From: info@westonaprice.org
Subject: SENATE FOOD SAFETY BILL Take Action

SENATE FOOD SAFETY BILL

Start the New Year off right, by talking with your Senators about safe and healthy food!

Big Ag and Big Food have distributed melamine-contaminated milk from China and salmonella-contaminated peppers from Mexico. Yet Congress hasn’t gotten the message that they need to solve the real problems – the centralized food distribution system and imported foods – and not regulate our local food sources out of business.

In November, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions (HELP) approved S. 510, the “FDA Modernization Act of 2009.” Although the Committee members made several comments about addressing the concerns of small and sustainable farmers, S. 510 still imposes many burdensome and inappropriate requirements on local foods, without solving many of the real problems in the mainstream, centralized food system.

The full Senate is expected to vote on it early this year, possibly even this month (January 2010). Please take action now!

TAKE ACTION:

Call both of your Senators. You can find their contact information at www.Senate.gov, or call the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121 or toll-free at 877-210-5351.
Ask to speak with the staffer who handles food safety issues. Engage that staffer in a discussion about the importance of local, nutrient-dense foods to you and your family, and why your local food sources should not be subject to FDA regulation. If you get their voice mail instead of the staff, leave the following message:
“Hi, my name is _____ and I live in ______. I’m very concerned that S.510, the FDA Modernization Act, imposes unfair and burdensome regulations on local food sources, which are very important to me. The Committee version of the bill does not address my concerns, and I’d like to talk with you about where the Senator stands on this issue. Please call me back at ____________.”

And stay tuned for the next alert! We will be asking you to call again when the Senate is about to vote on S 510. BOTH of these calls are important – the call now educates the Senators on the issues, and the call before the vote lets them know how their constituents want them to vote at the critical moment.

TALKING POINTS
1. The major foodborne illness outbreaks and recalls have all been caused by the large, industrial food system. Small, local food producers have not contributed to the highly publicized outbreaks. Yet S. 510 subjects the small, local food system to the same, broad federal regulatory oversight that would apply to the industrial food system.

2. FDA regulation of local food processors is unnecessary and overly burdensome. FDA has not used its existing authority well. Instead of focusing its resources on the problems posed by imported foods and large processing facilities, it has chosen to target small processors. While approving unlabeled GMOs to enter our food supply, it has outlawed raw milk and interfered with the free choice of informed adults who want access to this healthy food. Simply giving FDA increased authority and power will not improve the food supply because the agency needs to have clear limits set by Congress to prevent it from targeting small producers and raw dairy.

3. Relying on HACCP will harm small processors. Increased regulations and record-keeping obligations could destroy small businesses that bring food to local communities. In particular, the reliance on HACCP (the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point system) will harm small food producers. Although the theory of preventative controls is a good one for large, complex facilities, the federal agencies’ implementation of HACCP, with its requirements to develop and maintain extensive records, has already proven to be an overwhelming burden for a significant number of small, regional meat processors across the country. In the meat industry, HACCP has substituted paperwork review for independent inspections of large meatpacking plants, while sanctioning small processors for paperwork violations that posed no health threat. Applying a HACCP system to small, local foods processors could drive them out of business, reducing consumers’ options to buy fresh, local foods.

4. FDA does not belong on the farm. S. 510 calls for FDA regulation of how farms grow and harvest produce. Given the agency’s track record, it is likely that the regulations will discriminate against small, organic, and diversified farms. The House version of the bill directs FDA to consider the impact of its rulemaking on small-scale and diversified farms, but there are no enforceable limits or protections for small diversified and organic farms from inappropriate and burdensome federal rules.

5. The bill’s requirements apply to all food, not just food in interstate commerce. On its face, the bill applies to any farm or food producer, regardless of location, size, or scope of distribution.

6. S. 510 favors foreign farms and producers over domestic. The bill creates incentives for retailers to import more food from other countries, because it burdens family farms and small business and because it will be practically impossible to hold foreign food facilities to the same standards and inspections. The bill will create a considerable competitive disadvantage for ALL U.S. agriculture and food production (see analysis at http://ftcldf.org/news/news-20Oct2009-2.html).

The most patriotic thing we can do as farmers is rebel. ~Mark McAfee of Organic Pastures Dairy Co.

It’s on. Wisconsin is leading the battle to legalize the sale of raw milk by dairy farmers who hold a Grade A license and are licensed by Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection (DATCP). This won’t be an easy fight to win. DATCP has their heels dug in, and DATCP Secretary Rod Nilsestuen will only commit to “taking it under advisement.” However, there is growing support in the Wisconsin State legislature for allowing the sales of raw milk.

Senator Pat Kreitlow (D-Chippewa Falls) and Rep. Chris Danou (D-Trempealeau) are the sponsors of Legislative Reference Bureau (LRB) 3242/3, a proposal that would force DATCP to allow the sale of raw milk.
Wisconsin residents wanting to buy or sell raw milk should call these lawmakers. Kreitlow’s office number is 608-266-7511 and Danou’s is 608-266-7015.

Allowing the sales of raw milk from family farms would help to eliviate some of the financial hardships brought about by the current recession. It would also encourage the local community to get to know their local farmers. However, just because support is widening in Wisconsin, doesn’t mean if the proposed legislation becomes law, farmers will automatically be able to sell their raw milk.

Lila Streff of Streff Ridge Farm Goat Dairy was elated when she found out that raw milk sales were legal in South Dakota. Hers is a story of effort and achievement, and rote disillusionment. She jumped through every licensing hoop the State threw at her, spending thousands of dollars and untold worried hours to comply with every letter of the law, only to be told that she didn’t meet the licensing requirements. What good is a law that allows the sale of raw milk if the State regulatory agencies make it impossible to get a license? This is the trap we must avoid in Wisconsin. The eyes of the entire Nation are on us.

This is one of those times where consumers and producers can unite to help take back control of the American food chain. In this cause, we are united regardless of ideology, race, religion, or income level. This is our country, we make the rules, not bureaucrats.

PINE BLUFF, Ark. Dec. 9, 2009 – Agriculture Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan announced today that USDA is awarding more than $14 million in grants to organizations throughout the country that will provide training and assistance to socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers. The University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff and the Arkansas Land and Farm Development Corporation, Brinkley, Ark., will each receive $300,000 in funding. The announcement was part of Merrigan’s keynote address at the South Central Regional Small Business Conference, the second in a series of small business conferences being held as part of USDA’s Food Commodity Contracting Opportunities for Rural America initiative.

“USDA is committed to expanding opportunities for all Americans to succeed in agriculture and to ensuring the success of socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers as they work to feed people in their local communities and throughout the world,” Merrigan said. “Not only will this conference provide new business opportunities for producers, but the grants we are announcing today will provide the training and assistance to producers who might not traditionally participate in the full range of USDA programs.”

Merrigan said USDA’s Food Commodity Contracting Opportunities for Rural America initiative is designed to enable rural economic growth by increasing small business contracting participation in rural areas of the country. USDA intends to help small farmer-owned cooperatives and small rural businesses to better compete for government and commercial contracts.

Merrigan also highlighted USDA’s Outreach and Assistance for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers (OASDFR) grant program which is administered by USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA). Developed to provide increased opportunities for socially disadvantaged producers, the program enables socially disadvantaged producers to successfully acquire, own, operate, and retain farms and ranches, and to assure equitable participation in the full range of USDA programs. A socially disadvantaged farmer or rancher is one of a group whose members have been subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice without regard to their individual qualities.

Generally, socially disadvantaged producers who participate in OASDFR-funded projects develop profitable new farming or ranching practices, receive loans more rapidly, increase their farm or ranch income, continue farming or ranching longer and are less likely to go out of business.

Fiscal year 2009 grants were awarded to:

Alabama State Association of Cooperatives, Epes, Ala., $300,000

Alabama A&M University, Normal, Ala., $300,000

Tuskegee University, Tuskegee, Ala., $300,000

Developing Innovations in Navajo Education, Inc., Flagstaff, Ariz., $299,946

University of Arizona, Tucson, Ariz., $300,000

Arkansas Land and Farm Development Corporation, Brinkley, Ark., $300,000

University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, Pine Bluff, Ark., $300,000

International Rescue Committee, Phoenix, Ariz ., $300,000

National Center for Appropriate Technology, Davis, Calif., $300,000

Cachuma Resource Conservation District, Santa Maria, Calif., $96,487

California FarmLink, Sebastopol, Calif., $300,000

Rural Coalition, Washington, D.C., $299,258

Farmworker Association of Florida, Inc., Apopka, Fla., $300,000

Federation of Southern Cooperatives, Inc., Albany, Ga., $300,000

Fort Valley State University, Fort Valley, Ga., $300,000

Kentucky State University, Frank Fort, Ky., $300,000

Southern University Agricultural Research & Extension Center, Baton Rouge, La., $300,000

University of Maryland Eastern Shore, Princess Anne, Md., $300,000

University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Mass., $300,000

Michigan Food and Farming Systems, East Lansing, Mich., $300,000

Michigan State University, East Lansing, Mich., $300,000

Minnesota Food Association, Marine St Croix, Minn., $295,561

Farmers` Legal Action Group, Inc., St. Paul, Minn., $300,000

Center for Field Services & Research, Itta Bena, Miss., $100,000

Winston County Self Help Cooperative, Jackson, Miss., $300,000

Mississippi Association of Cooperatives, Jackson, Miss., $300,000

Lincoln University, Jefferson City, Mo., $300,000

National Tribal Development Association, Granite Falls, Minn., $300,000

Indian Nations Conservation Alliance, Twin Bridges, Mont., $300,000

University of Nevada Cooperative Extension, Reno, Nev., $300,000

New Mexico State University, Alcalde, N.M., $300,000

New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, N.M., $300,000

Farm to Table, Inc., Santa Fe, N.M., $300,000

Council on the Environment, Inc., New York City, N.Y., $225,362

North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University, Greensboro, N.C., $300,000

Operation Spring Plant, Inc., Henderson, N.C., $275,800

Langston University, Langston, Okla., $300,000

Adelante Mujeres, Forest Grove, Ore., $300,000

South Carolina State University, Orangeburg, S.C., $300,000

University of Puerto Rico, Agricultural Extension Service, Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, $300,000

Tennessee State University, Nashville, Tenn., $300,000

Texas AgriLife Extension Service, Weslaco, Texas, $298,734

University of Texas-Pan American, Edinburg, Texas, $300,000

Prairie View A&M University, Prairie View, Texas, $299,972

Texas/Mexico Border Coalition, Rio Grande City, Texas, $300,000

Virginia State University, Petersburg, Va., $299,880

Washington State University, Wenatchee, Wash., $300,000

Rural Community Development Resources, Yakima, Wash., $300,000

Growing Power, Inc., Milwaukee, Wisc., $300,000

Through federal funding and leadership for research, education and extension programs, NIFA focuses on investing in science and solving critical issues impacting people’s daily lives and the nation’s future. For more information, visit www.nifa.usda.gov .