U.S. government to criminalize organic farming? HR 875 and S 245, page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 7 times
Topic started on 8-3-2009 @ 12:05 AM by virgthevoice
my husband was on youtube (I've been avoiding it), and he found this video, which I will embed at the end of this post.

the video claims that organic farming is going to be criminalized in the U.S. via bills HR 875 and S 245..

HR 875 is the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009, introduced on February 4 and now "referred to the committee" - whatever that means. I'm Canadian and not totally familiar with the U.S. political system. You can read the entire bill here: HR 875

S 245 is the Food Safety Tracking and Improvement Act, introduced on February 12 and again is now "referred to the committee." You can read the entire text of the bill here: S 245

So, I can't find anything about banning or making organic farming criminal. Both bills seem to relate to foods produced (both foreign and domestic) for use by consumers and have nothing to do with private for-your-own family farming. The most commonly used terms referring to the foods that fall under the jurisdiction of these bills are those that have been adulterated or misbranded.

So... is this just another blown-out-of-proportion story (what is INN anyways, from which this video is supposed to have come?) ... or is there truth to this that I can't see??

Here's the video:




reply posted on 8-3-2009 @ 10:54 PM by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by virgthevoice




HR 875 is the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009, introduced on February 4 and now "referred to the committee" - whatever that means.

Introduced bills and resolutions first go to committees that deliberate, investigate, and revise them before they go to general debate. The majority of bills and resolutions never make it out of committee.

www.govtrack.us...
The good news is that most bills die in committee. Only a very small fraction ever make it out of committee to the floor for debate and a vote.No assignments have been made in the committee regarding this bill. That in itself means there is not much support for the bill in the committee, although it is possible that pressure may still be put on some, to take action. With all of the problems of a financial nature in the US and the world, I think this bill has little chance of seeing a floor vote.
I certainly hope that is the case.
If they passed this bill, and tried to shut down my backyard organic garden, they would have a real war on their hands. Human government pests are not allowed in my garden. Enough said.

[edit on 8-3-2009 by ProfEmeritus]



reply posted on 11-3-2009 @ 12:27 PM by crimvelvet
reply to post by ProfEmeritus


This is the tip of the iceberg and yes it does go straight to Codex Alimentarious. They started writing our food regulations in 1996.


July 1996: Major re-structuring of USDA food policies: Pathogen Reduction/Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) Systems rule, USDA HACCP rule
and where it came from:

1993 Published: International HACCP guidelines developed by the Codex Alimentarius, a joint Programme of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)and the World Health Organization (WHO). FAO org


This is the USDA's prep for these bills.
September, 1995, USDA's Food Safety & Inspection Service presented a 600-page document Farm-To-Table - control of every step in the food chain from production to home preparation. HACCp Alliance

For general background a must read., without it you can not understand the turth of what is happening.

A very good article by F. William Engdah who has studied trade issues since 1984. There are many others who back up his information. WTO and the politics of Big Ag

To Paraphrase the article:

The current state of affairs in World Agriculture goes back to IPC influence in the formation of the WTO, World Trade Organization and AoA, the Agreement on Agriculture. The WTO emasculated the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) an international agreement on the safe handling and treatment of GMOs. Instead of the usual trade treaties for the first time a world organization WTO, with tough sanction and enforcement powers, was formed. More important, decision making would be secret, with no oversight. The most vital issues of economic life on the planet were to be decided behind closed doors. [ IPC is the International Food and Agricultural Trade Policy Council or International Policy Council, for short.]

Under WTO rules, countries can challenge another’s laws. The case is heard by a tribunal of three trade bureaucrats (corporate lawyers). There is no conflict of interest rules binding them, and the names of the judges are kept secret. There is no rule that the judges of WTO respect any national laws, the three judges meet in secret and all court documents are confidential and cannot be published.

The actual author of the WTO AoA was Daniel Amstutz, a former Vice President of Cargill. He was appointed by US Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman, Member Emeritus of IPC and a former board member of a Monsanto subsidiary. The AoA has brought misery, indebtedness and bankruptcy to millions of farmers. It has caused thousands of farmer suicides and hundreds of consumers to fall ill.

“The Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures...Aims to ensure that governments DO NOT USE QUARANTINE AND FOOD SAFETY REQUIREMENTS as Unjustified trade barriers

The Agreement to Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) forbid member countries using domestic standards or testing, food safety laws, product standards, calling them an ‘unfair barrier to trade.’

Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) introduced intellectual property rules (patents) on plants, animals and seeds. This where Monsanto gained the power to patent seed and sue farmers. WTO also removed tariffs allowing dumping of heavily subsidized EU and USA grains on third world countries, big money for the grain traders.

Who controls WTO?

Almost never does someone ask ‘who really controls the WTO?’ Yet the question is of utmost importance for the future of global food security. The powerful private interests who control WTO agriculture policy prefer to remain in the background. The IPC was created in 1987 explicitly to drive home the GATT agriculture rules of WTO. A look at the IPC membership will explain what interests it represents.


The Chairman is Robert Thompson, former Assistant Secretary US Department of Agriculture and former Presidential economic adviser.
Also included in the IPC are Bernard Auxenfans, former chairman Monsanto France; Allen Andreas of ADM/Toepfer;
Andrew Burke, Bunge (US);
Dale Hathaway former USDA official and head IFPRI (US).
Other IPC members include Heinz Imhof, chairman of Syngenta (CH)
Rob Johnson of Cargill (US) and USDA Agriculture Policy Advisory Council;
Guy Legras (France) former EU Director General Agriculture,
Rolf Moehler (Germany) former EU Director General Agriculture
. Donald Nelson of Kraft Foods (US);
Joe O’Mara of USDA,
Hiroshi Shiraiwa of Mitsui & Co Japan;
Jim Starkey former US Trade Representative Assistant;
Hans Joehr, Nestle head of agriculture;
Jerry Steiner, Monsanto (US).
And Members Emeritus include Ann Veneman, herself a board member of a Monsanto subsidiary company before she became US Secretary of Agriculture for George W. Bush in 2001.

In effect the IPC is run by agribusiness giants including Cargill, Monsanto, Bunge, ADM, the very interests which benefit from the rules they drafted for WTO trade.

I have 30 or 40 pages of references backing this up


reply posted on 29-10-2009 @ 09:10 AM by wylee
The debate on food safety is heating up in Congress. Last Thursday, October 22, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions (HELP) held a hearing on S. 510, the Senate version of the draconian House food safety bill (H.R. 2749).

While FDA claimed that the bill only covers food in interstate commerce, the language of the bill would impose sweeping regulations on all farms and food processors. Meanwhile, S. 510 does not address the problems of uninspected imported foods or the contamination from feedlots.
We think this bill is too bad to be fixed and should be defeated!

ACTION TO TAKE:
1. Contact both of your U.S. Senators and ask them to vote NO on S.B. 510 because it will harm local and sustainable foods without fixing the real problems in the mainstream industrial food system.

For contact information, go to www.congress.org or call the Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121.

2. Also contact the Chair and Ranking Member of the HELP Committee:
Chairman Harkin, (p): 202-224-0767, (f): 202-224-5128
Senator Enzi, Ranking Member, (p): 202-224-6770

You will have the greatest impact by faxing a personal letter or visiting their district offices in-person. Next best is a phone call, followed by an email.

TALKING POINTS
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.

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 processing that source 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 enough for local food sources.

4. Relying on HACCP will harm small processors. S. 510 applies a complex and burdensome Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (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, with its requirements to develop and maintain extensive records, 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. While HACCP plans are suited for larger factories, 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. S. 510 calls 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.


reply posted on 22-4-2010 @ 07:28 PM by drew hempel
reply to post by wylee


www.familyfarmdefenders.org...


Rescue Local/Organic Farming in the Food Safety Bill! Urgent — Call Your Senator Today Next week, as early as Tuesday, April 13, the U.S. Senate is expected to vote on a sweeping overhaul of federal food safety law – S. 510. The House food safety bill passed last year (HR 2749) included several measures that threaten small-scale organic producers, including a registration fee of $500 and blanket application of complicated monitoring and traceability standards — regardless of one’s farm size. There’s no doubt that industrial agriculture needs better oversight. But, family-scale local and organic farms are probably the safest in the nation –they are part of the solution, not part of the problem — and need to be protected! Now is your chance, as a supporter of sustainable family farming, to help fix these problems! Senator John Tester (D-MT), a certified organic farmer himself, is proposing an amendment to S. 510 that would exempt small-scale farmers and food processors from the most burdensome regulations. We need your help TODAY, please call your U.S. Senators in support of these proposals. The vast majority of recent food safety scandals in the U.S. — E. coli on fresh spinach, melamine in dairy products, Salmonella in peanut butter — were all linked to industrial agribusiness practices, and these large-scale operations clearly warrant more federal food safety oversight and strict enforcement action. What is NOT needed is a “one-size-fits-all” approach that poses unfair costs and onerous reporting on local and organic farmers. Safer, healthier food options provided by local, organic, and sustainable farmers should not be punished for their responsible work with expensive and complicated new rules. These rules may make industrialized food production safer, but offer no real food safety gains to consumers of local and organic foods. Small-scale operations are already subject to adequate regulation by local and state agencies. Smaller farm size inherently poses less risk (they are almost always owner-operated), and direct marketing also offers consumers better quality food with more transparency and accountability — and easy traceability. Taking Action is Easy: Call your Senators today, and tell them that you support Senator Tester’s amendment to S. 510. To reach your state’s Senators, 1. Search his/her phone number online: www.senate.gov... 2. Or call the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121. Sample Talking Points: Specific talking points you can share with your Senators from Tester’s proposed amendment to S. 510 include: 1. With respect to the hazard analysis and risk-based preventive controls, add the following new section to Section 103: (l) EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN FACILITIES – This section shall not apply to a facility for a year if the average annual adjusted gross income of such facility for the previous three-year period was less than $500,000. 1. With respect to traceability, add the following new section to Section 204: (f) EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN FACILITIES – The traceback and recordkeeping requirements under this section shall not apply to a facility for a year if the adjusted gross income of such facility for the previous year was less than $500,000. 1. With respect to the produce standards, add the following new section to Section 105: (g) EXCEPTION FOR DIRECT MARKET FARMS – This section shall not apply to farms whose annual value of sales of food products directly to consumers, hotels, restaurants, or institutions exceeds the annual value of sales of food products to all other buyers. Thanks for your support of organic, local and sustainable farmers! To see the letter sent to the U.S. Senate which Family Farm Defenders signed (along with 80+ other groups) click here




We therefore urge you to support Senator Tester’s amendment to exempt small, local processing facilities from the bill’s hazard analysis and risk-based preventive controls requirements and traceability requirements. 1)With respect to the hazard analysis and risk-based preventive controls, add the following new section to Section 103: (l) EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN FACILITIES – This section shall not apply to a facility for a year if the average annual adjusted gross income of such facility for the previous three-year period was less than $500,000. 2)With respect to traceability, add the following new section to Section 204: 2(f) EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN FACILITIES – The traceback and recordkeeping requirements under this section shall not apply to a facility for a year if the adjusted gross income of such facility for the previous year was less than $500,000. FDA Produce Standards We also request that you consider an amendment to exempt direct-marketing farms from the FDA produce standards. With respect to the produce standards, we request that you add the following new section to Section 105: (g) EXEMPTION FOR DIRECT MARKET FARMS – This section shall not apply to farms whose annual value of sales of food products directly to consumers, hotels, restaurants, or institutions exceeds the annual value of sales of food products to all other buyers. Food safety is a priority for us all. We share the concerns that have led to this bill and appreciate Congress’s commitment to addressing these problems. Thank you for your consideration, and for your support of a safer, more sustainable food system and consumer access to healthy, local foods. For more information, contact Sara Kendall at 202-547-7040 or sara@worc.org, or Judith Mc Geary? at 512-243-9404 or Judith@Farma And Ranch Freedom?.org. Sincerely, National and Multi-State Organizations Acres USA Food Democracy Now! Adopt a Family Farm of America Freedom 21 Alliance for Natural Health – USA Local Harvest American Grassfed Association National Family Farm Coalition American Policy Center National Hmong American Farmers Appalachian Sustainable Development Natural Environmental Ecological Management Carolina Farm Stewardship Association Organic Consumers Association Center for Food Safety R-CALF USA Citizens for Health Real Food Campaign Constitutional Alliance Small Farmer’s Journal The Cornucopia Institute Small Farms Conservancy Family Farm Defenders Western Organization of Resource Councils Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance Weston A Price Foundation State and Local Organizations Arkansas Animal Producers Association Montana Cattlemen’s Association Bountiful Cities Project (NC) Montana Farmers Union Community Farm Alliance (KY) Nebraska Sustainable Agriculture Society Corvallis-Albany Farmer’s Markets (OR) North Missoula Community Development Corp. (MT) Dakota Rural Action Northern Plains Resource Council Dakota Resource Council Northwest Farmer to Farmer Exchange (OR) Edible Austin (TX) Oregon Rural Action Edible San Marcos (TX) Oregon Sustainable Agriculture Land Trust Empire State Family Farm Alliance (NY) Ozarks Property Rights Congress (MO) Idaho Rural Council Powder River Basin Resource Council (WY) Independent Cattlemen of Wyoming Presentation Peace & Justice Center (CA) Innovative Farmers of Ohio Raw Milk Association of Colorado Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement Rural Vermont Lane County Food Policy Council (OR) Salmon Valley Stewardship (ID) Maine Alternative Agriculture Association Sustainable Food Center (TX) Massachusetts Farm Bureau Federation Texas Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association Massachusetts Small Holders? Alliance Tuscaloosa Property Rights Alliance (AL) Michigan Land Trustees Virginia Independent Consumers and Farmers Assoc. Missouri Rural Crisis Center Western Colorado Congress Monroe/ La Crosse? County Farmers Union (WI) Winter Green (NC) Co-Ops Abundance Cooperative Market (NY) Kimberton Whole Foods (PA) Buffalo Mountain Food Cooperative (VT) Ocean Beach People’s Organic Food Co-op (CA) Chatham Marketplace (NC) Rising Tide Community Market (ME) City Market/ Onion River Co-op (VT) Spiral Natural Foods (MN) Common Ground Food Co-op (IL) Swarthmore Co-op (PA) Deep Roots Market (NC) Trillium Natural Foods Community Co-op (WI) French Broad Food Co-op (NC) Uncle Mindee’s Food The Good Food Co-op (MN) Upper Valley Food Co-op (VT) Good Harvest Market (WI) Yellowstone Community Cooperative (MT) Green Tree? Cooperative Grocery (MI) Willimantic Food Co-op (CT) Hungry Hollow Co-op (NY)


[edit on 22-4-2010 by drew hempel]

[edit on 22-4-2010 by drew hempel]


reply posted on 25-4-2010 @ 12:22 AM by Scarcer
Here is the letter I sent to my senators.

Dear Senators Cantwell and Murray,

I'm sending this message about S. 510: FDA Food Safety Modernization Act.

I've been researching and looking into various opinions and articles about S. 510 as well as comparing to my own understandings through work and those I associate with in the agriculture community.

Clearly besides all of the fear mongering, what I've found that does have merit is this bill is a "one size fit's all package" addressing to impose regulations and raise costs for farmers. Food born illnesses are more common to industrialized farms who have different practices than smaller community farms and organic growers.

So if you truly care about the state and countries economy, this bill needs to be turned down. This bill also is an attempt to place laws where I believe that the federal government has no jurisdiction. Either that, or I demand that Senator Tester’s proposed amendment be implemented into the bill.

Furthermore there is another issue that arises; giving more power to the FDA. The FDA currently needs to be reformed and change in function of leadership to eliminate it's negative track record and prevent special interests. Before new laws are implemented on food processing, laws already in place need to be second guessed. Especially nutritional standards which need to be raised to new thresholds to prevent chronic illnesses that are not immediately obvious in tests done on animals for "minimum thresholds;" who have organs that function differently than humans. An obvious example would be vitamin C, which most animals create their own, but humans do not; but legally I can not give medical advice to what I think such a threshold should be.

We are in economic turmoil, the last thing we need to do is raise costs for the population and experiment with new laws. Politicians are not technical experts, and this is an extremely technical subject; so please do not toy with something not understood, and please object this bill. Even if this bill was not to go into affect for 2 or 3 years, it would be ridiculous to vote for this, it's impossible to know what condition our country will be in.

Thankyou,
J.D.
Pages:     ^^TOP^^



The Zombie Apocalypse is Real! And it\'s Here Now!
  Posted 15 days ago with 86 member flags
While Americans keep arguing about Trayvon-Zimmerman
  Posted 8 days ago with 79 member flags
The Suspicious Death of MI6 Agent Gareth Williams..
  Posted 18 days ago with 77 member flags
Faked Moon Landing - Amazing Documentary
  Posted 10 days ago with 58 member flags
This is scary!
  Posted 15 days ago with 57 member flags