"None of the producer witnesses at the hearing today would support the Food Safety Enhancement Act as it is written," said Rep. Bob Goodlatte (VA-6). "It is clear that members of the committee and our witnesses are concerned about the new authority the bill gives FDA to regulate on the farm production practices. The notion that FDA can dictate to farmers in every region of the country, growing and producing a vast array of crops and livestock for a range of markets, is irrational. I will continue to work with my colleagues to improve this food safety legislation."
Written testimony provided by the witnesses is available on the Committee website: http://agriculture.house.gov/hearings/index.html.
A full transcript of the hearing will be posted on the Committee website at a later date.

From the Press Release
issued by the Committee on Agriculture
July 16

9:53 AM
July 17, 09


1
Statement of

Nicholas Maravell, Maryland Organic Farmer

On the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009 (HR2749)

Before the U.S. House of Representatives

Committee on Agriculture

July 16, 2009


Mr. Peterson, Mr. Lucas, and Members of the Committee, I am Nick Maravell, an
organic farmer for the past 30 years.

I appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony on HR 2749 regarding food
safety to an Agriculture Committee.

I own and operate Nick’s Organic Farm, located in Montgomery and Frederick
Counties, Maryland. I have 170 acres in production.

I am a strong supporter of food safety, and in all my years of organic production
and on-farm processing, I have never had a food safety issue or problem arise. I
would like to offer a few observations and recommendations which I believe
should shape the House member’s thinking regarding changes to the food safety
policy contained in HR 2749, especially with regard to organic, sustainable, and
family sized operations and on farm value added processing.

We raise grass fed Angus beef, pastured chickens and turkeys, and free range
eggs. We grow and sell various types of mixed hays, and we maintain different
types of pastures. We produce field corn, soybeans, barley, rye grain, and hairy
vetch. We grow fresh edible vegetable soybeans.

We operate a diversified and integrated farm, raising several types of crops and
types of animals together. As an ecologically based operation, we rely on crop
and animal diversity, and longer and more varied crop rotations, to build a
farming system that stands up to the test in good times and bad, while
maintaining or improving the quality of our soil and environment. We are not
highly concentrated in one product, such as beef or dairy, or in two or three main
cash crops. Our diversity allows us to design a system where the parts work well
together and require little re-direction once the system is established.

Our marketing strategy must complement our production diversity. Given our
small size and our varied product mix, we must add value on-farm to be
2
economically viable. We do this by making the products organic, by selling about
90% directly to the final user, either a consumer or another farm, and by on-farm
processing. We process our own organic chickens and turkeys, pack our eggs
and vegetable soybeans, condition organic seed, and grind our grains into
poultry feed. Our beef is processed off the farm under USDA inspection. In most
cases, we are only one step down from the final consumer. This direct personal
marketing relationship allows us to develop trust with our customers through
accountability and traceability. The customer has no doubt about where to find
accurate information about our operation or products.

Observations on Food Safety Provisions in HR 2749

What concerns me most about this bill is that it could be perilously close to
making our Nation’s food safety more difficult to achieve in the long run. While
the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009 will have some positive impacts on
the safety of our Nation’s food supply, it will also have some unintended
consequences. In my opinion as a farmer, this legislation needs more refinement
before going forward. I do not make this statement lightly or out of self-interest,
but out of deep concern for the ultimate safety and security of our country’s food
supply.

Over the last 30 years, I have seen tremendous growth and vitality in small and
diversified farms, in on-farm value added processing, and in decentralized direct
to consumer marketing channels. Growth of farmers markets, community
supported agriculture (CSAs), the Buy Local and Slow Food movements, and the
expansion of organic and sustainable food and farming practices have given the
consumer many choices. None of the growth areas, especially those direct-to-
consumer areas, have been associated with major food safety issues. Part of
the reason for this safety record has to do with the approaches they take to
producing, processing, and marketing food. These approaches represent
innovations and alternatives to the mainstream food chain because, at the core,
they have already implemented transparency and connection between the
producer and the final consumer. As long as they provide safe food, these
approaches should be given incentives, not barriers, to continue their growth by
adding new entrepreneurs and expanding existing operations.

To the extent that this bill does not recognize and encourage the diversity in our
food system, to the extent this bill economically favors further industry
consolidation and centralization because smaller more diverse operations can
not efficiently meet the added regulatory costs and burdens, then our food supply
becomes more susceptible to large shocks—whether from unintended
contamination or from bioterrorism.

In my case, as a certified organic grower and on-farm processor, I already meet
the major concerns raised in this bill. To have to meet them again through an
additional program would be cost and time prohibitive. I have attached a detailed
3
analysis prepared by the Organic Trade Association which shows the food safety
aspects of the USDA organic certification program that are already in place.


Fees and Registration

Another of my concerns with this bill is that it proposes to legislate a “one size fits
all” solution to food safety. The flat $500 registration fee structure is one good
example of this approach. For larger corporate facilities, this fee may be
insignificant. For modest family sized operations that may conduct only minimal
and occasional processing, the cost and the ensuing paperwork are very
burdensome. Estimates indicate the vast majority of fees to be generated under
this bill would come from facilities with gross sales of under $1 million, and yet
the vast volume of food with potential safety weaknesses is concentrated in
operations generating more than $1 million in sales. If the Committee can
determine that this situation is true, then smaller operators are being asked to
disproportionately pay for the monitoring of larger operations. This is
fundamentally unfair. I repeat, fundamentally unfair. My recommendation is to
charge no registration fees for operations with sales less that $500,000, to
charge a $250 fee for facilities with sales between $500,000 and $1million, and
to charge appropriately scaled fees for facilities with sales of over 1$ million.

In my case, I already pay modest fees and am already registered for most
aspects of my food production and on-farm processing operations with the
Maryland Agriculture and Maryland Health Departments and with the Federal
level through my USDA organic certification program. Again, treating all
operations as “one size fits all” ignores other state and Federal programs already
in place and leads to potentially unnecessary costs and paperwork burden. I
recommend the Secretary of HHS, with explicit coordination with the USDA
Secretary, be directed to take into account fees already paid and data already
collected to accomplish the purposes of registration and data collection wherever
feasible.

Exemptions

In an attempt to make policy appropriate to the type and scale of food production
and processing activity, the bill provides for some exemptions, particularly for
farms that meet certain conditions and for livestock programs administered by
USDA. I know the exemption provisions rely on the definitions of “facility”
contained in the Bioterrorism Act of 2002 and regulations at 21CFR1.226 and
227. I also know that, in at least one instance, a Federal court has interpreted
the definition of food to apply to livestock, creating a fuzzy line between USDA
and FDA program jurisdiction. I am not sure what aspects of my farm production
and on-farm processing will be exempt from Sec. 414-Maintenance and
Inspection of Records (including Tracing System for Food); Sec. 415-Registration
of Food Facilities; Sec. 418-Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based Preventative
4
Controls; Sec. 418A-Food Safety Plan (and associated compliance with Sec.
419-Performance Standards). I recommend that the language of this bill make
all the exemptions explicit so that farmers and processors know what exactly to
expect. I further recommend that this bill state explicitly that the definition of
“food” in the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) does not apply to livestock.
This latter recommendation is made notwithstanding the jurisdictional division
already contained in the FDCA and this bill regarding USDA’s livestock
inspection programs.

Explicit Coordination with USDA

As a farmer, I am concerned that the bill does not seem to utilize the expertise of
other agencies, especially the USDA. Vast new authority is given to the
Secretary of HHS regarding areas in which USDA has relevant expertise:

Sec. 403 (i)- Quarantine of Geographic Location
Sec. 414(c)-Tracing System for Food
Sec. 419A-Safety Standards for Produce and Certain other Raw Agricultural
Commodities

I recommend that the bill specify that the Secretary of HHS explicitly coordinate
policy in these areas with the Secretary of USDA.

Safety Standards

I strongly endorse the language in 419A(b)(7), (8) and (9) which permits
flexibility, coordination, and could prevent duplicative efforts by i) recognizing the
special impacts on small-scale and diversified farms, wildlife habitat, and organic
production methods, ii) allowing coordination for education and training with other
entities that have experience working directly with farmers, and iii) allowing the
HHS Secretary to recognize other publicly available procedures and practices to
implement safety standards. I would recommend adding the words “direct farmer
to consumer distribution channels” to the impacts listed in paragraph (7). If
combined with explicit coordination with the USDA Secretary, these provisions
would help ensure small scale, diversified and organic producers would be able
to continue their practices in a safe, economical, and responsible manner.


OTHER TESTIMONIES

END of HIS REMARKS...

Mr. Bob Reinhard, Director of Food Safety for Sara Lee, and Chairman, Technical and Regulatory Committee, of the National Turkey Federation, Downers Grove, Illinois
http://agriculture.house.gov/testimony/111/h071609/Reinhard.pdf

http://agriculture.house.gov/hearings/statements.html


The opportunity for Congress to pass significant food safety legislation rarely comes
along. It is NTF’s position that with an opportunity like what is presented; legislation should
give USDA and FDA additional tools to collaborate with industry, consumers, academia and all
other stakeholders to prevent food safety problems from occurring in the first place. Before
adding new regulations, we strongly encourage this Committee and all Members of Congress
consider whether legislation provides measurable public health outcomes.
In closing, it should be reiterated that the U.S. meat and poultry supply is one of the
safest in the world. However, the turkey industry recognizes changes could and should be made
to further enhance confidence in the consuming public. As the food safety reform debate moves
to the forefront of the congressional agenda, any changes that are enacted should ensure
demonstrable improvements in food safety and that a measurable public health outcome is
achieved.
Mr. Chairman and other members of the committee, again, let me thank you for allowing
the National Turkey Federation the opportunity to provide this testimony today. The number one
goal of the U.S. turkey industry is to provide safe, wholesome, nutritious, quality products at an
affordable cost to our customers. Thank you very much and I will be happy to answer any
questions.






Thursday July 16 -10:00 a.m.
1300 Longworth House Office Building
Full Committee – Public Hearing
RE: To review current issues in food safety


Panel I

Mr. Larry Wooten, President, North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation, on behalf of American Farm Bureau Federation, Raleigh, North Carolina
Mr. J. Patrick Boyle, President, American Meat Institute, Washington, D.C.
Ms. Carol Tucker-Foreman, Distinguished Fellow, The Food Policy Institute, Consumer Federation of America, Washington, D.C.
Sam Ives, DVM, Ph.D., Director of Veterinary Services and Associate Director of Research, Cactus Feeders, Ltd., on behalf of National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, Amarillo, Texas
Mr. Kent Peppler, President, Rocky Mountain Farmers Union, on behalf of National Farmers Union, Mead, Colorado
Mr. Bob Reinhard, Director of Food Safety for Sara Lee, and Chairman, Technical and Regulatory Committee, of the National Turkey Federation, Downers Grove, Illinois
Mr. Nicholas Maravell, Owner and Operator, Nick’s Organic Farm, LLC, Potomac, Maryland
Mr. Drew McDonald, Vice President National Quality Systems, Taylor Farms, Inc.
Panel II

Mr. Jerold Mande, Deputy Under Secretary for Food Safety, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Ms. Cindy Smith, Acting Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. (no opening statement)
Mr. Mike Taylor, Senior Advisor to the Commissioner, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, Maryland


 

Popularity:   message viewed 1527 times
URL:   http://www.curezone.org/blogs/fm.asp?i=1457724

<< Return to the standard message view

Page generated on: 11/22/2024 7:24:50 AM in Dallas, Texas
www.curezone.org