Food safety bill deserves support, even from small farmers
Alas, Congress did not pass food safety legislation by Thanksgiving, and I’m getting lots of requests to comment on it. For example, Johannes G writes: “Marion, I’m usually spot on with you about a lot of things you talk about, but your final comment truly irritates me. We don’t need more regulatory policy, we need a food policy that makes sense.”
Actually, I think we need both. No question, a better food safety regulatory policy is high on my priority list. Why? Because the food industry will never produce safe food voluntarily. It’s time to give regulation a try, and now is the time. While the window of opportunity is open, we need to convince Congress to act.
Current legislative proposals
To recap where we are on this: the House passed H.R. 2749, the Food Safety Enhancement Act last July. The Senate is currently considering S. 510, the FDA Food Safety Act. Some version of these bills seems likely to pass, although it is not at all clear by when.
Although food safety advocates generally agree that we need a single food safety agency that integrates the activities of USDA and FDA, these bills are designed to fix the FDA alone, not the overall food safety system. For a quick take on the provisions of some of the bills under consideration, see the summary chart produced by the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
The bills require science-based (HACCP-type) processes for producing food, starting on the farm. And at long last they authorize the FDA to order recalls or detain foods deemed unsafe. No, the FDA does not already have these basic tools. It needs them.
One more time on HACCP: It means Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point with Pathogen Reduction. Translation: identify where in the production process contamination might occur, take steps to prevent contamination from occurring at those points, document that the steps were taken, monitor and inspect periodically to make sure the documentation is accurate, and test to make sure no contamination has occurred.
Without much chance of getting a single food safety agency, fixing the FDA is a good thing to do. We can hope that once the FDA bill is passed, Congress will work on legislation to reconcile the inconsistencies in FDA’s and USDA’s food safety rules. But that cannot happen unless the FDA first has the ability to require science-based food production and can authorize recalls and detentions.
The “scale” problem
This brings us to the problem of small farmers, or what regulatory agencies refer to as the “scale” (translation: size) problem. Steve Gilman, the policy coordinator for the Interstate Council of the Northeast Organic Farming Association (NOFA) sent me a copy of a letter to Senators signed by 70 or so members of the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.
This group is deeply worried about the bill’s “unintended negative impact on family farms, value-added agricultural development, conservation and the environment, organic farming, and emerging local and regional food systems.”
The Coalition wants the Senate to consider, among other things:
- A two-track regulatory system based on the size, type, and diversity of a farm’s production.
- Rules based on level of risk (“fresh cut, ready-to-eat packaged fruits and vegetables pose a far greater risk than whole produce”).
- Exemptions for traceability requirements.
- Scale-appropriate food safety training as outlined in additional legislation (introduced as S. 2758, The Growing Safe Food Act).
I greatly favor support of small farmers. But I think all farmers – no exceptions – should be producing safe food. Thinking through a food safety plan is not that hard to do and farmers of any size operations should be carefully designing and diligently following HACCP-type plans appropriate to their specific situations.
Farmers who produce foods unlikely to be cooked before eating — raw vegetables, raw milk, raw oysters, for example – should be testing for contaminants on some kind of regular basis at time intervals that depend on the level of risk.
I think testing is so badly needed that I would add support of testing facilities to the Coalition’s legislative wish list.
The scale issues are important and I hope the Senate will consider them seriously, incorporate them into the final legislation, and look for ways to support the food values outlined by the Coalition. But the fix-the-FDA legislation should not be held hostage to the scale problem. The FDA needs better methods for protecting the public from the hazards of industrial production methods. While making sure the FDA gets food safety authority, we need to work hard to get scale-appropriate rules or enforcement for smaller farmers who want to opt out of industrial food production, grow diverse crops, and produce them sustainably.
Leave a comment
Follow Marion
Next public appearance
New York: NGO Working Group on Food and Hunger, U.N.
Policy lunch talk in the series “the future of global food policy,” UN church Centre, 777 UN Plaza @44th St and 1st Ave, 1:00-2:45.
Comments
Of course, one assumes that, given mandatory recall authority, the FDA would ever actually USE it. I see no sign of that.
sorry, but i am extremely reticent to see approval of any legislation that coming out of congress which allows the department of homeland security to participate in food issues.. . this last version stinks to high heaven. and you can be sure there will be no proper amount of time to allow for farmers and constituents of the committee members to speak their minds, voicing their own concerns. it’s all about the control and nothing at all about the concerns of the small producer. they really don’t care.
My concern is that any regulatory scheme does not prohibit many of the community based food production systems that are springing up, such as community based farms, gardens and a aquaculture projects that generate income by selling all or some of their food harvest. My experience with USDA inspection services has not been a good one when it comes to accommodating small producers or non-traditional business models. FDA has been much more accommodating. My fear is that in an effort to protect our food we will stifle the very sources of food production we should be encouraging: small, local and community supported.
Let your Senators know how you feel! Please include the four points that The Coalition would like the Senate to consider: support small farms, don’t penalize them!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ask Your Senator to Support Real Change in the Food Safety Bill
http://action.foodandwaterwatch.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=1762
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I agree that the “scale” problem listed above, small sustainable farms are a great thing and absolutely need support and appropriate consideration for their operation and potential risk to food safety, which is likely to be low. Factory farms–meat, dairy, egg–need very strict regulations for what they produce AND for a safe agricultural community, i.e. sewage sludge runoff contaminating a near-by spinach farm. e-coli doesn’t come from spinach, it comes from animal intestines.
This is a really important issue and tainted food has taken lives of way to many.
this was recently a topic on CNN:
Please watch this touching story: Larry King and panel talk about loved ones consuming and being injured by contaminated meat products.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/health/2009/10/13/lkl.meat.safety.panel.long.cnn
in regards to the posted link to the CNN video in my last comment: the nutritionist featured as one of the panelists seemed way too gung-ho in promoting cow milk, beef, and chicken eggs.
As I see in the Huffington Post there seems to be connection: “Dr. Rodriguez has done all kinds of research that’s been generously funded by such organizations as the National Dairy Council, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, and the Egg Nutrition Center.”
It’s good to hear you address issues of scale, and I believe that it should be stated that the issue with scale largely deals with an issue of transparency. I know that basing regulations on “transparency” would be possible only in an imaginary world (Your food operation is 75% transparent and therefore you cannot…), but it is important to address it nonetheless. I’ve personally had the opportunity to work in the food sector, generally in the food preparation end of things, and while I’ve only worked in smaller establishments (feeding less than 200 guests) I’ve seen various levels of transparencies – everything from the food magically appearing through a door to a kitchen that is in full view of the guest. It’s sobering to experience the differences between the two. So what I’m getting to is that while scale is not a perfect substitute for transparency, the difference between being locked out of a chicken plant because you’re considered a “biohazard” and then working in a place where the final consumer can see exactly what you’re doing is extreme, and should not be put under the same regulatory structure.
(Sorry for the ramble)
[...] Food Politics: Food safety bill deserves support, even from small farmers In matters of food safety regulation, Marion Nestle seems to come down pretty heavily on the side [...]
[...] Food Politics: Food safety bill deserves support, even from small farmers In matters of food safety regulation, Marion Nestle seems to come down pretty heavily on the side [...]
[...] Food Politics: Food safety bill deserves support, even from small farmers In matters of food safety regulation, Marion Nestle seems to come down pretty heavily on the side [...]
[...] Food Politics: Food safety bill deserves support, even from small farmers In matters of food safety regulation, Marion Nestle seems to come down pretty heavily on the side [...]
[...] Food Politics: Food safety bill deserves support, even from small farmers In matters of food safety regulation, Marion Nestle seems to come down pretty heavily on the side [...]
[...] Food Politics: Food safety bill deserves support, even from small farmers In matters of food safety regulation, Marion Nestle seems to come down pretty heavily on the side [...]