October 16, 2011: FARFA files joint comments urging FDA to waive or reduce fees for re-inspections of small businesses.
December 21, 2010: Congress Passes Food Safety Bill with the Tester-Hagan Amendment
This afternoon, the House voted 215-144 to approve the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (now HR 2751), including the Tester-Hagan amendment.
The bill has taken many bizarre procedural twists. Throughout the process, Agribusiness repeatedly tried to prevent the Tester-Hagan amendment from being included. Even today, members of the House critiqued the bill's protections for small-scale direct marketing producers.
It's clear that, without your calls, the bill would have passed without any protection for small-scale producers. Thank you for all of your calls and letters over the last year!
As passed, the bill includes the same version of the Tester-Hagan amendment as S510: It exempts producers grossing under $500,000 (adjusted for inflation) and selling more than half of their products directly to “qualified end users” from the HACCP-type requirements and the produce safety standards. “Qualified end users” means individual consumers (with no geographic limitation), or restaurants and retail food establishments that are EITHER located in the same state OR within 275 miles of the producer. While complex, this amendment effectively carves out small-scale producers who are selling in-state or to local foodsheds from two of the most burdensome provisions of the bill. More details on the Tester-Hagan amendment are available on our website
There is still cause for concern about how FDA will exercise the new powers granted to it in S510. The agency's track record is one of favoring Agribusiness at the expense of both family farmers and consumers. S510 does not address the underlying problems of consolidation of our food system or the industry capture of the agency, which result in the agency's flawed policies. But the inclusion of the Tester-Hagan amendment provides critical protections for producers who sell at farmers markets, through CSAs, and at local co-ops and groceries, helping us to continue to build our movement and fight for fundamental changes.
We owe a thank you to Senator Tester and Senator Hagan for standing up for local producers and consumers.
WHAT’S NEXT?
The bill will now go to the President, who is expected to sign it.
Passing the law is still only one step in this process. Next year, Congress will face the issue of how to fund all of the new regulations and new FDA bureaucrats. To actually implement the entire bill, Congress will have to approve $1.4 billion of new spending or cut other programs accordingly, based on the CBO estimates. This gives us a chance to affect the level of funding and seek limits how the money can be spent.
And, on the agency side, the FDA will have to go through the rulemaking process. We expect that the agency will focus on writing rules that benefit Agribusiness and disadvantage independent producers, as usual. We will have to take action to ensure that our concerns are on the record and to urge Congressional official to take steps to rein in the agency from overstepping its bounds.
Please stay tuned for future updates! Your calls and support were critical to getting the Tester-Hagan amendment approved, and we will need your help again when it comes to the appropriations and rulemaking stages.
November 21, 2010: Agribusiness shows its true colors! Industry organizations send a letter to the Senators opposing the Tester-Hagan amendment. Read more here
Read more about what the Tester-Hagan amendment does, and does not do, here
The compromise amendment will exempt producers who gross less than half a million dollars and who sell more than half their products directly to consumers or "qualified end users" from the HARCP/ HACCP requirements and the produce safety standards. "Qualified end users" include restaurants and retailers who are either in-state or within 275 miles of the producer, and who purchase the food to sell directly to consumers.
The compromise amendment allows FDA to withdraw the exemption if a farm or facility is "directly linked" to a foodborne illness disease outbreak or if it is "necessary" to "prevent or mitigate a foodborne illness outbreak based on conduct or conditions" at the facility or farm.
The amendment includes other important provisions:
* It specifies that "retail food establishments" - which are exempt from the existing requirements to register with FDA and from the new HACCP/ HARCP requirements -- includes businesses that sell
directly to consumers through CSAs, farmers markets and roadside stands.
* It requires FDA to conduct a study that looks at the incidence of foodborne illness in relation to the size and type of the facility, as well as the risks associated with commingling, processing, transporting, and storing food, "including differences in risk based on the scale and duration of such activities." In other words, for the first time, FDA will have to collect and evaluate data on how different management practices affect the risk of foodborne illness.
* It requires FDA to consider that data in defining "very small businesses", which will also be exempt from the HACCP/ HARCP requirements
The amendment text and a summary are posted on Senator Tester's website
MORE INFORMATION
Small local farms and food processors are fundamentally different from huge, industrial food suppliers that ship food all over the country. Congress can and should address the problems with the industrial food supply without harming the local food systems that provide an alternative for concerned consumers!
Although reform of the industrial food supply is clearly needed, this bill threatens to create more problems than it will solve. S. 510 would undermine the rapidly growing local foods movement by imposing unnecessary, burdensome regulations on small farms and food processors – everyone from your local CSA to the small bakers, jam makers, and people making fermented vegetables to sell at the local farmers market.
Read our latest Fact Sheet here (Nov. 13, 2010)
Read the latest sign-on letter to the Senators here (Nov. 13, 2010)
Read some FAQs here (October 1, 2010)
Read a summary of the Tester-Hagan amendment here and the full text of the amendment here. Remember, nothing is final until it is voted on!
Read our analysis of the latest version of the bill (August 2010) here. In brief, while provisions have been added to try to address the concerns of small and sustainable farms, they are almost entirely left to FDA's discretion. The Tester-Hagan Amendments have not been included in the new version of S. 510.
Read our letter to the Senate, signed by 157 organization, supporting the Tester-Hagan amendments here
Previous fact sheets:
Q&A about the Tester-Hagan amendments to protect local foods.
Briefing on the requirement for "facilities" under S. 510
Briefing on the "produce standards" under S. 510
TALKING POINTS
1. The major foodborne illness outbreaks and recalls have all been within the large, industrial food system. Small, local food producers have not contributed to the highly publicized outbreaks. Yet both the House and Senate bills subject the small, local food system to the same, broad federal regulatory oversight that would apply to the industrial food system. Increased regulations, record-keeping obligations, and the penalties and fees could destroy small businesses that bring food to local communities.
2. FDA regulation of local food processors is unnecessary and burdensome. Federal regulations may be needed for industrial processors that get raw ingredients from multiple locations (sometimes imported from other countries) and ship their products across the country, but federal regulation is overkill for small, local processors. Existing state and local public health laws are sufficient for local food sources.
3. Relying on HACCP will not make food safer and will harm small processors. S. 510 applies a complex and burdensome Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) system to even the smallest local food processors. Although the concept of preventative controls is a good one, the federal agencies’ implementation of HACCP 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 not eliminated the spread of e. coli and other pathogens and has resulted in fewer independent inspections of the large slaughter plants where these pathogens originate. At the same time, small, regional processors have been subject to sanctions due to 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. S. 510 puts FDA on the farm by calling 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. S. 510 favors foreign farms and producers over domestic. It creates incentives for retailers to import more food from other countries, by burdening domestic producers with requirements that, in practice, will not be equally enforced on foreign producers. The bill will create a significant competitive disadvantage for ALL U.S. agriculture and food production.
Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance Statement on Food Safety
Food safety is a priority for every person, and FARFA supports efforts to protect the safety of the American food supply.
The major outbreaks of foodborne illnesses have all been traced to industrial-scale food producers and processors shipping to multiple states or across international boundaries. In several cases, the outbreaks have resulted from failure to comply with existing laws and regulations and/or failure by the government to properly inspect the food.
In contrast to the industrial agricultural system, local food systems provide significant food safety benefits due to the limited scale and distribution and the increased traceability and accountability inherent in these systems. There has been no evidence of significant food safety problems due to farms or food processors selling in local markets.
A local, diversified food system can provide critical access to food in cases of a terrorism attack or natural disaster. Local food systems also increase food security, benefit the local economy, reduce reliance on oil, and provide other economic, social, and environmental benefits. Direct marketing and other local distribution options provide increased economic opportunity for producers, while also providing consumers with options for nutritious, fresh food.
Despite the critical differences between industrial agriculture and local agriculture, the bills currently before Congress apply a one-size-fits-all approach to food safety. Moreover, the USDA and FDA have frequently promoted programs, including the National Animal Identification System, Good Agricultural Practices, and proposed leafy green protocols, which benefit industrial agriculture at the expense of local agriculture. The bills and programs fail to address the source of the problems within the industrial agriculture system and would impose unfair and onerous burdens on local food sources. The result would be to drive small farms and food processors out of business, depriving consumers of the option to purchase safe, fresh, and healthy foods from the producers of their choice.
The Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance therefore resolves to work to advance food safety policies that:
-
enforce existing food safety laws first;
-
focus on high-risk food production, in particular imports and large processing facilities that ship foods to multiple states;
-
are scale-sensitive, ensuring that small farms and processors are not unfairly disadvantaged;
-
support the continued development of local food systems; and
-
provide options for direct marketing between consumers and food producers.
Last updated October 1, 2010.