Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

*** EMERGENCY ACTION ALERT!!! *** Uncle Sam in your backdyard garden?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 12:43 PM
Original message
*** EMERGENCY ACTION ALERT!!! *** Uncle Sam in your backdyard garden?
Edited on Thu Jun-18-09 01:38 PM by Subdivisions
Ok people. This doesn't look good. We need to analyze this bill and see if it is supportable or not.

It looks as if the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009 (HR 2749) will place severe restrictions on all aspects of food in this country and could put the federal government in charge of the food in your back yard garden.

Rather than post the entire bill here (it is extensive), I'll just post the link to it and follow it up with a summary. Here is the bill:

Text of http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.2749:">HR 2749 - Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009

From http://www.ftcldf.org/petitions/pnum993.php">Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund:



111th U.S. Congress - House Bill HR 2749

A new food safety bill is on the fast track in Congress--HR 2749, the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009. The bill needs to be stopped!

HR 2749 gives FDA tremendous power while significantly diminishing existing judicial restraints on actions taken by the agency. The bill would impose a one-size-fits-all regulatory scheme on small farms and local artisanal producers; and it would disproportionately impact their operations for the worse.

HR 2749 does not address underlying causes of food safety problems such as industrial agriculture practices and the consolidation of our food supply. The industrial food system and food imports are badly in need of effective regulation, but the HR 2749 does not specifically direct regulation or resources to these areas.

ALARMING PROVISIONS (see Talking Points):
* Power to Quarantine a Geographic Area; the FDA can also Halt All Movement of All Food in a geographic area.

* Random Warrantless Searches of Business Records.

* Establishing a Tracing System for Food.

* Severe Criminal and Civil Penalties.

* Annual Registration Fee of $500.

* Regulation of How Crops Are Raised and Harvested.



And the http://www.ftcldf.org/docs/hr2749_talkingpoints.html">talking points...




1. HR 2749 would give FDA the power to order a quarantine of a geographic area, including "prohibiting or restricting the movement of food or of any vehicle being used or that has been used to transport or hold such food within the geographic area." Under this provision, farmers markets and local food sources could be shut down, even if they are not the source of the contamination. The agency can halt all movement of all food in a geographic area.

2. HR 2749 would empower FDA to make random warrantless searches of the business records of small farmers and local food producers, without any evidence whatsoever that there has been a violation. Even farmers selling direct to consumers would have to provide the federal government with records on where they buy supplies, how they raise their crops, and a list of customers.

3. HR 2749 charges the Secretary of Health and Human Services with establishing a tracing system for food. Each "person who produces, manufactures, processes, packs, transports, or holds such food" would have to "maintain the full pedigree of the origin and previous distribution history of the food," and "establish and maintain a system for tracing the food that is interoperable with the systems established and maintained by other such persons." The bill does not explain how far the traceback will extend or how it will be done for multi-ingredient foods. With all these ambiguities, it's far from clear how much it will cost either the farmers or the taxpayers.

4. HR 2749 creates severe criminal and civil penalties, including prison terms of up to 10 years and/or fines of up to $100,000 for each violation for individuals.

5. HR 2749 would impose an annual registration fee of $500 on any "facility" that holds, processes, or manufactures food. Although "farms" are exempt, the agency has defined "farm" narrowly. And people making foods such as lacto-fermented vegetables, cheeses, or breads would be required to register and pay the fee, which could drive beginning and small producers out of business during difficult economic times.

6. HR 2749 would empower FDA to regulate how crops are raised and harvested. It puts the federal government right on the farm, dictating to our farmers.



More...


HR 2749 - The Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009



Sign the http://www.ftcldf.org/petitions/pnum993.php">Oppose HR 2749 petition!

On May 26, leading members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee released a discussion draft of the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009 (FSEA). Committee members supporting FSEA include Chair Henry Waxman (D-CA), Chair Emeritus John Dingell (D-MI), Frank Pallone (D-NJ, Chair of the Health Subcommittee), and Bart Stupak (D-MI, Chair of the Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee).

Even before the FSEA was formally introduced, the Health Subcommittee held a hearing on the discussion draft on June 3. (Six other food safety bills have been introduced, but none have gotten a hearing yet.) The discussion draft, with some changes, was introduced as HR 2749 on June 8 by Rep. Dingell. Rep. Pallone introduced an amendment “in the nature of a substitute to HR 2749″ on June 10. This version of HR 2749 has been voted out of the Health Subcommittee and is now headed to the full Energy and Commerce Committee for mark-up on June 17. The bill is on the fast track.

Passage of the FSEA into law would amend the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). The bill proposes a substantial increase in power and resources for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and would significantly diminish existing judicial restraints on actions taken by the agency. Although the bill includes some provisions that could improve the mainstream food system, many of these are vaguely worded and do not clearly define the scope of the agency’s power, creating the potential for inappropriate application and enforcement. Small farms and local artisanal producers are part of the solution to the food safety problem in this country; the bill would impose on them a one-size-fits-all regulatory scheme and would disproportionately impact their operations for the worse. A detailed analysis of some of the key provisions is below .

The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund is opposed to HR 2749 because it would adversely impact small farms and food producers, without providing significant reforms in the industrial food system. HR 2749 does not address the underlying causes of food safety problems, including industrial agriculture practices and the consolidation of our food supply.

http://www.ftcldf.org/news/news-15june2009.htm">More »


My purpose in posting this is to extend an invitation to DUers to examine this bill and comment. Is this legitimate or paranoia? Is it good or bad?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
zeemike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 01:10 PM
Response to Original message
1. Without havening read the bill
I would guess they are up to something, and it will not benefit the people I am sure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ebayfool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 02:10 PM
Response to Original message
2. Hyperbole - after a quick reading of the bill, anyway.
I like alot of the bill so far, but will have to dig in further when I have time after work. There IS a specific exception to small farms & direct sales (ie my cousin's little truck farm/stand) as far as the traceback requirement. IMHO, we need more accountability from importers & food manufacturers @ exactly what they put in/on food products (ie baby formula - mentioned in this bill) - I want country of origin, ability to freeze distribution when needed (look how long pistachios were being sold/distributed AFTER the news hit).

I say this even w/a large part of my family being involved in food production (afore-mentioned cousin's farm, SIL is a dairy farmer, etc). GOP thinks food safety should be 'let the buyer beware' & let the chips fall ... I expect more from my government than that. I do not like having to go to the Canadian govs website to get testing numbers for my grandsons formula (the melamine stuff) after my own just said 'well, there's SOME melamine in some of the formula sold - but it's ok ... just let 'em drink it anyway'. The Canadians had hard data.

ymmv
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 12:56 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC