They want to make it ALL illegal. What do you think of Senate Bill 510

[JoAnn_WI_4-H_Mom]

Thank you for the well researched and documented posts!

There are also many posts that make it obvious any additional government regulation is an emotional issue.

Our media has become less objective than it was, preying on our fears to get better ratings and not caring if they leave behind a more educated viewership. It can be difficult to research every bill that comes through that may affect us. The media is supposed to objectively help with that, not inflame our concerns until we are ready to riot without a better understanding of the topic.

Many of us live in more rural areas where it is easy for us to get to know our producers and processors. We need to remember there are millions of US citizens who will never meet a food producer. They have not the ability to examine every production facility that processes their food. They rely on the government to make certain that any thing labeled "food" or "medicine" is free from poison and disease. It would be unwise to assume anonymous/international mega-food and mega-drug producers and processors do not to cut corners to save money. We have seen they sometimes putting their consumers at risk to raise profits.

However, the government is already spending more than it takes in. I do not know that we will be able to afford the level of inspection this bill requires. Not one of us wants more taxes to cover the gap.

My greatest concern with these kinds of regulations is that it becomes cheaper for the regulating industry to pick on the small operator when it comes time to show that they are doing their job. Our inspectors are often overworked and, with government cuts, underpaid. This makes it very tempting to become corrupted. We have seen the results of this on the Gulf Coast, with an oil spill at a rig that was basically self-inspected by the drilling company because there just isn't enough money to inspect as regulated.

That is where we need to pay attention even when a good regulation is in place. The officials enforcing it need to be encouraged every way we can to do their jobs appropirately.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Quote:
That is why I was glad to see the requirement to actually gather data so an informed debate based on the facts can occur. Maybe the resources can be better spent where they do the most good. But then, you have to define the "most good". Does that mean protecting the American food supply or does it mean helping our farmers sell their produce overseas. I don't think the issue will ever be settled, mainly because so many of us have different agendas.

 

[buildingmyark]

Quote:
Eric Blair
Activist Post

Some of our readers and others have requested that we reference specific sections of the Tester Amendment to food safety bill S. 510 to outline why this does not help or exempt small food producers. The amendment has been sold to the critical public as "exempting" small farms and food producers from the entirety of the heavy-handed regulations of the Food Safety Modernization Act. Yet, nothing could be further from the truth.

These small producer exemptions are only for "qualified facilities" and only pertain to subsections (a) through (i) and subsection (n) of S.510 -- as outlined on page 5, line 15 in the Tester Amendment:

(2) EXEMPTION. --A qualified facility--
(A) shall not be subject to the requirements under subsections (a) through (i) and subsection (n) in an applicable calendar year.
Therefore, even a "very small business" making less than "$500K per year," doing business "within 275 miles" and directly with "end-user customers" is still required to adhere to all of the regulations in the remaining subsections of the bill. That's point number one which I'll return to in Part 2 of this essay.


Curiously, the only mainstream story to cover the contents of the Tester Amendment was a four-sentence article by the Associated Press which was released on a Friday and seemed purposely short on details. It only makes the claim that the Tester Amendment allows "some" small farms to "avoid expensive food safety plans:"
The agreement brokered by Tester would allow farmers who make less than $500,000 a year in revenue and sell directly to consumers, restaurants or grocery stores within their states or within 275 miles of their farms to avoid expensive food safety plans required of larger operations. (My emphasis in bold)
These expensive food safety plans are apparently a reference to subsection (h) of S.510:
Written Plan and Documentation- The owner, operator, or agent in charge of a facility shall prepare a written plan that documents and describes the procedures used by the facility to comply with the requirements of this section, including analyzing the hazards under subsection (b) and identifying the preventive controls adopted under subsection (c) to address those hazards. Such written plan, together with the documentation described in subsection (g), shall be made promptly available to a duly authorized representative of the Secretary upon oral or written request.
Ironically, the Tester Amendment clearly states that in order for a small producer to become a "qualified facility" for these exemptions, they must submit the following to the Secretary upon request:
3 years of comprehensive financial records indicating less than $500K in gross sales (Pg. 4, Line 11)
I. Documentation that the owner, operator or agent of the facility has identified potential hazards associated with the food being processed, is implementing preventative controls to address those hazards, and is monitoring the preventative controls to ensure that such controls are effective (Pg. 5 line 20).
II. Documentation (which may include licenses, inspection reports, certificates, permits, credentials, certification by an appropriate agency (such as the State Department of Agriculture) or other evidence of oversight), as specified by the Secretary that the facility is in compliance with state, local, county, or other non-Federal food safety law (Pg. 6, Line 5).
Those requirements bear a striking resemblance to the "expensive" food safety plans outlined in subsection (h) of S.510 that small producers are supposedly exempt from. In other words, they must submit similarly comprehensive plans just to qualify to be exempt from creating them. But it gets worse.


If Grandma wants to sell her famous raspberry jam at the county fair (within 275 miles of her canning kitchen) she will indeed be qualified for small producer exemptions, but not before she forks over 3 years of financials, documentation of hazard control plans, and all local licenses, permits, and inspection reports. She must submit this documentation to the satisfactory approval of the Secretary; and if she fails to do so, the entirety of S.510 can be enforced on her. That's hardly what I would call an exemption.

Because small producers are being forced to jump through stringent local and Federal regulatory hoops just to qualify, the bill appears to be designed not to make it "illegal" to sell homegrown goodies, as some suggest, but to make the system so cumbersome that small producers will say forget it and give up their local food business -- which is what many, including yours truly, have speculated is the hidden corporate agenda of the bill.

 

[knjinnm]

Please keep the rules regarding tone of posts.

 

[buildingmyark]

This is a link that describes how it would be possible for them to criminalize saving/storing seeds.

http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2009/06/13/seeds-how-to-criminalize-them/

As I've expressed on this thread previously, it's not just what the bill says, it's what it doesn't say. What the bill does not exclude explicitly it includes implicitly.

 

[noodleroo]

Quote:
Excellent article. Everybody should read it...

 

[Ridgerunner]

Quote:
I'm not sure but I think we at least agree that this discussion is not about our backyard gardens or about food that we grow for ourselves. It is about people that grow food for sale. I could be wrong in assuming that you agree with that.

This is a quote from your link. I think it is an excellent article because it shows how far out in left field someone has to go to even make an argument like this.

Those seeds (so far) include:

*seeds eaten raw such as flax, poppy sesame, etc.;
*sprouting seeds such as wheat, beans, alfalfa, most greens, etc.;
*seeds pressed into oils such as corn, sunflower, canola, etc.;
*seeds used as animal feed such as soy ….


If you notice, these so far include seeds eaten by humans or animals. So far. They do not include seeds intended to be used to plant crops, either in my garden or in yours. So far I don't see anything concrete that lends any credibility to your argument. So far.

I did find another copy of the Tester Amendment that references 275 miles, not the 400 miles in the link I posted. I honestly don't know which is more up to date. A lot of links on the internet are either not dated very well or I am not computer literate enough to be able to figure it out.

My degree is not in reading legalese. These things are crafted very carefully by lawyers to try to be legally clear in what they are saying. That does not make it any easier for me to understand them. The requirement for documentation upon request for the $500,00 per year requirement. I wonder if income tax documentation, which you are required to keep anyway with that type of income, would suffice? That would not add to the record keeping burden. My understanding of the section you referenced in another post about very small businesses seemed to be aimed at least in part at keeping a company from operating several different roadside stands or whatever and claiming each was entirely separate and not affiliated. This bill does not exempt anyone from following state and local laws. If you are required by state or local laws to have licenses, permits, and inspections, those records should be available in case the local guys come looking. I don't see that as an additional recordkeeping burden.

I think the key here is upon request. To me the implication is that Grandma would not have to provide any of this information unless it is requested, and it won't be requested unless there is some reason to suspect her jam is killing people or making them sick. The bill does include the language in the opinion of the Secretary there is a risk or something similar when talking about what would be required. An frankly, even with the increase in inspectors provided under this bill, there will not be that many to go around inspecting the little guy.

The comments on the safety plan are more troubling. I tried chasing it back to subpart (n) and all those references to see what it was saying, but failed. It seems out of place in the relaxation of the other requirements. For Grandma's jam, maybe all she would have to do is point to a recipe in the Ball Blue Book and say she followed that, but I know that is a simplistic reply to what could be a troubling question. Maybe someone versed in legalese (I think somebody on this thread said they were a judge) could look at this article and comment.

 

[buildingmyark]

Quote:
I'm not sure but I think we at least agree that this discussion is not about our backyard gardens or about food that we grow for ourselves. It is about people that grow food for sale. I could be wrong in assuming that you agree with that.

This is a quote from your link. I think it is an excellent article because it shows how far out in left field someone has to go to even make an argument like this.

Those seeds (so far) include:

*seeds eaten raw such as flax, poppy sesame, etc.;
*sprouting seeds such as wheat, beans, alfalfa, most greens, etc.;
*seeds pressed into oils such as corn, sunflower, canola, etc.;
*seeds used as animal feed such as soy ….


If you notice, these so far include seeds eaten by humans or animals. So far. They do not include seeds intended to be used to plant crops, either in my garden or in yours. So far I don't see anything concrete that lends any credibility to your argument. So far.

Many people save several of these seeds for replanting the next year. I have personally saved beans, corn, and sunflowers seeds. In the documentary Food Inc. they explore this very issue and how it becomes a real problem for farmers who don't wish to use hybrid/gmo seeds.

"Left Field" is a good way to explain how certain laws can be misconstrued. You said "These things are crafted very carefully by lawyers to try to be legally clear in what they are saying." Yes, I would agree that they are very carefully crafted, but NOT TO BE LEGALLY CLEAR in what they are saying. That's exactly why there are so many loopholes in our legal system. The vagueness of the wording in this particular legislation is what makes it most threatening to small scale farmers.

I don't want to go on arguing the interpretation of this bill. I know what it says. I know that more government involvement in our affairs NEVER helps solve ANY problem. I know that I don't trust our government. That's all I need to know.

 

[draye]

buildingmyark wrote: Many people save several of these seeds for replanting the next year. I have personally saved beans, corn, and sunflowers seeds. In the documentary Food Inc. they explore this very issue and how it becomes a real problem for farmers who don't wish to use hybrid/gmo seeds.

"Left Field" is a good way to explain how certain laws can be misconstrued. You said "These things are crafted very carefully by lawyers to try to be legally clear in what they are saying." Yes, I would agree that they are very carefully crafted, but NOT TO BE LEGALLY CLEAR in what they are saying. That's exactly why there are so many loopholes in our legal system. The vagueness of the wording in this particular legislation is what makes it most threatening to small scale farmers.

I don't want to go on arguing the interpretation of this bill. I know what it says. I know that more government involvement in our affairs NEVER helps solve ANY problem. I know that I don't trust our government. That's all I need to know.

AMEN.​

 

[chickWatcher]

So, the Senate approved SB 510. The House passed HB 2749 last year.
Is there any plan by the house to vote on SB 510 or to have a committee to reconcile the two bills?
My hope is, the regime change means the house will drop it.