BTW, I am sending this out there asap, and if you want back up on my statements, you will need to download the newest version of the bill from thomas or govtrack and read my articles on
http://www.newswithviews.com.
I’m in a hurry, so please forgive my failure to give you the massively easy button. Here’s the switchboard number for the senate:
(202) 224-3121

Thanks!

Doreen

Henwhisperer adds:
Earlier this morning,
DownsizeDC
https://secure.downsizedc.org/etp/campaigns/111
s
ent out an alert regarding S510. They make sending letters easy.



New Publication: A Sustainable Agriculture Perspective on Food Safety
November 11th, 2010
On Thursday, November 11, the NSAC Food Safety Task Force released a new paper, “A Sustainable Agriculture Perspective on Food Safety,” in anticipation of the upcoming debate and vote on the Food Safety Modernization Act (S.510) when Congress returns next week and looking ahead to more food safety rules and activities at USDA and FDA in the next few years that will have significant impact on farmers.

The paper offers sixteen guiding principles for achieving sustainable, safe, and healthy food systems, which emphasize that while risk can never be entirely eliminated, minimizing risk begins on the farm and must continue through every step until it reaches the fork.

“All farms, farmers, and farm staff, from the owners to the most transient farm helpers, have a role in producing safe food,” the authors assert, but “public health requires awareness and effort from each of us, even in our own kitchens.”

Several of the Task Force’s tenets address the food safety regulations proposed in S.510. The authors challenge the relevance of HACCP management system used in food processing facilities for small farms, where there are few uniform ‘control points,’ rebut consumer groups’ claims that certain raw foods are inherently risky, and underscore the harm that inappropriate, overreaching regulations may impose on family farmers.

One of the tenets speaks to the need for the acceptance and application of sound, proven sustainable farming and conservation systems rather than single-minded pursuit of traditional “search and destroy” approaches to farming.

“We commit to proactively working with farmers and all players in local and regional food systems to reduce the risk not only of pathogenic outbreaks, but of other risks to the environment and our health, while upholding the quality, freshness and transparency that consumers deserve,” the authors conclude.


ADDED
3:33 am
November 13, 2010


http://sustainableagriculture.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Sustainable-Food...


A Sustainable Agriculture Perspective on Food Safety
Released: November 11, 2010
What makes food safe? Or, for that matter, nutritious, or enjoyable? Such questions acknowledge the many
inherent risks that compromise the availability, diversity, quality, wholesomeness, cleanliness, and
affordability of food, making it less safe, secure, or sustainable.
We enter this conversation as partners in the rapidly growing constituency of local and regional food
systems across the United States. We are farmers and farm and food-related businesses of many shapes and
sizes, and organizations that represent them and work with them, committed to providing the safest food
possible without increasing the potential for adverse unintended consequences. We see food safety in the
context of many other risks to our shared food systems.
As citizens and as stakeholders, our commitment to food safety is informed by our concerns about:
• The long-term loss of topsoil, species diversity, natural resources, opportunity for farms and rural
communities, and choices for consumers
• The public health consequences of industrial chemical and pharmaceutical use on and off farms
• The long-term effects of implementing inadequately tested and controlled technology
• The concentration of wealth, power, and control of production in the hands of fewer and fewer
players in the food system
• Private ownership and patenting of seeds and other production technologies
• A widening gap in the connection between many citizens and the sources of their food
• Instances in which farmers are disregarded or villified, in particular by other farmers
• The measurable but unpredictable impacts of the industrial model applied to agriculture
We believe that many answers to these concerns and to general food safety risks can be found in holistic
approaches and ‘bigger picture’ solutions. We believe that everything is connected, and that as a
consequence our global food system affects family farmers, communities and diverse species of plants and
animals all across the planet. We claim our place at the table in every current and future discussion of these
and other emerging issues involving our food system, its health and impacts.
We assert that our observations and sensibilities are economically, culturally and socially relevant, and accept
responsibility to support a process of dialogue in which all viewpoints are respected and
considered, including especially ‘minority’ viewpoints. We expect discussion to reflect a commitment to
what's best for everyone, not to simply reflect the interests of the rich and powerful.
In this light, we support:
• A concerted and cooperative effort from all players, with renewed emphasis on consumer
involvement and shared responsibility
• Significant training, outreach and support for implementation of proven best practices including
understanding of on farm risks and control methods
• Responsive local, state and federal governments at levels appropriate to the level of risk
• A strong scientific lens that embraces holistic, integrated and contextual approaches, as opposed to
a narrow view that only relies on reductionist thinking or worshipful assumptions about science and
the industrial food model in general
We commit to working proactively with farmers and all players in local and regional food systems to reduce
the risk not only of pathogenic outbreaks, but of other risks to the environment and our health, while
upholding the quality, freshness and transparency that consumers deserve. We offer the following guiding
principles for achieving safe and healthy food systems.
Sixteen Food Safety Tenets for Sustainable and Healthy Food Systems
Food safety is just the tip of the iceberg of true good agricultural practices. Before us are critical questions
about how to feed a growing population with healthy, safe, fresh and affordable food on dwindling
resources while improving quality of life, the environment, opportunities for farmers, and choice for
consumers. Will sustainability be a market advantage or a precompetitive expectation of all foods and
farming systems? What minimum standards of sustainability and safety will be acceptable in order for a
product to enter the marketplace? How will these standards be assured? What are the relative roles of
government and of private, voluntary initiatives? These conversations are ongoing and will continue for
many years. The following principles with regard to food safety reflect the thinking of local/regional food
system participants from across the United States:
1. Food safety is noncompetitive and transparent. Everyone who lifts a fork has a right to safe and
healthy food, just as they have a right to choose foods based on the qualities most important to
them. ‘Food safety’ should not be a competitive marketing food-trait, lest the most vulnerable
people end up with access to only the least safe food, or simply fewer choices. Every person has a
right to expect the safest possible food, and a right to absolute transparency about its production
processes, no matter what they can afford to pay for it. Completely open, public information about
what makes a food ‘safe’ is not negotiable.
2. Effective food safety strategies must be global in reach and effectiveness. ‘Think globally,
Act locally’ means that we are all connected, and the consequences of any strategy or intervention
must be considered in the context of a global network of relationships. Threats to food safety in
any given locale can originate globally. Likewise, the livelihoods of farmers all over the world can be
threatened as a result of ill-considered action in any particular locale, region, or nation.
3. Assessment and reduction of risk is at the core of assuring food safety, at every level. All
participants in agriculture must be effective assessors and managers of risk. This is made possible
through training, education and empowerment of all farmers and farm workers to understand the
risks that can enter the process at critical points existing in their operations.
4. Total elimination of risk may be an idealized goal, but is unachievable -- food safety
requires constant vigilance and continual improvement. Statements about “zero tolerance”
make good public relations copy but are a distraction from the real work of minimizing risk. The
changing and interactive nature of microbial pathogens, farm chemicals and other residues of
industrial production, coupled with changing human immune tolerances, make grandstanding over
‘zero tolerance’ and ‘eliminating risk’ unrealistic and misinformed. Eradication of pathogens is a
scientifically impossible goal, the pursuit of which often sacrifices localized, mid-scale processing
capacity. Effective minimization of risk is a more appropriate expectation as compared to the false
hope promised by zero-tolerance strategies.
5. No raw food product is inherently risky in and of itself. Risk is an equation with many
variables, including the method and manner of production, handling, processing, distribution,
delivery and preparation. There is no ‘dirty dozen’ with respect to food. Just because a particular
preparation of a crop might be risky (e.g. bagged salads), that does not mean that all production of
that crop is risky. The life cycle of a food product, how it is treated throughout all of the stages
from production to consumption, is the prime driver of the level of risk that product may carry
forward to the end consumer.
6. Concentration in and of itself carries tremendous risk. Food processing and preparation is
often done in concentrated facilities, sometimes several days, weeks or months prior to a “use-by
date.” Food is then shipped all around the nation and the planet. The risks inherently associated
with this far-reaching chain of activities have not been adequately explored, contributing to the
tendency to pass responsibility back to farms and farmers. The consequences of concentration and
global distribution need to be fully explored and integrated into risk assessment and enforceable
food safety best practices.
7. Food safety begins at the farm, on every farm. All farms, farmers, and farm staff, from the
owners to the most transient farm helpers, have a role in producing safe food. Respect for farmers
and concerns of farm workers is a critical foundation of any food system, and is essential to
building and maintaining customer confidence in our products.
8. We are all responsible. Along the paths from the farms to individual kitchens, food can change
hands, change ownership and form many times. At every turn, risks are introduced that far exceed
those resulting from most on-farm activities. Public health requires awareness and effort from each
of us, even in our own kitchens. Ultimate vigilance at the farm will not demonstrably reduce risk
further along the supply chain. Efforts to unnecessarily push concerns back to the farm often hurt
farmers and do little to assure food safety.
9. We cannot test our way to acceptable food safety. Testing along the chain of food production
and distribution yields data necessary for the understanding and abatement of systemic risks. Data
are needed from many critical points along the food chain to support scientific inquiry, continuous
improvement and better practices. However, over-emphasis on testing disproportionately burdens
smaller producers and processors while yielding only marginal results. In an equitable food system,
testing is not a “cost of doing business,” but a public health requirement, and should be funded and
administered in a way that does not unduly increase the negative impact on smaller operations.
10. Effective policies and practices are rooted in science and proven systems of production.
An open, ongoing and transparent scientific effort to understand risks and alternative interventions
is needed. The reality of an ever-shifting landscape of microbial pathogens, in which new risks
emerge regularly, requires open-minded scientific inquiry and sharing of research on best practices.
Scientific concepts such as vegetative buffering, the effects of biological diversity, and the potential
for diverse, beneficial microbial populations to act against pathogenic microbes, deserve equal
consideration alongside traditional, reductionist, “search and destroy” approaches. In pursuing
evidence-based solutions, we cannot afford to leave any stone unturned or ignore the stones turned
over by any solid scientific effort.
11. Food safety includes chemical and physical hazards, in addition to food-borne pathogens.
While the major focus of food safety is often the reduction of health risks associated with microbial,
food-borne pathogens, solutions must also address physical hazards posed by chemicals, antibiotics,
and other processing and packaging residues. Though such hazards may have slower, longer-term
effects than microbes, they often pose more expansive threats and cannot be ignored in a
comprehensive food safety strategy.
12. HACCP as used in food processing facilities is not appropriate on farms. Although risk is
managed and reduced at critical control points, true HACCP is most valuable when applied to
controlled environments such as manufacturing plants. Farms are biological systems and have few
uniform ‘control points’ where HACCP can be relevant or effective. However, HACCP can provide
a valuable framework for systematic thinking in the development of any on-farm food safety plan,
and in risk management training programs.
13. Federal efforts to enforce minimum standards of food safety must be integrated and
respectful of state and local government stakeholders. Establishment and enforcement of
baseline standards, especially in areas of greatest known risk, is an important responsibility of
government. Federal, state and local agencies need to work together in a consistent fashion to tailor
enforcement that is appropriate and effective in light of local and regional realities, reinforcing a
multi-stakeholder process of continuous improvement.
14. Government intervention alone cannot achieve absolute protection of public health. Unless
we are to cede to our government unlimited resources along with abdication of our civil liberties
and freedom of choice, government entities cannot guarantee safe food by themselves. Support of
a democratic, small-business-friendly food system will require many other effective layers of ongoing
activity and cooperation in addition to government intervention. The role of government regulation
should be limited to those loci of risk that are most universally understood and far-reaching in
impact.
15. Overextended regulation and intervention will harm all players in the food system. Adding
disproportionate expenses to farms and food producers that already depend on slim margins will
reduce opportunity and create barriers to entry for producers of all scales. Overextended
regulations will undermine private and voluntary systems of training and continuous improvement,
and will undermine any sense of “shared responsibility” among all food-system players, ultimately
harming the public the regulations purport to protect.
16. A healthy societal attitude toward risk is essential to understanding and achieving a safe,
secure, and sustainable food supply. It is in the very nature of risk that it can never be
eliminated altogether and often increases in unintended places when reduced in others. The many
routine risks in daily life far exceed those associated with ingestion of any food or encounter with
our modern food system. This does not excuse any actor from responsibility to do the best possible
job in bringing safe food to the public. However, it serves as a reminder that the cost-benefit ratio
can easily turn against public well-being and must be closely observed. Sustainability is a progressive
attitude affecting not only the production, processing, and marketing of food, but also its
consumption and enjoyment. Such an attitude would suggest that the reality of “safe, clean food”
exists largely in the increasingly educated preferences – and pocketbooks – of the beholders.


MY LINKS OF INTEREST


LINKS

CHEWING ON FOOD SAFETY:
A NATIONAL CONVERSATION IS NEEDED
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lesliex/chewing-on-food-safety-a-_b_750967.html


CHEWING ON FOOD SAFETY:
LET'S NOT LEAVE THE FUTURE OF REAL FOOD SAFETY
TO THE HANDS OF 100 SENATORS.

Sign and circulate this petition
http://food.change.org/petitions/view/chewing_on_food_safety_a_national_conve...


DIALOGUE ON SCIENCE, ETHICS, AND FOOD
ON FACEBOOK

Sign in to continue the Dialogue
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=348831351129


VISIT THE NEW PLANT YOUR DREAM
WEBSITE to support Beet Keeper Sponsors and Members
http://pr4progress.org/plantyourdream/?page_id=552


LISTEN TO LESLIE ON CHEWING ON FOOD SAFETY
PLANTING SEEDS FOR THE SUCCESS OF THIS ISSUE
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/purposefocusedu/2010/10/07/purpose-focused-alter...


OTHER WAYS AND APPROACHES
TO REACH SENATORS


REACH YOUR SENATOR AT THIS LINK
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm



FAKE FOOD PETITION
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/stop-s510--the-fake-food-safety-bill/



http://nonais.org/2010/11/12/s510-cloture-vote/


November 12, 2010
S.510 Cloture Vote
News — walterj 8:03 pm
I have heard and had confirmed that Senate Bill S 510 the “Food Safety Modernization Act” is due to go for a cloture vote next week. Cloture can be filibustered, and Senator Coburn of Oklahoma has previously stated that he would do just that….But he will need help.


NoNAIS.org

In a nutshell, S510 is effectively NAIS for everything. It is a tremendous amount of additional enforcement (fines and penalties, license revocations,
further license requirements, control over processes and harvest) are definite issues with the bill as it currently exists. However, not unlike the “Health Care” bill, they will have to pass this to see what it actually does.



BTW, I am sending this out there asap, and if you want back up on my statements, you will need to download the newest version of the bill from thomas or govtrack and read my articles on newswithviews.com. I’m in a hurry, so please forgive my failure to give you the massively easy button. Here’s the switchboard number for the senate:
(202) 224-3121

Just ask yourself when’s the last time the Feds gave highly expansive authority to an agency and it turned out to be good for freedom and good for the economy?

Thanks!

Doreen

Henwhisperer adds:
Earlier this morning,
DownsizeDC
https://secure.downsizedc.org/etp/campaigns/111
s
ent out an alert regarding S510. They make sending letters easy.


RELATED

FDA MONANTO CONNECTION?

http://www.standeyo.com/NEWS/09_Food_Water/090327.Monsanto.White.House.html




March 20, 2009
By Asher Miller
Post Carbon Institute

Apparently, President Obama is considering appointing Michael Taylor to head the new Food Safety Working Group. Who's Michael Taylor? From Food Politics (care of Jill Richardson):

Mr. Taylor is a lawyer who began his revolving door adventures as counsel to FDA. He then moved to King & Spalding, a private-sector law firm representing Monsanto, a leading agricultural biotechnology company. In 1991 he returned to the FDA as Deputy Commissioner for Policy, where he was part of the team that issued the agency's decidedly industry-friendly policy on food biotechnology and that approved the use of Monsanto's genetically engineered growth hormone in dairy cows. His questionable role in these decisions led to an investigation by the federal General Accounting Office, which eventually exonerated him of all conflict-of-interest charges. In 1994, Mr. Taylor moved to USDA to become administrator of its Food Safety and Inspection Service... After another stint in private legal practice with King & Spalding, Mr. Taylor again joined Monsanto as Vice President for Public Policy in 1998.


The man has moved in and out of roles at the federal government and Monsanto so many times he probably has whiplash.

So what's the big deal? (I'm not going to opine on Monsanto here, other than to say that I know quite a few people who think Monsanto is the most evil corporation in the world, and that's even after this AIG debacle.) Well, two things:

The first is that I find it puzzling, to put it lightly, that Obama would choose this guy to help ensure food safety. Here's what Taylor recently said:

FDA is in "bad shape" and the FSIS meat and poultry inspection system is "obsolete," Taylor said. "We're spending a lot of government money to do inspections that could be done by someone else," he said. "We need to complete the transformation of FSIS as a food safety agency, away from inspection to a science-based public health agency."


MY FAVORITE MICHAEL R TAYLOR QUOTE


7:59 PM
July 31, 09

MICHAEL TAYLOR
BEFORE the DENNIS KUCINICH
Hearing JULY 29:

"In addition, FDA is leading an effort
through the Codex Alimentarius Commission,
the international food safety standards body,
with support of the Food and Agriculture
Organization/World Health Organization,
to develop commodity-
specific annexes to the Codex hygienic code
for fresh fruit and vegetable production,
starting with an annex for fresh leafy
vegetables and herbs."
--Mr MICHAEL TAYLOR
Our Food Czar for the FDA
Senior Adviser to the Commissioner on food issues

The above quote is from the written testimony
of MICHAEL TAYLOR July 29 at the
REP DENNIS KUCINICH
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOMESTIC POLICY
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.


HERBS, TCM HERBS, AYURVEDIC HERBS
ILLEGAL IN EUROPE AS OF APRIL 2011
http://www.anh-usa.org/traditional-medicines-to-become-illegal-in-europe/




Print This Post
It sounds like a bad April Fool’s joke, but it’s not. On the first of April next year, thousands of products associated with traditional medicine will become illegal throughout the European Union.

April 1, 2011, is the date the Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive (THMPD) comes into force throughout Europe. Many herbal products—including those already sold safely as food supplements—will need to be registered under THMPD if they are to be made available. But registration involves a series of eligibility and technical challenges as well as prohibitive costs, so a large number of traditional medicines will be prevented from being registered. This is especially true if the medicines are made by smaller companies with low annual sales volumes—a fairly common occurrence with traditional medicines.


HEADS UP

http://www.anh-europe.org/files/100831-ANH-Benefyt-THMPD-position-paper.pdf



 

Popularity:   message viewed 20394 times
URL:   http://www.curezone.org/blogs/fm.asp?i=1723324

<< Return to the standard message view

Page generated on: 8/27/2024 11:21:35 PM in Dallas, Texas
www.curezone.org