Food Politics

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Marion Nestle, Sheryl Kraft, seine kim, Joanna, Sarah K. Khan and others. Sarah K. Khan said: RT @marionnestle: Senate passes food safety bill, 73 2 25: In case U missed it (how could U?), FDA Food Safety Modern.. http://bit.ly/fgTP7L [...]

I read that the easiest thing would be for the bill to be accepted as passed by the Senate. Would you favor this? Did they take out any important things to get some Republican votes?

My big beef with this: The exclusion of the meat industry. I get that their oversight falls under the USDA, but if we really want to send an overhaul to food safety regulations, this large sector of the food industry needs to be included. I don’t agree that this area is well-regulated nor adequately regulated. Large scale meat factories often have some of the most underlying squalid conditions in the food industry. Feces, sickly chickens, no problem, send them on down the line and into our food. Let’s get some heightened regulation on this too.

what about GMO’s??? Govern’t won’t get into this as many DC cabinet members sit on board of Monsanto!

The Senate bill may have hit some snags in the House, but that would be the easiest (and quickest) way forward. There are objections in the House to leaving out the industry fees to pay for the bill.

Also, it was a fairly bipartisan vote (for the Senate.) I wouldn’t characterize this as partisan politics for your readers!

More regulations….

More cost to consumers….

More bureaucracy…….

more government control of your life

From : http://hotair.com/archives/2010/12/01/food-safety-bill-passes-senate-but-dead-in-the-water-because/

Food safety bill passes Senate, but dead in the water because …

Share540posted at 8:48 am on December 1, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Apparently, no one told Harry Reid to check Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution before passing S510, the food-safety bill that Democrats hailed as a major lame-duck session achievement earlier this week — and which ran afoul of their own party in the House.

Section 107 of the bill raises taxes, and as any Constitutional scholar can attest — or anyone else who has actually read the document that Senators swore to uphold when taking office — only the House of Representatives has that power:

A food safety bill that has burned up precious days of the Senate’s lame-duck session appears headed back to the chamber because Democrats violated a constitutional provision requiring that tax provisions originate in the House.

By pre-empting the House’s tax-writing authority, Senate Democrats appear to have touched off a power struggle with members of their own party in the House. The Senate passed the bill Tuesday, sending it to the House, but House Democrats are expected to use a procedure known as “blue slipping” to block the bill, according to House and Senate GOP aides.

The debacle could prove to be a major embarrassment for Senate Democrats, who sought Tuesday to make the relatively unknown bill a major political issue by sending out numerous news releases trumpeting its passage.

Section 107 of the bill includes a set of fees that are classified as revenue raisers, which are technically taxes under the Constitution. According to a House GOP leadership aide, that section has ruffled the feathers of Ways and Means Committee Democrats, who are expected to use the blue slip process to block completion of the bill.

people should know that there was an senate amendment put in at the last moment that exempted organic and small farms – the Tester Amendment – it is critical this amendment be put into the house bill. Big agri business only accepted the FSA because they thought it would destroy small farms. Now, with this amendment they will try to kill the bill because the bill will NOT destroy small farms.

Ms Nestle

below is a comment from another blog which typlifies the objections all over the web — Most objections have been answered by the Tester Amendment but not all — what is the deal with the saving of seeds? Farmers are committing suicide in India because they are not allowed to save seeds.

Why don’t you answer the criticism on this blog so there will be a meeting place for those who support the bill. I also think you should respond to some of the comments instead of just letting them hang here.

From another person some common objections:

” I’m unemployed, but have access to several acres of vacant land. I’ve been thinking about starting to farm it–mostly veggies, since no one around here really has a lot of veggies. Right now, I’d just plant next spring. Under this new bill, I will not be allowed to store my own seeds, or harvest them from my crop for the next year. Seeds are “food” and dirt is “contamination.” Ergo, I cannot have any seeds that I don’t buy from the Montsano’s of the world.

Second, lets say I grow some killer rhubarb and decide to take the next step and make a rhubarb pie to sell. Now I’m a food producer, and have to have sterilized equipment to the level of sterilizing my walls, etc. before I can sell my pie. Or if I make any item from my garden into anything else, I’m a producer and have to match all sorts of regulations.

It gets worse if you deal with animals-selling eggs or milk or cheese from milk. There’s huge stacks of regulations for EACH crop you want to grow. Fine if all you want to grow is beets, but what about a balanced field that rotates plants? Tons of regs. Fines, license fees, etc. “

All right already Mr. Green-whatever.

Firstly, Ms. Nestle rarely comments on the blog, but does frequently comment in the “feedback” section.

Secondly, you are what I believe is called a “troll” on the web. You have posted a rant of sorts, with multiple postings with no references or links.

If you grow your super rhubarb and make a pie, sell me a piece, and I get sick, what happens to me? How do I find out why your pie made me sick? There are good reasons why we have public health regulations and it is government’s responsibility to protect the public from the spread of disease through contaminated foodstuffs.

——-
@FoodFitnessFreshAir

I was going to post that thought as well (about USDA not being covered by this bill), but was trying to be grateful for whatever progress can be had. You are right, of course, and I think Dr. Nestle has posted similar views here as well. I believe she would like to see one agency responsible for all the food supply.

Anthro – are you 16 or what?

Nestle needs to answer these things – i am no troll – what I have posted are comments being written all over the web. I AM REFERRING PEOPLE HERE FOR ANSWERS SMART GUY because answers are needed. Especially about the seeds. I read the book Food Politics and I think this woman is the best person to refer people to for answers. Over at Uppity Women she has posted the Tester video but the seed question is not answered. Don’t be so stupidly defensive. You are not the only person in this movement.

“Under Tester’s amendment, food producers would not be subject to new federal requirements if they sell the majority of their food directly to consumers within the state (or within a 275-mile radius of where it was produced) or have less than $500,000 per year in sales.”

http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/senate_passes_food_safety_overhaul_with_testers_amendment

No, I’m 61, actually and was brought up not to be cruel to cretins.

I will repost what I have posted on FoodSafetyNews:

“Seeing as the authority to collect fees as granted under Section 743 of S.510 is a revenue neutral authority, I would think there is Congressional precedence for refraining from blue-slipping this widely supported piece of legislation. I don’t think it would be at all difficult to find a bill that had undergone the same procedure and was passed congenially by the House. Similarly, in the history of our great nation an equivocal misfortune must certainly have been settled in committee. Considering the pressing matters before the Congress, one would hope that they do not fritter the time by sending such a popular bill back to the Senate. ”

@Greenconciousness: The word “seed” is not mentioned at all within the bill. Seeing as you refer to seeds intended for planting, they would not be effected at all by the Food Safety Modernization Act. It is a popular conspiracy-thoery on the web, but it has no basis in S.510.

The person in your example has no reason to think seeds would be considered “food”, nor soil as “contamination.” Likewise, they seem to be unaware that they would be exempt under S.510 if they chose to start a small pie business. This would be because they are operating from their private residence and presumably make under $500,000 a year and sell direct.

Thank you Michael Bulger

I read your post and I know it is widely reported that because tax measures originate in the house the senate bill is invalid but i see in what I think is your summary at food safety that the grower’s fee is NOT in the senate bill. I thought that was the “tax”.

Since it is not in the senate bill, what is the problem? Can’t all this be resolved in reconciliation? Don’t tell me this was all for nothing because if it has to go through the republican house……………

If you come back here can you please explain this a little more?

I’d be happy to.

From what I understand, the sticking point right now is that the Senate version authorizes the FDA to collect fees for reinspection due to noncompliance, for recalls, and for the inspections of importers. The bill says that the fees are to cover the cost of the FDA’s duties under S.510. If the FDA is appropriated enough money from Congress, they aren’t allowed to collect fees above what they need.

That’s my understanding. That the fees are to cover the cost of the FDA regulating facilities that fail their initial inspection, as well as importers. The FDA can’t collect more than they need to cover their own costs.

Therefore, some are taking the position that this is not a revenue raising bill in the sense of the Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution. The argument is being made that the fees don’t constitute a tax. Apparently, there is some history of things like this happening and being accepted by the House.

http://www.marlerblog.com/uploads/image/RL31399.pdf

This report from the Congressional Research Service notes that the Supreme Court has ruled in the past that Article 1, Section 7, does not apply to “incidental” revenue. Seeing as the primary function of S.510 is not to raise revenue, it appears to have an easy out. It’s up to the House to recognize the Court’s rulings and, if necessary, work out a compromise with the Senate in committee.

Thank You

I will be posting this and linking to food safety — the political situation is discouraging but if the people know the problem maybe…..

[...] For more good writing on food by a renowned nutritionist, check out Marion Nestle’s blog, “Food Politics.”  Lately Nestle has been writing about S. 510, the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, which passed the Senate last week. [...]