|
More Action needed Regarding Food Safety Bills
More Action needed Regarding Food Safety Bills
Date: 9/24/2010 2:12:00 PM ( 14 y ) ... viewed 25598 times
Senate: Please Do Not Rush S.3767 to a Vote
Instead, Adopt the Food Freedom Amendment!
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=4878
ANOTHER PETITION I JUST SIGNED
4 pm
Septmber 24, 2010
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=4878
S 510 may be apparently dead,
but other Food Safety Bills that would harm
small farmers are still before the Judiciary committee
and need to be amended.
Please go to the link above
and sign this lettter.
Add your own comments
as I did;
12:12 pm
September 24, 2010
DEATH OF A SMALL FARM
BARRY LOGAN CLIPS.
http://curezone.com/blogs/fm.asp?i=1692198
This is the writing on the wall.
He is shutting down because he cannot
exist with so much regulation.
Regulations will increase with the passage
of Food Safety Laws. They do not
give enough attention to t heir impact on small
farms.
http://curezone.com/blogs/fm.asp?i=1692198
IS IT REALLY WIDE TO GIVE MORE REGULATORY POWER
TO THE FDA NOW?
HISTORIC NOTE
In order for the FDA to determine if Monsanto's growth hormones were safe or not, Monsanto was required to submit a scientific report on that topic. Margaret Miller, one of Monsanto's researchers put the report together. Shortly before the report submission, Miller left Monsanto and was hired by the FDA. Her first job for the FDA was to determine whether or not to approve the report she wrote for Monsanto. In short, Monsanto approved its own report. Assisting Miller was another former Monsanto researcher, Susan Sechen. Deciding whether or not rBGH-derived milk should be labeled fell under the jurisdiction of another FDA official, Michael Taylor, who previously worked as a lawyer for Monsanto.
http://www.purefood.org/monlink.html
FOR MORE ON FDA GO HERE
Can we afford to pass S-510, FDA on the Farm?
http://curezone.com/blogs/fm.asp?i=1693251
I FOUND THIS THE EASIEST WAY
TO REACH THE LEGISLATORS
LETTER THROUGH DOWNSIZE DC
https://secure.downsizedc.org/etp/campaigns/111
I registered. I trust that it is good to register
with this organization.
CONGRESS.ORG:
This I found more cumbersome.
A WAY TO CALL YOUR SENATOR
It's easy to call:
Go to Congress.org and type in your zip code. Click on your Senator'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 Senator's office: 202-224-3121.
Once connected ask to speak to the legislative staff person responsible for agriculture If they are unavailable leave a voice mail message. Be sure to include your name and phone number.
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/congdir.tt
SENATOR TOM COBURN M.D.
opposed S-510.
I want to support him. He stopped SB 510 from passing
September 16. This is a very controversial bill.
It should not be slipped though.
It is deceptive. It looks like it is going to help
improve Food Safety. Please look at his comments
about why he opposes it.
http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/rightnow?ContentRecord_id=8df5cb89-...
Burdensome New Regulations
There are 225 pages of new regulations, many of which are problematic. While some regulations are potentially onerous, but perhaps reasonable – such as requiring every facility to have a scientifically-based, but very flexible, food safety plan—others give FDA sweeping authority with potentially significant consequences.
While it is hard to pull out just 1 or 2 regulations in the bill that make the entire thing unpalatable, on the whole this bill represents a weighty new regulatory structure on the food industry that will be particularly difficult for small producers and farms to comply with (with little evidence it will make food safer). The following regulations are perhaps the most troubling:
• Performance standards. The bill gives the Secretary the authority to “issue contaminant-specific and science-based guidance documents, action levels, or regulations.” The way the bill is written the authority is extremely broad and could be used by FDA to issue very specific and onerous regulations on food facilities, without even the normal rule-making and guidance process FDA food regulations normally go through.
• Traceability. FDA is required to establish a “product tracing system within the FDA” based and develop additional recordkeeping requirements for foods determined to be “high risk.” The House legislation includes “full pedigree” traceback which puts FDA in charge of tracing the entire supply chain. The final bill requires the FDA to do this for high-risk foods, and while there are some limitations on FDA, anything further than the “one-up-one-back” requirement in the bioterrorism law will be very onerous on industry.
• Standards for produce safety. For produce, this bill gives FDA the authority to create commodity-specific safety standards for produce. Instead of trusting industry and the free-market, this provision implies that complying with government standards is the best way to keep consumers safe. A lot of the produce industry lobbied for these standards to provide “consumer confidence” after the jalapeno and tomato scare, but federal regulations could particularly adversely impact small providers.
Other regulations in this bill are overly punitive and could set up an adverse relationship with industry. They include:
• Administrative Detention of Food. The bill lowers the threshold for detaining articles of food to “adulterated or misbranded.” The threshold is currently higher for a reason—administrative detention is an authority that should only be used when there is clear, imminent danger.
EXCERPT ABOVE FROM DR COBURN, Senator from OKLAHOMA
ARE YOU SURE WE CAN AFFORD
TO PASS S-510, THE FOOD SAFETY MODERNIZATION ACT?????
S-510 increases/ gives FDA rule on the Farm.
Add This Entry To Your CureZone Favorites! Print this page
Email this page
 Alert Webmaster
|
