Time to Participate in the Political Process

As odious as it can be -- and it gets worse every day -- some times you have to participate in the political process, beyond just voting.

This is one of those times.

The details are below, via the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. The action item: calling your elected officials.

Alert from NSAC:
Action Alert
December 8, 2010
Local and Regional Food at Risk
Call Your Representative

Food Safety Legislation passed by the Senate and to be considered by the House as early as this week is in trouble.  Big Ag is out in force, lobbying House members to ditch provisions that are friendly to small and midsize farms.  They know that if they can impose expensive and one-size-fits-all food safety rules, they can stop the growing local food movement in its tracks.  Lawmakers are dealing with significant misinformation and confusion and our hard won amendments may be lost.  We must send a loud and clear message about where we stand. 

Call Your Representative Today!

Urge them to pass the Senate Bill with the Tester-Hagen Amendment Intact

It's easy to call:  Go to Congress.org and type in your zip code.  Click on your Representative's name, and then on the contact tab for their phone number.  You can also call the Capitol Switchboard and ask to be directly connected to your Representative's office: 202-224-3121. 

The message is simple:   "I am a constituent of Representative ___________ and I am calling to ask him/her to pass the Senate version of the Food Safety Modernization Act (S.510) with the Tester-Hagen Amendment intact.  We need a food safety bill that cracks down on corporate bad actors without erecting new barriers to more local and regional food sourcing. Regulation that is scaled appropriately for small and mid-sized farms and processors is vital to economic recovery, public health, and nutritional wellbeing."

Background:
Read our latest report:  A Sustainable Agriculture Perspective on Food Safety.

What's in the Tester-Hagen Amendment?
(1)  The amendment clarifies existing law which says that farmers who direct market more than 50% of their product to the consumer at the farm or at a retail location off the farm such as a farm stand or farmer's market need not register with FDA.  This clarification is especially important for off-farm retail locations such as farmers markets.
 
(2)  It provides a size appropriate and less costly alternative to Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Plans (HACCP) for farmers who:

Direct market more than 50% of their products directly to consumers, stores or restaurants, and

Have gross sales (direct and non-direct combined) of less than $500,000, and

Sell to consumers, stores, or restaurants that are in-state or within 275 miles.  

Farmers who qualify must provide documentation that the farm is in compliance with state regulations. Documentation may include licenses, inspection reports, or other evidence that the farm is in compliance with State, local, county, or other applicable non-Federal food safety law.  The farm must also prominently and conspicuously display the name and address of farm/facility on its label.  For foods without a label then by poster, sign, or placard, at the point of purchase or, in the case of Internet sales, in an electronic notice, or in the case of sales to stores and restaurants, on the invoice.

If there are no state regulations or if the farmer prefers a different option, the farmer must provide FDA with documentation that potential hazards have been identified and that preventive controls have been implemented and are being monitored for effectiveness.  

(3)  It provides alternatives to the produce standards for farms that:

Direct market more than 50% of their products directly to consumers, stores or restaurants, and

Have gross sales (direct and non-direct combined) of less than $500,000, and

Sell to consumers, stores, or restaurants that are in-state or within 275 miles.  

The farm must prominently and conspicuously display the name and address of farm/facility on its label.  For foods without a label then by poster, sign, or placard, at the point of purchase or, in the case of Internet sales, in an electronic notice, or in the case of sales to stores and restaurants, on the invoice.

Also in the Senate Bill:

(1) An amendment sponsored by Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) to provide for a USDA-delivered competitive grants program for food safety training for farmers, small processors and wholesalers.  The training projects will prioritize small and mid-scale farms, beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers, and small food processors and wholesalers.  The grant program will be administered by USDA's National Institute for Food and Agriculture.

(2) An amendment sponsored by Senator Michael Bennet (D-CO) to reduce unnecessary paperwork and excess regulation required under the preventative control plan and the produce standards sections of the bill.  FDA is instructed to provide flexibility for small processors including on-farm processing, to minimize the burden of compliance with regulations, and to minimize the number of different standards that apply to separate foods.  FDA will also be prohibited from requiring farms and other food facilities to hire consultants to write food safety plans.   The Bennet amendment applies to all small farms and processors, not just those who direct market within 400 miles of their farms.

(3) An amendment sponsored by Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) for farms that engage in value-added processing or that co-mingle product from several farms  gives the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authority to either exempt farms engaged in low or no risk processing or co-mingling activities from new regulatory requirements or to modify particular regulatory requirements for such farming operations.

(4) An amendment championed by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) to strip the bill of wildlife-threatening enforcement against "animal encroachment" of farms is also in the manager's package.  It will require FDA to apply sound science to any requirements that might impact wildlife and wildlife habitat on farms.

(5) An amendment proposed by Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) will not require small farmers to meet extensive traceability and recordkeeping  if they sell food directly to consumers or to grocery stores and allows labeling that preserves the identity of the farm to satisfy traceability requirements.    The amendment also prevents FDA from requiring any farm from needing to keep records beyond the first point of sale when the product leaves the farm, except in the case of farms that co-mingle product from multiple farms, in which case they must also keep records one step back as well as one step forward.

A Mini-Scrapin' Up...

A digest is the lazy blogger's way out. And I'm feeling waaaaayyyy lazy.

So, let's jump in with...A meat rating system in grocery stores? Yes, and Whole Foods will be the initial testing ground.

Developed by the Global Animal Partnership, a nonprofit group made up of farmers, scientists, retailers, sustainability experts and animal welfare advocates, the rating system aims to address growing consumer concerns over the way animals are raised for food. It could also, not coincidentally, boost sales for certified farmers and participating stores, likely to include another unidentified major national retailer and restaurant group in the coming year, according to the nonprofit.

 And the article even has some comic relief, courtesy of factory farm representatives:

"The GAP program is basically a 'free-range' program,'" said Richard Lobb spokesman for the National Chicken Council, which runs its own auditing program . "Only a few producers in the United States follow the free-range model. Most feel that the needs of the birds can be more efficiently met in a well-ventilated, enclosed structure that provides a good climate and protects the birds from the elements and from predators."

And if you're in the mood to get your food wonk on, then please, go to Grist and follow the debate about whether food safety legislation in the Senate will make things better or worse for small farms. It's dense and intense stuff.

And, finally, in case you missed it, China Millman reviews Salt of the Earth in the PG. And she likes it, she really likes it. Man I hope that octopus appetizer is still on the menu by the time I make it there!

Your Small Farmer Needs You

So, if, like me, you:

• Love your CSA
• Really enjoy farm markets like Farmers @ Firehouse in the Strip
• Like your small farmers and trust them more than the huge agri-corporations that produce/control something like 95+ percent of the food in this country
• Are a little terrified by the number of massive food recalls due to scary thingies in said food
• Feel a need every once in a while to be proactive instead of letting things just happen

Then... you should probably go here and send a letter to your Senators to let them know that 1) you believe in food safety, but 2) the problem is not with the little sustainable/organic/family farms, it's those really big-a@#$ guys who are wreaking all of the havoc.

In other words, a one-size-fits-all approach to improving food safety standards will not work and will only serve to hurt the little guy and, in the end, potentially decrease food safety.

So perform your civic duty and then enjoy the weekend.

Action Alert on Food Safety Legislation

From the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition...

FOOD SAFETY ACTION ALERT!
November 12, 2009
MAKE A CALL TO PROTECT FAMILY FARMS,
LOCAL FOOD SYSTEMS AND SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

CALL SENATOR CASEY THIS WEEK!

The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee will take up S. 510, the Senate version of major food safety legislation already approved by the House of Representatives, next Wednesday, November 18.

The bill would put real teeth into federal regulation of large-scale food processing corporations to better protect consumers. However, the bill as written is also a serious threat to family farm value added processing, local and regional food systems, conservation and wildlife protection, and organic farming.

We need a food safety bill that cracks down on corporate bad actors without erecting new barriers to the growing healthy food movement based on small and mid-sized family farms, sustainable and organic production methods, and more local and regional food sourcing.

The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition and the National Organic Coalition, have fashioned five common sense amendments to S 510. We need your help to make them happen! The House has already passed their Bill. This is our last best chance to affect the final legislation.

Step 1: Make a Call

Please Call Senator Casey's office at (202) 224-6324 and ask for the aide in charge of food safety issues. Tell them you are a constituent and are calling to ask the Senator to support the amendments proposed by the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition and the National Organic Coalition to the Food Safety Modernization Act. Specifically, ask your Senator to support the following key changes to the bill:

• The bill should direct FDA to narrow the kinds of value-added farm processing activities which are subject to FDA control and to base those regulations on sound risk analysis. (Current FDA rules assume without any scientific evidence that all farms which undertake any one of a long list of processing activities should be regulated.)
  

• The bill should direct FDA to ease compliance for organic farmers by integrating the FDA standards with the organic certification rules. FDA compliance should not jeopardize a farmer's ability to be organically certified under USDA's National Organic Program.
  

• The bill must provide small and mid-sized family farms that market value-added farm products with training and technical assistance in developing food safety plans for their farms.
  

• The bill should insist that FDA food safety standards and guidance will not contradict federal conservation, environmental, and wildlife standards and practices, and not force the farmer to choose which federal agency to obey and which to reject.
  

• Farmers who sell directly to consumers should not be required to keep records and be part of a federal "traceaback" system, and all other farms should not be required to maintain records electronically or any records beyond the first point of sale past the farmgate.
  

Step 2: Report Your Call

Let us know how your Senator responded by clicking here http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=iDwJjwNOL9Ow7ubh59KDmnf2vBJtLWG%2B and typing in a brief report.

Step 3: Learn More

For more information on the Senate Food Safety bill, please see NSAC's Talking Points here http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=ZMugpdHrZ%2B5jVzlGNRk2rHf2vBJtLWG%2B and its Policy Brief Food Safety on the Farm here: http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=N0qoiyP9CL10FyBbFnz%2Fjnf2vBJtLWG%2B

Too Many Drugs, Too Much Safety

I don't know if this has legs, but I'm amazed that it was even introduced in the first place:

The Obama administration announced Monday that it would seek to ban many routine uses of antibiotics in farm animals in hopes of reducing the spread of dangerous bacteria in humans. In written testimony to the House Rules Committee, Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, principal deputy commissioner of food and drugs, said feeding antibiotics to healthy chickens, pigs and cattle — done to encourage rapid growth — should cease.

The reason: giving antibiotics to healthy animals so that they grow faster can promote antibiotic resistance. As Dr. Kellog Schwab, director of Johns Hopkins' Center for Water and Health explains it:

"This development of drug resistance scares the hell out of me. If we continue on and we lose the ability to fight these microorganisms, a robust, healthy individual has a chance of dying, where before we would be able to prevent that death." Schwab says that if he tried, he could not build a better incubator of resistant pathogens than a factory farm. He, Silbergeld, and others assert that the level of danger has yet to be widely acknowledged. Says Schwab, "It's not appreciated until it's your mother, or your son, or you trying to fight off an infection that will not go away because the last mechanism to fight it has been usurped by someone putting it into a pig or a chicken."

Next, although the article is somewhat hard to follow if you're not familiar with the broader topic of food safety, it still paints a scary picture:

Dick Peixoto planted hedges of fennel and flowering cilantro around his organic vegetable fields in the Pajaro Valley near Watsonville to harbor beneficial insects, an alternative to pesticides.

He has since ripped out such plants in the name of food safety, because his big customers demand sterile buffers around his crops. No vegetation. No water. No wildlife of any kind.

"I was driving by a field where a squirrel fed off the end of the field, and so 30 feet in we had to destroy the crop," he said. "On one field where a deer walked through, didn't eat anything, just walked through and you could see the tracks, we had to take out 30 feet on each side of the tracks and annihilate the crop."

Basically, you have food safety measures being taken, much of it done in a proprietary fashion, to address problems being created by factory farming operations, not many of the little guys who actually do things like, you know, plant other plants to protect their products from bugs, instead of bombarding it with pesticides. And many of these safety practices are, according to this article, being proposed for use on national level.

"Patchwork" Might be Kind

One thing that kept sticking in my craw -- if, as a soccer-loving, arugula-eating, martini-drinking (Bluecoat, please, on the rocks, 3 olives, if you don't mind) western Pennsylvanian, I can say that, which I probably cannot and should not -- after reading the LTE from the Penn State Ag professor in response to my PG op-ed last year about beef safety, was the insinuation that I was being alarmist and overstating the issue.

While it's not focused on beef per se, this article from the New York Times about food safety in general seems to support my general contention that the food safety net in this country is desperately lacking.

Congress and the Obama administration have said that more inspections and new food production rules are needed to prevent food-related diseases, but far less attention has been paid to fixing the fractured system by which officials detect and stop ongoing outbreaks. Right now, uncovering which foods have been contaminated is left to a patchwork of more than 3,000 federal, state and local health departments that are, for the most part, poorly financed, poorly trained and disconnected, officials said.

Minnesota, unlike many other states, the Times' Gardiner Harris reports, has a top-notch surveillance system for investigating food safety-related illnesses. And the rest of the country is very fortunate that's the case.

In these and other cases, epidemiologists from Minnesota pinpointed the causes of food scares while officials in other states were barely aware that their residents were getting sick. From 1990 to 2006, Minnesota health officials uncovered 548 food-related illness outbreaks, while those in Kentucky found 18, according to an analysis of health records.

Which brings me back to this line from the aforementioned LTE:

The incidence of E. coli-related illnesses has remained at a very low level according to the Centers for Disease Control.

Don't get me wrong. I have great respect for the CDC. I think they do a great job. But when, as the Times article details, you've got such an uneven, patchwork approach to food safety, combined with what I think anecdotal evidence would suggest is a significant amount of underreporting of food-related illnesses, there are serious limitations on what you can take from CDC data in this area.

I guess I could be accused of being alarmist. That will be until more than just a few people die from things like Salmonella-laced peanuts.

So much news...

Amid the outrage over what seems like epidemic levels of white-collar crime and white-collar chicanery and just plain ol' white-collar irresponsibility, there has been a ton o' food and agriculture-related news.

It's hard to stay on top of it all. Sadly, I have not.

So, for those interested, here are some links that may prove useful:

1) Obama continues to send mixed messages on food-related issues. Names an FDA commissioner with extensive food safety/regulation background, but is apparently looking to name a guy to head a Food Safety Working Group who helped Monsanto get its genetically modified veg onto grocery market shelves and into humans with effectively no requirement for clinical testing. This guy is the epitome of the revolving door between industry and government and everything Obama has railed against. Just like in a college basketball game, all I ask for is consistency.

2) Tainted peanuts scare the bejeezus out of legislators. Or, at the very least, makes them think it's a political winner, 'cause there's all sort of food safety legislation that's been introduced. If the feedback I've seen from the local sustainable ag community is any barometer, there is concern that these bills won't effectively differentiate between small, family farms and small-scale meat processors and the big factory farms and their often co-owned massive meat-processing/packing facilities. The latter, for the uninitiated, are the ones linked to things like spinach and beef recalls.

3) NAIS. It's hard to get a grip on this thing, but the small farmers hate it and it appears to be with good reason. A lot of action has taken place and it's unclear to me what can be done at this point about it. I wrote about it last summer. But a lot has happened since them.

4) And, finally, Nickolas Kristof at the NY Times is opening eyes to antibiotic resistance and the gross overuse of antibiotics on factory farms. Must read graphs:

The peer-reviewed Medical Clinics of North America concluded last year that antibiotics in livestock feed were “a major component” in the rise in antibiotic resistance. The article said that more antibiotics were fed to animals in North Carolina alone than were administered to the nation’s entire human population.

“We don’t give antibiotics to healthy humans,” said Robert Martin, who led a Pew Commission on industrial farming that examined antibiotic use. “So why give them to healthy animals just so we can keep them in crowded and unsanitary conditions?”

The answer is simple: politics.

For the Record

Last year, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette was kind enough to publish an op-ed I wrote about beef recalls and beef safety. The bottom line message, I suppose, was that the rash of beef recalls was disturbing and that purchasing beef from local farmers was a good way to take personal action that could -- in addition to getting some good meat and supporting local food systems -- help spur much-needed change in beef cattle farming and processing.

Some time later, my wife's aunt (my aunt in-law?) informed me that a LTE had been published in response to my op-ed (link here, scroll down). Authored by Mr. William R. Henning, the Emeritus Professor of Animal and Food Science at Penn State University, the letter basically said U.S. beef is extraordinarily safe:

Strict and numerous government regulations along with strong industry leadership protect the safety of our beef. For example, each of the 100 million animals that enter the human food supply annually is closely inspected by veterinarians and trained inspectors. (emphasis mine)

I had been meaning to respond to this letter on my poorly read blog for some time. This finally got me to do it:

President Obama on Saturday nominated Margaret Hamburg, former New York City health commissioner, to head the FDA, and announced he is taking new measures to address food safety.

During his weekly radio address, Obama said a lack of funds and staff at FDA in recent years have left the agency with only enough resources to inspect just 7,000 of 150,000 food processing plants and warehouses annually. (emphasis mine)

Now the USDA is responsible for the safety of beef via inspections, etc. But surely the experience of the FDA couldn't be that different than the USDA, could it? Um, no, it couldn't:

The legal requirements for inspections, combined with a reduced force, mean that the inspection goals have not been met for years, according to inspectors. They say the workload is unrealistic, reducing their duties to cursory checks of company records, not the physical examination of meat, poultry and eggs. ...

But one of those inspectors was responsible for a total of five processing plants.That means spending one hour and 36 minutes each day in each plant, she said.

“This is a problem we’ve been pointing out to them forever,” Nestor said.”There are vacancies and shortages all over the country. In a lot of places, the patrol assignments are doubled and tripled up.” (emphasis mine)

[The story linked to above is admittedly a little old. But I think it's safe to say that little to nothing has changed since then.] Am I saying that the U.S. beef supply is irrevocably tainted? No. Dr. Henning claims that cases of E. coli have been low and steady. A quick search of the CDC Web site didn't turn up any statistics along those lines, so I still have to confirm that. Even if it's the case, the massive beef recalls in 2007 and 2008 really did, in my mind, underscore that there are some serious shortcomings in the beef safety net.

Given the points above about significant "vacancies and shortages" among beef processing plant inspectors -- a far cry from Mr. Henning's "closely inspected" -- would it be safe to say there might be many more recalls if there were an adequate number of inspectors? What do you think?

It's a Message, Mr. President

Really, I think it is. It's the food gods saying, (cue James Earl Jones -like voice):

"President Obama, after you deal with this whole economic meltdown -- good luck with that, BTW -- you must turn your attention to the safety and sustainability of the food system. Pick a food czar, if you must, but DO something, soon."

'Cause, you know, like, there's this whole one of the largest food product recalls in history thing. A few people are dead, a bunch more sick, including some pretty young kids...

More than 500 people have gotten sick in the outbreak and at least eight may have died as a result of salmonella infection. More than 400 products have already been recalled. The plant has stopped all production.

And there's more. All those cheap-a@# food products all loaded up with high fructose corn syrup. Well, turns out some of them have just a wee bit o' mercury in them.

Mercury was found in nearly 50 percent of tested samples of commercial
high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), according to a new article published today in the scientific journal, Environmental Health. A separate study by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) detected mercury in nearly one-third of 55 popular brandname food and beverage products where HFCS is the first or second highest labeled ingredient—including products by Quaker, Hershey’s, Kraft and Smucker’s.

The ironic thing, of course, is that the high-fructose corn syrup industry, has launched this ad campaign, The Truth about High Fructose Corn Syrup, that says, "HCFS is nutritionally the same as sugar" and "the FDA says HCFS is safe for use in food." Ringing endorsement, indeed!

Of course, the folks behind the campaign rushed out a remarkably brief response to a study that just called into question the safety of their product.

“This study appears to be based on outdated information of dubious significance. Our industry has used mercury-free versions of the two re-agents mentioned in the study, hydrochloric acid and caustic soda, for several years. (emphasis added) These mercury-free re-agents perform important functions, including adjusting pH balances,” stated Audrae Erickson, President, Corn Refiners Association.

For several years? Really? So, up until a few years ago, some little kid whose mom was plugging him with instant oatmeal for breakfast every morning... he's potentially a candidate for a little brain damage down the road. Thems the breaks, I guess. But that same kid today, he's only a candidate for a little bout o' diabetes.

So, yes, President Obama, it's time to get serious about food safety. Oh, and about factory farms, more money for organics and (real) family farms, better nutrition in schools...

What to Think in a Situation Like This?

I have professed my undying love for Lucy's banh mi. But I'm not sure how to react to this?

Mr. Cole said county health inspectors can post a yellow "Consumer Alert" decal for repeated, uncorrected critical food safety violations. Restaurants have 10 days to solve the problems or they could be shut down, he said.

Last year, three such alerts were issued among some 7,500 food facilities in the county, which includes establishments such as caterers, mobile vendors and grocery store deli counters. So far this year, there have been four alerts: at The New Oriental Wok in Lawrenceville; Plum Convenience Store in Plum; My Ngoc, Strip District; and Moby Fish and Chicken, Downtown. All four alerts have been lifted.

The restaurant highlighted in bold text above is the restaurant outside of which Lucy makes and sells her delectable banh mi. Now, in a sense, I could be reassured, because Lucy does most of her work outside of the restaurant: the chicken is on the grill, the jalapenos and red onions and cilantro and carrots are in small plastic containers, the baguettes come out of a small plastic bag just behind her, etc.

How much of the prep work goes on in the inside kitchen that had the little problem with the "uncorrected critical safety violations" I don't know. For now, I'm going to give Lucy the benefit of the doubt, because those sandwiches are one of the great joys in my life (whether that's a sad statement, I'll leave others to judge). But, if for some reason that ever changes, at least I've got Reyna's and Chicken Latino to always fall back on.