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).

(Int J Biol Sci 2009; 5(7), 706-726 Caen, 14 December 2009)—In what is being described as the first ever and most comprehensive study of three major GMOs about assessing the effects on mammalian health, researchers from CRIIGEN and Universities of Caen and Rouen have highlighted a number of new sex and often dose dependent side effects linked with their consumption. Their study of the 90-day feeding trials data of insecticide producing Mon 810, Mon 863 and Roundup herbicide absorbing NK 603 varieties of GM maize clearly underlines adverse impacts on kidneys and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, as well as different levels of damages to heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system. Ironically, the confidential raw data of Monsanto about feeding trials on rats that these researchers have analyzed allowed the international authorization of these three commercialized GMOs in different parts of the world.

Although different level of adverse impact on vital organs were noticed between the three GMOs, the research done by J. Spiroux de Vendomois, F. Roullier, D. Cellier and G.E. Seralini and appeared in the International Journal of Biological Sciences shows specific effects associated with consumption of each GMO, differentiated by sex and dose. Their research follows in the wake of European Governments obtaining the raw data related to feeding of rats for 90 days and making it publically available for scrutiny and counter-evaluation.

The researchers have concluded that all the 3 GMOs that they have studied contain novel pesticide residues that will be present in food and feed and may pose grave health risks to those consuming them. They have, therefore, called for immediate prohibition on the import and cultivation of these GMOs and have strongly recommended additional long-term (up to 2 years) and multi-generational animal feeding studies on at least three species to provide true scientifically valid data on the acute and chronic toxic effects of GM crops, feed and foods.

CRIIGEN denounces in particular the past opinions of EFSA, AFSSA and CGB, committees of European and French Food Safety Authorities, and others who spoke on the lack of risks on the tests which were conducted just for 90 days on rats to assess the safety of these three GM varieties of maize. While criticizing their failure to examine the detailed statistics, CRIIGEN also emphasizes the conflict of interest and incompetence of these committees to counter expertise this publication as they have already voted positively on the same tests ignoring the side effects.

Contact: Prof. Gilles-Eric SERALINI, criigen@unicaen.fr; tel. 33 2 31 56 56 84, or 33 6 70 80 20 87.

---

Citation: de Vendômois JS, Roullier F, Cellier D, Séralini GE. A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health. Int J Biol Sci 2009; 5:706-726. Available from http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm

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.