Senate Bill S510 - yikes!!!

[ashe]

for those of you who haven't caught this on facebook already

http://laughterandliberty.com/senate-bill-s510-explained-sort-of/

[Teazer]

"If you trade or give your food away, or sell it at farmers markets, you are no longer considered growing for personal consumption"
Well duh.

Here's the summary, or you can go to the full bill. What exactly do you have a problem with? I didn't see anything mentioned on your link. Maybe it's already been amended to fix all that.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-510&tab=summary

[ashe]

What exactly do you have a problem with?
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-510&tab=summary

1) Although FDA stated that the bill only applies to food in interstate commerce, the language of the bill does not contain any such limitation. On its face, the bill applies to ANY farm or food producer, regardless of the size or scope of distribution. If the intent truly is to limit the bill to food that is crossing state lines, then it must be amended. And even then, the bill would still negatively impact small farmers and food processors who live near state lines and who cross state lines to reach local farmers markets and coops, so this must be addressed appropriately.

2) 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.

3) 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.

4) Relying on a Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) system will not make food safer and will harm small processors. S. 510 applies a complex and burdensome 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.

5) 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.

[Teazer]

Sounds like you'd be in favour of the Tester-Hagan amendment then....