8 Things You Need to Know About the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009 (H.R. 875)

Type HR875 into Google and you’ll find thousands of links to bloggers and independent news sites citing the bill that’s currently being discussed in Congress. Some commentators are up in arms about the “Food Modernization Act” claiming that it could spell the end of small organic farms. Some even go as far to suggest that it could potentially criminalize growing your own food in your backyard! Whereas other commentators claim there’s absolutely nothing to worry about – it really is just about food safety.

So in case you haven’t heard of H.R. 875 (after all, there’s been no mention on Fox, CNN, MSNBC or BBC news), here’s Shelly Roche from www.breakthematrix.com with a breakdown of the bill.

“Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people.” – Henry Kissinger

Recent salmonella outbreaks and food contamination scares have sparked a flurry of activity in Washington, resulting in proposed legislation aimed at improving the safety of our nation’s food supply. The goal is to prevent future food-borne illness incidents by expanding the federal government’s role in regulating production, preparation and transportation of food.

The most hotly contested of these bills is H.R. 875, known as the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009, which gained instant notoriety online when a number of bloggers claimed H.R. 875 would criminalize organic gardening, outlaw seed banking and place impossible administrative burdens on small farmers. Advocates for the bill say it is not intended to do any of those things, accusing critics of being alarmists and spreading misinformation. Who’s right? Read on for a crash course in H.R. 875, then please do your own research so you can decide for yourself:

1.  The Basics

Presented under the heading of “food safety,” H.R. 875 would create an extensive new federal agency called the Food Safety Administration (FSA), responsible for keeping our food supply safe by regulating food production facilities (any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined animal-feeding operation – Sec. 14) and food establishments (a facility owned or operated by a person located in any State that processes food or a facility that holds, stores, or transports food or food ingredients – Sec. 13).

The FSA’s purpose would be to define and enforce strict standards on food production facilities, and would force anybody selling or storing food and selling it to a third party “to register with a new federal regulatory agency, submit to federal inspections, and, perhaps most significant, keep ‘copious records of sales and shipment by lot and label.’ Penalties for infractions will be very, very steep.” (Walter Olson, http://www.reason.com/blog/show/132831.html)

2.  Questionable origins

The bill’s sponsor, Rep Rosa DeLauro (D – CT), received over $180,000 in big agribusiness campaign donations.

3.  Broad language

Broad language gives bureaucrats authority to decide what’s best for us, and then force us to comply.

If passed, H.R. 875’s language would empower federal regulators to make virtually any food-related decision on our behalf. This would present a very real threat to our freedom to grow, buy and eat real foods. Reason Magazine’s Brian Doherty explains the implications of two broadly-worded sections in H.R. 875 which give bureaucrats wide latitude for interpretation.

Consider, if you have the willpower, this blurb:

In Section 203 (b): ‘The Administrator shall, upon the basis of best available public health, scientific, and technological data, promulgate regulations to ensure that food establishments carry out their responsibilities under the food safety law … the Administrator shall promulgate regulations that require all food establishments … —(1) to adopt preventive process controls that—(A) reflect the standards and procedures recognized by relevant authoritative bodies; (B) are adequate to protect the public health; (C) meet relevant regulatory and food safety standards;( D) limit the presence and growth of contaminants in food prepared in a food establishment using the best reasonably available techniques and technologies.’

What if the regulatory bodies — which will be filled, to be sure, with agribiz reps — decide that organic techniques are not the ‘best reasonably available techniques’ that are ‘adequate to protect the public health’ because they don’t use certain pest control techniques?

Or how about Section 206 (c) (3), which says that regulations will “include, with respect to growing, harvesting, sorting, and storage operations, minimum standards related to fertilizer use, nutrients, hygiene, packaging, temperature controls, animal encroachment, and water.”

It is not inconceivable that the government’s bodies of experts may decide that certain organic practices don’t meet the “minimum standards” they decide are appropriate in things like fertilizer and animal encroachment.

4.  Intent vs. Reality

When confronted with the ambiguous nature of her bill, DeLauro insists H.R. 875 is only meant to apply to those engaging in “interstate commerce,” and is not intended to target small farmers or organic gardeners. However, in Sec. 406, H.R. 875 reads: “In any action to enforce the requirements of the food safety law, the connection with interstate commerce required for jurisdiction shall be presumed to exist.” Federal agencies regularly take a broader view of their own jurisdiction, and Sec. 406 grants the FSA the authority to presume interstate commerce exists (whether it does or not) in order to enforce food safety laws.

5. Flawed Logic: Does more government really equal safer food?

Small farms and gardens are fundamentally different from industrial farms, and should not be regulated the same way. All of the proposed food safety bills suffer from a “one-size-fits-all” approach, which gives competitive advantage to industrial producers who have the resources to deal with new requirements, while placing unreasonable burdens on small producers who don’t.

Further, critics question the logic behind adding an additional layer of bureaucracy (the FSA) to solve the problem an existing bureaucracy (the FDA) has been unable to effectively address. Michael Tanner, senior fellow at the CATO institute points out: “The companies that created problems — like the peanut company — they’ve gone bankrupt. The senior officers are out of a job, and in some cases they are being sued and facing jail time. But the government bureaucrats aren’t going to jail. You have more accountability in the private sector than in the government. There seem to be better ways to handle this than expansion of government bureaucracy.”

6.  Be vigilant: It’s not just H.R. 875

In addition to H.R. 875, check out H.R. 814, H.R. 759, S. 425, S. 510 and the National Animal Identification System (NAIS).  H.R. 814 is essentially a mandatory NAIS bill, while the others focus on produce, processed foods and game under FDA jurisdiction.

Although the grassroots controversy has resulted in H.R. 875 being the primary target of critics, watchdog groups are warning that H.R. 759 is the bill most likely to make it out of committee to Congress for a vote. Portions of H.R. 875 and H.R. 1332 are expected to be included in the final version of H.R. 759.

7.  What is the likely outcome if any of these bills pass?

• Small farmers will be subject to crippling administrative and regulatory burdens, coupled with massive fines for non-compliance.
• The supply and diversity of our food will be reduced, forcing more of us to use industrial producers.
• Food safety is unlikely to improve.
• Our freedom to grow, buy and eat real foods will be threatened.
• Billions of tax dollars will be required to fund the FSA.

8.  Vote with your forks: It’s time for a cultural shift toward self-reliance

Those of us who buy locally produced real foods already feel secure about the safety of our food. The farmers we support are meticulous in their growing practices because their livelihoods depend on word of mouth and a strong reputation. As consumers, we have the freedom to take responsibility for our own food safety by getting to know our food producers, learning about their growing practices, and choosing to support those who meet our standards.

It is the mainstream industrialized food system that is dysfunctional, and it is absolutely critical that any new laws address that system without interfering with our right to choose real foods or with our farmers’ abilities to produce safer, healthier foods.

With every meal, each of us has an opportunity to make choices that will shift power away from Washington’s industrial food system and spark a nationwide cultural shift to self reliance through local, seasonal eating and growing more of our own foods.

Here are just a few ways you can help:

• Grow your own!
• Introduce a friend to your local farmer’s market.
• Invite friends over to dinner featuring food produced from your garden or from your local farmers.
• Shake the hand that feeds you – get to know your local farmer (just make sure it’s at a time that’s convenient for them).
• Start a community garden.
• Participate in Community Supported Agriculture (CSA).
• Become a cow-pooler.
• Have conversations about food everywhere you go.
• Wear the message! T-shirts that tell a story about food are a great way to start a conversation.
• Be vigilant about what’s happening in Washington. Do your own research and urge your representatives to act in ways that support real foods.

Have your say by posting a comment below.