't think I ever said the President...And for info- its not only R-CALF that want the rules halted and changed...
 

Tex

Well-known member
PORKER said:
Them Boys are cooking!

In the waning months of the Bush administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has joined the ranks of federal agencies rushing through new regulations that weaken protections for human health and the environment. USDA has released a proposed rule that would significantly weaken oversight of all genetically engineered crops, and which continue to allow companies to grow food crops engineered to produce drugs and industrial chemicals.

The USDA began this process over four years ago by promising stricter oversight. Unfortunately, improvements considered early on have been dismissed, and the proposed rule now has the same gaping holes as the policy it is replacing, and creates a few new ones, as well. For instance:

USDA has created a huge loophole allowing biotech companies to assess their own crops to determine whether USDA should regulate them. And the criteria are open-ended, very subjective, and will certainly reduce USDA's oversight of GE crops.

The proposed rules could also allow companies to grow untested GE crops with no oversight whatsoever: "Over time, the range of GE organisms subject to oversight is expected to decrease...," a move which USDA itself admits will make contamination of conventional/organic crops with untested GE material more likely.

To add insult to injury, USDA has proposed to write into law its "Low Level Presence" policy, which excuses it from taking any action to remove untested GE crops from conventional or organic food, feed and seed. This contamination often occurs through cross-pollination or seed dispersal, and has cost farmers hundreds of millions of dollars in lost sales and lowered profits.

USDA rejected options that would have banned outdoor cultivation of pharmaceutical-producing GE (food) crops, the only way to ensure that untested drugs don't end up in our food, despite strong support from citizens and the food industry.

USDA has refused to propose any controls on pesticide-promoting GE crops, despite increasing pesticide use and an epidemic of resistant weeds that have been fostered by these crops.

Finally, USDA snuck in a last-minute "correction" that bars state or local regulation of GE crops more protective than its own weak rule. CFS strongly opposes such preemptive language that would bar local or state authorities from putting meaningful regulations or restrictions on GE crops in place that best suit their communities. This last-minute change should be cause to extend the public comment period.

The USDA is treading dangerous new ground here. The structure of the new proposal opens loopholes that can be exploited by biotech companies and expose consumers to more untested and unlabeled genetically engineered foods.

The USDA needs a colon cleanse.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
If I was a betting man- I'd bet the rules on M-COOL will be revised back to the way Congress wrote them- and follow the intent of Congress... President Obama has already shown his hand when he signed onto a letter with about 40 other Senators last month telling Shafer not to write the rules the way he did...

Also during the confirmation hearings- Vilsack assured the Congressmen on the Ag Committee, who were very upset at the Bush administration for going around their intent with the Farm Bill rules, that he would work with them to change them back to follow Congress's intent...

COOL, other laws on hold for Obama review

By Tom Johnston on 1/22/2009


The long, winding and very bumpy road for mandatory country-of-origin labeling law and other legislation could continue as President Barack Obama's administration on Wednesday ordered all federal agencies to freeze new or pending regulations of the Bush administration until the new camp approves them.

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel issued a memorandum to all federal agencies that, among other things, directs them to consider extending for 60 days the effective date of regulations that have been published but have not yet taken effect "for purposes of reviewing questions of law and policy raised by those regulations." In such a case, a notice-and-comment period of 30 days would be reopened.

Published Jan. 15 in the Federal Register, the final COOL law is slated to take effect March 16. However, the memo indicates Obama is asking agency heads to use discretion.

"It appears that there is some discretion given as to whether or not published final rules will be enacted as is or reviewed," American Meat Institute spokesman Dave Ray told Meatingplace. "So it's not certain what will happen with COOL."
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
reader (the Second) said:
I read where the possible candidate to head FDA said just to move the parts of the USDA that deal with food safety into the FDA :wink:

Yep-- there is a big push to have one agency over all food safety--since half the times USDA and FDA are knocking heads because of overlapping and very unclear rules and definitions of who does what...
 

PORKER

Well-known member
The Honorable Tom Vilsack

Secretary of Agriculture

200-A Jamie L. Whitten Building

Washington, D.C. 20250

Dear Secretary Vilsack:

First and foremost, congratulations to you on your nomination and recent confirmation as United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary. Given your extensive background and knowledge of the agricultural sector and our rural communities, we are tremendously encouraged that our home state farmers, ranchers and consumers will have an advocate as USDA Secretary who understands their needs.


We write to discuss with you an issue of paramount importance in our states and for farmers, ranchers and consumers across America. Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) is a program on which we have worked for many years in a bipartisan fashion, with organizations across every sector of agriculture and with groups dedicated to providing consumers with reliable, easily accessible information about the food they feed their families. We appreciate the decision to reexamine the final rule for mandatory COOL, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2009, allowing for a 60 day review period of that rule. President Obama’s support of our September 25, 2008 letter regarding the interim final rule for COOL was greatly encouraging, and we appreciate your recent and swift action on this front.

Ensuring that consumers throughout America have the opportunity to identify “U.S. origin” exclusive product is a priority, and we are very pleased to see this discussed by the Administration as a Rural Agenda item. We look forward to working with you in the upcoming months and continuing to work with farmers and ranchers to ensure the program is implemented properly and as Congress intended.

Sincerely,

Tim Johnson Mike Enzi

United States Senate United States Senate
 

Tex

Well-known member
PORKER said:
The Honorable Tom Vilsack

Secretary of Agriculture

200-A Jamie L. Whitten Building

Washington, D.C. 20250

Dear Secretary Vilsack:

First and foremost, congratulations to you on your nomination and recent confirmation as United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary. Given your extensive background and knowledge of the agricultural sector and our rural communities, we are tremendously encouraged that our home state farmers, ranchers and consumers will have an advocate as USDA Secretary who understands their needs.


We write to discuss with you an issue of paramount importance in our states and for farmers, ranchers and consumers across America. Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) is a program on which we have worked for many years in a bipartisan fashion, with organizations across every sector of agriculture and with groups dedicated to providing consumers with reliable, easily accessible information about the food they feed their families. We appreciate the decision to reexamine the final rule for mandatory COOL, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2009, allowing for a 60 day review period of that rule. President Obama’s support of our September 25, 2008 letter regarding the interim final rule for COOL was greatly encouraging, and we appreciate your recent and swift action on this front.

Ensuring that consumers throughout America have the opportunity to identify “U.S. origin” exclusive product is a priority, and we are very pleased to see this discussed by the Administration as a Rural Agenda item. We look forward to working with you in the upcoming months and continuing to work with farmers and ranchers to ensure the program is implemented properly and as Congress intended.

Sincerely,

Tim Johnson Mike Enzi

United States Senate United States Senate

While I am really glad these guys are pushing and supporting these policies, the time it takes to implement something like MCOOL is just not acceptable. It is about like allowing the embezzler to continue keeping the books while he is on some sort of probation and allowing him to help define what is and what is not embezzling.
 
Top