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

Vilsack Prioritizes Food Safety

PORKER

Well-known member
COOL AND FDA, GAP, and BMP should be one System with inspection..

Review the huge food recalls of just the past two years and you’ll quickly understand why that hoary old saw “We have the safest food supply in the world” is quickly becoming a choke point with American consumers and our international trading partners. No matter how often those of us in the food business try to reassure ourselves with that phrase, an increasing number of people are not buying it anymore.



At best, the phrase rings hollow .
 

PORKER

Well-known member
The following is a listing of the 27 states currently operating meat and poultry inspection (MPI) programs. States are listed alphabetically.

TEX
(Perhaps a 1 penny tax on food from large processors could pay for these inspections. )

The States should do it for free.They have collected taxes forwards and backwards from ranchers except maybe South Dakota.


Listing of Participating States
State Meat and/or Poultry Programs
Alabama Meat & Poultry
Arizona Meat & Poultry
Delaware Meat & Poultry
Georgia Meat Only
Illinois Meat & Poultry
Indiana Meat & Poultry
Iowa Meat & Poultry
Kansas Meat & Poultry
Louisiana Meat & Poultry
Maine Meat & Poultry
Minnesota Meat & Poultry
Mississippi Meat & Poultry
Missouri Meat & Poultry
Montana Meat & Poultry
North Carolina Meat & Poultry
North Dakota Meat & Poultry
Ohio Meat & Poultry
Oklahoma Meat & Poultry
South Carolina Meat & Poultry
South Dakota Meat Only
Texas Meat & Poultry
Utah Meat & Poultry
Vermont Meat & Poultry
Virginia Meat & Poultry
West Virginia Meat & Poultry
Wisconsin Meat & Poultry
Wyoming Meat & Poultry






Last Modified: August 13, 2007







Regulations, Directives & Notices

Compliance Assistance

Federal Inspection Programs

State Inspection Programs

Requirements for State Programs

Reviews of State Programs

Listing of Participating States

Listing of States Without Inspection Programs

Guidance for State & Local Agencies

International Affairs

Advisory Committee Reports
 

Tex

Well-known member
PORKER said:
The following is a listing of the 27 states currently operating meat and poultry inspection (MPI) programs. States are listed alphabetically.

TEX
(Perhaps a 1 penny tax on food from large processors could pay for these inspections. )

The States should do it for free.They have collected taxes forwards and backwards from ranchers except maybe South Dakota.


Listing of Participating States
State Meat and/or Poultry Programs
Alabama Meat & Poultry
Arizona Meat & Poultry
Delaware Meat & Poultry
Georgia Meat Only
Illinois Meat & Poultry
Indiana Meat & Poultry
Iowa Meat & Poultry
Kansas Meat & Poultry
Louisiana Meat & Poultry
Maine Meat & Poultry
Minnesota Meat & Poultry
Mississippi Meat & Poultry
Missouri Meat & Poultry
Montana Meat & Poultry
North Carolina Meat & Poultry
North Dakota Meat & Poultry
Ohio Meat & Poultry
Oklahoma Meat & Poultry
South Carolina Meat & Poultry
South Dakota Meat Only
Texas Meat & Poultry
Utah Meat & Poultry
Vermont Meat & Poultry
Virginia Meat & Poultry
West Virginia Meat & Poultry
Wisconsin Meat & Poultry
Wyoming Meat & Poultry






Last Modified: August 13, 2007







Regulations, Directives & Notices

Compliance Assistance

Federal Inspection Programs

State Inspection Programs

Requirements for State Programs

Reviews of State Programs

Listing of Participating States

Listing of States Without Inspection Programs

Guidance for State & Local Agencies

International Affairs

Advisory Committee Reports


I have a real problem with giving any large corporation a competitive advantage because of their economies of scale (which increases concentration of industries, money and power) that they get under the current system of food inspections. All companies should have to pay a flat fee per lb. or unit processed instead of having the government's food inspection services create incentives for economies of scale. Robert Mac, for instance, should have to pay the same price per unit of product to get it USDA inspected as large processors. Imports should have to pay just as much and maybe a little more because their processing facilities do not come from the U.S. where U.S. inspectors have authority and their food needs to be tested at the border as much as, if not more than domestic industries and the importers need to pay that fee.

Porker, I agree this inspection fee should not be paid at the producer level unless the producer is also processing. If the producer is processing, they should have to pay the same fee per unit as the big guys (which will be very cheap) and the big guys should not get inspection fee competitive advantages per unit.

If Homeland Security would have been doing their job along with the USDA, we wouldn't have had the melamine fiasco. Food is the top Homeland Security issue, or it should be.

State inspection programs should overlap federal inspection programs and not be tied to them. If we had allowed the states to do their jobs in the Securities field, we may not have had the Bernie Madoff scandal. Many actions by states are barred from being able to enforce laws because of the preemption of federal laws and federal regulators which allows for the worst elements in Congress and the administration to sell out the duties of our regulatory agencies with no oversight. This corrupt practice should be stopped but people have to start making the connection between corporate donations and federal preemption rules that don't allow states to regulate industries. We could have saved a lot of time money and trouble with a little more oversight and all the victims of Madoff should be knocking the doors off of politicians who allowed this system of corruption by money to influence federal regulatory agencies.

The states and feds should compete with each other in many of these regulatory oversight responsibilities, not be barred from them. It would keep the regulatory agencies much less prone to incompetence and corruption.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Vilsack SAYS;

Today,I want to assure this Subcommittee that the Subcabinet, agencies and the Department will be held accountable for not just swift implementation, but also for ensuring the funds are used efficiently and effectively.

2010 Budget:


The President's 2010 budget, released on May 7, 2009, proposes $21.3 billion for discretionary programs under the jurisdiction of this Subcommittee, an increase of nearly $2 billion over the 2009 levels provided in the Omnibus Appropriations Act. This increase is primarily associated with the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), international food assistance, rural development and other priority programs.


At this time I would like to briefly point out how this budget supports our highest priority programs:

Nutrition Assistance:

The budget fully supports nutrition assistance programs, including full funding for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) to serve all an estimated monthly average of 9.8 million participants.


In addition, the Administration is proposing an increase of $10 billion over 10 years for reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Programs. These increases will be used to improve access to nutritious meals, to encourage children to make healthy food choices, and to enhance services for participants by improving program performance and integrity.

Food Safety:

In support of the President's commitment to modernizing the food system, the budget requests over $1 billion for the Food Safety and Inspection Service. This is the full amount necessary to meet the demand for meat, poultry, and egg products inspection as well as providing for increased investment in food safety assessments and technology needed to enhance our ability to identify, respond to, and reduce food safety risks.

Trade:

Expanding our access to world markets and developing long-term trade relationships continue to be vital components of our strategy to improve the vitality of the farm sector and quality of life in rural areas.

Due to the global credit crisis, we have seen a significant increase in demand for export credit guarantees provided through the GSM-102 program. To help meet this demand, the budget provides a program level of $5.5 billion, the maximum authorized by the 2008 Farm Bill, for CCC export credit guarantees for 2010.

To encourage further export expansion for our products, we need to work hard both in Washington and in our offices overseas to ensure continued access to overseas markets. I appreciate the Subcommittee's support in providing additional resources in 2009 for this activity. Our 2010 budget builds on this foundation with $16.4 million in additional funds to maintain the Foreign Agricultural Service's overseas presence and upgrade their information technology infrastructure.


International Food Assistance:


The 2010 budget also supports the Administration's commitment to renewing U.S. leadership in promoting global development and fostering world food security by doubling the level of discretionary funding for the McGovern-Dole International Food for

Education and Child Nutrition Program. The budget also supports a program level of $1.7 billion for P.L. 480 Title II donations, which will reduce our reliance on the need for future emergency supplemental funding.

Environmental Services Markets:

The budget reflects the new course the Administration has set to ensure that America leads the global fight against climate change, and to revitalize rural communities by expanding economic opportunities. To this end, the budget includes an increase of $15.8 million to develop markets that reward producers for sequestering carbon and limiting greenhouse gas emissions.


Renewable Energy:

The budget promotes rural America's leadership in developing renewable energy by supporting almost $780 million in investments, a net increase of about $275 million over 2009. Notably, our discretionary request supports $280 million in guaranteed loans and grants for the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP).

Rural Development:

For rural development, the 2010 budget includes funding to support over $21 billion for loans, loan guarantees, and grants for the on-going discretionary programs, an increase of $825 million over 2009. This includes $1.3 billion in loans and grants to increase broadband capacity and improve telecommunication service.


To spur the development of small business and value-added agriculture in rural America, increased funding is sought to support $63 million in loans under the Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program and $8 million for value-added producer grants.

The budget provides the funding necessary to finance home ownership opportunities for nearly 59,000 rural residents and fully supports the Administration's commitment to protect low-income tenants participating in the Rental Assistance Program, many of whom are elderly, in about 248,000 multi-family housing units.


Diversity of Agricultural Production:

Consistent with President Obama's desire to invest in the full diversity of agricultural production, the budget requests an additional $6 million for assisting the organic sector, establishing marketing agreements that will involve quality factors affecting food safety for leafy greens or other fruits and vegetables, and supporting independent livestock producers.

Research:

For research, the budget includes funding support our highest priorities. This includes a $70 million increase for competitive research grants that will enhance rural research and extension programs and provide incentives for teachers to pursue professional development. The budget also requests an increase of $10.8 million to develop tools and strategies for mitigating and adapting to global climate change. We are also requesting an increase of $11 million to conduct research on the development of new varieties of bioenergy feedstocks as well as on developing technologies that will result in the sustainable, efficient and economic production practices of biofuels. In order to promote healthier eating habits and lifestyles, the budget includes an increase of $13 million to determine the barriers to individuals in following the healthful eating and physical activity recommendations and to develop new healthier foods.

Farm Safety Net:

In my last appearance before the Subcommittee, we discussed the Administration's proposals to improve fiscal responsibility, while supporting a robust safety net for producers that provide protection from market disruptions, weather disasters, and pests and diseases that threaten the viability of American agriculture.


I want to reassure you that the President's budget maintains the three-legged stool of farm payments, crop insurance, and disaster assistance. However, in keeping with the President's pledge to target farm payments to those who need them the most, the budget proposes a hard cap on all program payments of $250,000 and to reduce crop insurance subsidies to producers and companies in the delivery of crop insurance. While the budget includes a proposal to phase out direct payments to the largest producers, the Department is prepared to work with Congress and stakeholders as these proposals are considered.

Farm Program Delivery:

For 2010, the budget requests an increase of $67.3 million to continue activities necessary to modernize the information technology we rely on to delivery farm program benefits. I appreciate the Subcommittee's interest in this effort and the $50 million provided in the Recovery Act, which is allowing us to make progress in this area. Although this combined level of funding will allow us to continue to make progress, additional funding will be required in subsequent years to complete the stabilization and modernization efforts.

Conservation:

The 2010 budget fully supports partnering with landowners to conserve land, protect wetlands and improve wildlife habitat through vital Farm Bill conservation programs. For 2010, the budget includes nearly $4.7 billion in mandatory funding for conservation programs authorized in the 2008 Farm Bill.


The 2010 budget also includes $907 million in discretionary funding for on-going conservation work that provides high quality technical assistance to farmers and ranchers and addresses the most serious natural resource concerns.


Civil Rights:

Ensuring equitable treatment of all of our employees and clients is a top priority for me. By holding each USDA employee accountable for their actions and through the implementation of my recently announced civil rights plan, we are striving to make the Department a model agency for respecting civil rights. In support of these efforts, the 2010 budget includes funding to address program and employment complaints of discrimination and to increase the participation of small, beginning, and socially disadvantaged producers in USDA programs.

Outreach to Underserved Constituents:

Another key initiative is expansion of outreach to underserved constituents. The 2010 budget includes funding to support establishment of the Office of Advocacy and Outreach authorized in the 2008 Farm Bill and also provides the funding necessary to support enhanced government-to-government relations and improve Tribal consultation activities.


Department Management:

We are also seeking an increase of $45.8 million to ensure that USDA can reliably deliver its broad portfolio of programs in a secure IT environment. Instituting a Department-wide cyber security initiative to will eliminate critical vulnerabilities that threaten the integrity of the USDA network and the security and privacy of Departmental systems and information.

Program Terminations:

We share the President's vision of a strong economy, therefore, like other agencies, have made difficult but important budget decisions, which include eliminating wasteful and inefficient spending. The 2010 budget reflects the elimination of earmarks and funding for programs that are not as high a priority as others I have mentioned, or provide services that can be supported by other means. This includes billions of dollars in mandatory savings and discretionary savings for the termination of Resource Conservation and Development Program, the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations Program, EZ/EC grants, high energy cost grants, and grants for public broadcasting digital conversion.


Conclusion:


We have begun the process of making tough decisions about where our priorities lie and have made some tough choices about where we spend our resources. These choices reflect the new direction we are moving and provide the foundation and diverse opportunities for farmers and ranchers to succeed and rural America to thrive.


That concludes my statement. I will be glad to answer questions you may have on our budget proposals.
 

Latest posts

Top