In all the furor over the healthcare bill, another critical piece of legislation has been largely ignored. I put out a warning a few months ago about the efforts to pass legislation applying draconian new regulations to food production and crushing small and organic farmers to the benefit of giant agrobusinesses. What was troubling in the two food regulation bills passed earlier this year (HR875 and HR759) has become truly terrifying now that those bills have been combined into a new and more comprehensive successor, the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009 (HR2749).
This bill has now been quickly rammed through the House of Representatives. When it failed to get the required two-thirds majority on Thursday a vote was taken to set aside the rules and it was passed with a bare majority. Democrat support was very strong, but most Republicans opposed the bill, presumably on the grounds of natural opposition to the expansion of government bureaucracy and power which it represents. It will now go on to the Senate where there will be another opportunity to stop it from becoming law.
Although this bill has been promoted as an effort to increase food safety, it fails to address the main source of past problems which have mostly occurred in large-scale industrial agriculture, not small farms or food producers. In the process it introduces harsh regulations which will devastate small and local farmers and food related businesses. The bill also increases the power and authority of the Food and Drug Administration which has already demonstrated itself to be incompetent and easily corrupted. Perhaps worst of all, it contains provisions for clearly unconstitutional violations of the basic rights of many citizens.
Some of the most serious problems in the bill include:
- • Warrantless searches of farms and food processing facilities and wholesale seizure and potential destruction of produce and livestock with nothing resembling probable cause or due process of law, in clear violation of the protection of property guaranteed in the 4th Amendment. The FDA will be able to go anywhere and search your home, your barn or your kitchen at whim, shut down your business and seize whatever it wants with no evidence.
- • A mandatory annual fee of $500 for any facility that "holds, processes, or manufactures food," a category defined so broadly that it would impact most of the small scale producers who sell things like cheese, bread, eggs and vegetables at farmers markets with a fee sufficiently high to shut many of them down.
- • Takes consumer protection and food safety regulation away from the states and concentrates it in the hands of federal bureaucrats at the FDA. Also includes unprecedented enforcement powers allowing the FDA to essentially declare martial law in areas where they suspect food contamination and shut down businesses and trasnportation, again with very broad wording and no regard to constitutional rights or due process. It also authorizes the FDA to dictate how various crops should be raised and processed, again entirely at the discretion of FDA bureaucrats who will now essentially be running your small farm or henhouse or kitchen-based jam canning operation. The power of the FDA will be massively expanded with little accountability.
- • A complex and expensive food tracking system which theoretically mandates that all food products be tagged at the point of origin and recorded throughout the distribution process, adding massive bureaucracy at every level of the process of producing, distributing and selling food with much of the associated expense on the backs of small businesses and farmers.
- • Severe criminal and civil penalties, including fines of up to $100,000 and 10 years in prison for each violation of an FDA rule. Spending her twilight years in the slammer and losing her house will sure teach Grammy not to leave the official FDA ingredients label off of the jams she sells at the farmers market.
Perhaps most troubling is that large industrial farmers and food product manufacturers are exempted from most of this draconian regulation, despite the fact that they are the ones responsible for the outbreaks of salmonella and e-coli contamination of meat and spinach and peanut butter which have provided the pretext for this legislative excess. At the same time, small farmers and food manufacturers who have a history of providing safe and healthy products will bear the heavy weight of regulation, fees and meddling from a huge new food bureaucracy.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Doug Hunter
I'm glad to see you're soldiering on Nalle, I've about given up hope on the people in this country. You can show how this is a boon for mega agribusiness weeding out competition, what effect it will have on small farmers, describe in detail how nothing, even communist countries where everything IS government regulation is safe.. accidents still happen. You can demonstrate the destruction of small business and trot out pages of statistics about the effect on our economy, our liberties, and it won't make a damn bit of different to the pea brained leftist entitled douchebags who now are the majority in this country.
They can counter the best laid logical argument with a simple one line emotional appeal. But what about the children's food! I think we should spare no expense on what goes into my body! Doesn't matter if they put 100,000 small farmers out of business, destroy the foundation of freedom and rights in this country and in the process create a bureacratic nightmare and police state becuase their precious little heart is in the right place, doing it for the children.
2 - Doug Hunter
Just some statistics for right wingers who are interested in that sort of thing. The evil, bad, horrible Bush/Republican initiated Salmonella scare of 2008 triggered 1329 cases and a whopping 1 death. Apparently, Salmonella has all the killing power of toe fungus or the common cold.
It's not something that rises to the level of massive new government regulation and bureacracy becuase of it's rarity and the fact that even with government intervention Salmonella will still exist in the food chain, people will still get sick, and people will die.
3 - roger nowosielski
I have a better idea, Dave. Let's just dismantle the FDA, the PUC, the EPA - all governmental agencies, in fact, or divest them of all their overseeing and regulatory powers and return to the good old days.
The Jungle by Upton Sinclair should serve as a blueprint for the economic recovery in this day and age - a new and brave beginning.
4 - Dave Nalle
Doug, I've had salmonella -- a natural risk of raising chickens. Not a big deal if you're under 70 and have an immune system.
Roger, you know damned well that I'm not against regulation when properly applied. But even you have to admit that the FDA has not done a good job for years, and expanding their powers when they ought to be undergoing review and reform is the wrong idea.
Dave
5 - Doug Hunter
"The Jungle by Upton Sinclair should serve as a blueprint for the economic recovery in this day and age"
If the world was such a bad place as Sinclair described, why did people need an socialist agitator to let them know about it? Was there something wrong with their own eyes and ears.
That's one of the amazing things about the modern world. News, the collection of oddities, in the world has become 'reality' while reality has been laughed off stage and become mere anecdotes (or the subject of a staged television show). Don't trust your own senses and experiences trust what the bureacrat or activists tells you.
6 - roger nowosielski
"If the world was such a bad place as Sinclair described, why did people need an socialist agitator to let them know about it? Was there something wrong with their own eyes and ears."
Yes, Doug. There is something wrong with "eyes and ears" because we can only judge in terms of the past. Part of being able to see more clearly is predicated on breaking with the past and raised expectations. So yes, sometimes you do need "the agitator" to open eyes and ears.
The different stages of the Industrial Revolution is a case in point. Raised expectations did contribute to alleviating some of the early excesses - whether through legislation or other reforms; it brought greater sensitivity into play (which also contributed, BTW, to the exaggerated picture of the impersonal forces of capitalism and many similar misconceptions). One way or another, it was responsible for the capitalist system adopting a more benign, friendlier face.
But if you want to return to the more brutal aspects of it, to its raw beginnings, welcome to it. I'm certain, however, that you don't, and that your remarks are merely reflection of an archaic mindset whereby free enterprise and government involvement loom as altogether separate moments of thought and define an unbridgeable dichotomy. "Socialism" may have been a scare word fifty years ago, but you're using it just the same - forgetting all the while that we can't recover the "idyllic" past.
Yes, the world has changed, and whether we like it or not, the old categories of thoughts have been rendered obsolete. The weakness of the conservative mindset is precisely not being able to face up to the ever-changing conditions. Get with it, Doug. I know you can be more creative than that.
7 - roger nowosielski
I realize, Dave, these agencies aren't doing their job. They need total revamping. And that ought to be one of the first things on the agenda of the hope and change candidate.
It is a disgrace.
8 - roger nowosielski
There's no explanation other than that they've becomes thoroughly politicized and infiltrated with corrupting influences. So yes, it is a farce.
9 - Dave Nalle
The FDA has certainly been devastated by political and financial influence. The board members are mostly former pharmaceutical industry executives and no one is holding them accountable.
And just to make a partisan point on The Jungle, the book did have an influence. It prompted a Republican president -- Teddy Roosevelt to promote and ultimately sign the first food industry regulation law.
Dave
10 - Jordan Richardson
Is there no limit to the fear-mongering going on here at BC Politics?
It seems each article and each comment these days is filled with such creative language to explain what are essentially the most basic of circumstances. This bill is described in this article as "terrifying" with the notion that our grandmothers are going to be tossed in the slammer for improperly labeling jam nicely included for extra points.
As per usual, Dave is perfectly clear on the facts when they support his argument and dismisses or purposely clouds the other side. This leads to the usual "rah rah rah" from those lurking on his own side of the pool, supported with statements of "we're all going to hell" or "grandma's gonna die in jail."
Don't you ever tire of this?
The truth about the bill is that it should be read and examined fairly and impartially. There are good points to the bill, including the fact that it makes it easier to determine where foodborne illnesses come from. Dave's "point" about foodborne illnesses not being a "big deal" if you're under 70 is just ridiculous and akin to saying "oh well, you won't die from it (maybe) so let's not spend that much money trying to help the situation." Puh-lease.
Dave also purposely muddles the use of "facility." Now the bill isn't particularly clear on the specifics, but Dave sure seems to think it is. The bill does more to mention what a facility is NOT (a facility is not a private kitchen or, interestingly, a restaurant, for instance), though, and I'd encourage any curious readers to look at the actual bill and not just on the biased interpretation of it provided by Dave in this article and at this article's link.
What's truly sad is that Dave and his ilk will continue to waste their lives wishing for days gone by and crying about a presumed loss of liberty that exists only in their imaginations. What this and almost every single other article and, indeed, thought expressed of this kind is really about is fear of a changing world. With more cultures, people and situations arising in our society, we need new ways to deal with the multiple issues that come up.
Change isn't good or bad; it is necessary. And sometimes growth, be it in government or "red tape," is just part of it. Instead of standing behind some crusty ideology of big or small government, why not just stand behind government that works for most (preferably all, but that's impossible) of its people instead of just for a few of them?
11 - Silas Kain
Fear mongering. Let's go there.
I fear a military that is shoring up its' bases with super-Christian churches. Investing millions of dollars in erecting these Christian monoliths in bases across the country.
I fear that military clergy are following the call of Draconian backwoods Christians who feel they are above the law because their so-called God has "chosen" them to deliver His message.
I fear a cowardly Democratic Congress who doesn't have the testicular fortitude to stand up and say it like it is in Washington. Instead they cower at every turn and are willing to shun their own President for fear that they will not retain their respective seat in Congress.
I fear a multi-corporation network of lobbyists who control every vote that is cast in Congress. A lobby who fears nothing, is ruthless and would even resort to 'silencing' the opposition by any means necessary including blackmail and murder.
I fear a society that is so out of tune with its government that it will allow these Fascist pigs to continue to walk on the Constitution on their ways to the bank.
I don't fear Right Wing Christians. Their day of reckoning is at hand. And if that reckoning is at the feet of Muslim extremists -- so be it. It is retribution they deserve seven fold in my eyes. They have supplanted morality with their own brand of duplicity starting at the C Street Chapel of Politics. Research the facts, folks, these people are enemies of the Constitution.
I don't fear Muslim extremists because their own fellow Muslims will stamp them out at the right opportunity. The majority of Muslims are good, Allah-fearing people who want peaceful coexistence. They are as sucked in as the American public and are frustrated as to how to eradicate the 'cancer' that festers.
We've had enough fear mongering in this country. It's time to instill REAL fear into the politicians' hearts (or lack thereof) by sending a resounding message in the 2010 elections. I fear that my warnings will fall on completely deaf ears because those who should be afraid the most are educated the least.
12 - handyguy
The alarmist tone of the article is a bit much. And it contains such gems of dead-wrong misinformation as "the current level of regulation from state agencies and the USDA seems to be entirely adequate." And if we disagree, we [and the always handy-to-blame media] are the "scaremongers" for caring about the high-profile tainted produce outbreaks of the last few years. That peanut-paste scare was genuinely alarming. And that Georgia plant had passed state inspections easily!
The bill Dave describes and the bill described in Friday's newspapers seem to exist on two different planets. The papers described an underfunded, understaffed agency that will now actually be able to inspect food processing plants, some of which have gone 10 years without an inspection.
A few facts:
The 2/3 majority was not 'required' to pass the bill -- just to push it through without amendments. The final vote was just 3 votes short of 2/3; and the Republican votes were 54 For and 122 Against - so 30% of GOP members supported the bill.
The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund's own article is a lot less wild-eyed than Dave's:
A split has opened in the progressive food community about how small-scale producers would fare under the regime laid out by the bill. A coalition of groups, including some I deeply respect like Food and Water Watch and Consumers Union, supported the bill. They wrote in a Thursday letter:
"The complaints of certain sustainable and organics groups are unfounded. Great pains have been taken by members on both sides of the aisle, and on several House Committees, to address concerns that have been raised about this legislation."
The New York Times also quotes the Pew Charitable Trust's food/consumer guy [name: Erik Olson!] approvingly calling the legislation "historic," and mentions that both the Grocery Manufacturers Association and the Consumer Federation of America backed the bill.
By the way, although Roger's mention of The Jungle is not irrelevant, the FDA will still have no authority over meat. That's the Agriculture Department.
13 - MarkSaleski
Is there no limit to the fear-mongering going on here at BC Politics?
the answer is NO.
the capacity for this kind if thing is...
....my god, it's full of stars...
14 - roger nowosielski
What else are the poor Republicans to do?
15 - handyguy
They could try to limit themselves to facts.
16 - Cindy
There's no explanation other than that they've becomes thoroughly politicized and infiltrated with corrupting influences. So yes, it is a farce.
How would anything else be possible?
We've had enough fear mongering in this country. It's time to instill REAL fear into the politicians' hearts (or lack thereof) by sending a resounding message in the 2010 elections.
How do you propose you'll do that? Didn't work real well with GWB or the Democrat Congress. Guess the people showed them by disapproving.
I fear that my warnings will fall on completely deaf ears because those who should be afraid the most are educated the least.
Yeah, I wake up with that same feeling every day and every night I'm sure of it.
Somehow people expect that something different can possibly happen when they hand their power to other people and pay them big bucks to speak on their behalf in a competitive, selfish, dishonorable, morally bankrupt, dog-eat-dog society.
They expect this fantasy government, but think it would be absolutely beyond impossible for people to actually make their own decisions on a community level.
People get into a position of power and all they want to do is use it to their personal advantage or hold it for as long as possible. Especially as it gets more and more expensive to live.
Grow up.
17 - Lumpy
Cimdy, apologist for the state. LOL.
18 - Cindy
Lumpy,
I'm bewildered. That's your reply to a comment I make denouncing the govt?
19 - handyguy
Yes, Cindy, Lumpy's comment makes no sense.
But your own seems pretty far from reasonable. Especially in the context of this food law, on which you state no stand either way.
No government is perfect. But why tar everybody with the same brush? That way madness lies.
20 - Dave Nalle
As per usual, Dave is perfectly clear on the facts when they support his argument and dismisses or purposely clouds the other side.
Jordan. I read the bill. I read the criticisms and advocacy for it. I decided I didn't like certain parts of it and I wrote about them. Why is the mere fact that I have an opinion such a problem for you?
Don't you ever tire of this?
Do you ever tire of being a sheep?
The truth about the bill is that it should be read and examined fairly and impartially.
Which is what I've been doing since they first started working on it this past winter. In some ways this bill is an improvement over its predecessors, as noted in the article. Overall it's still very bad.
There are good points to the bill, including the fact that it makes it easier to determine where foodborne illnesses come from.
At great cost to the consumer and producer.
Dave's "point" about foodborne illnesses not being a "big deal" if you're under 70 is just ridiculous and akin to saying "oh well, you won't die from it (maybe) so let's not spend that much money trying to help the situation." Puh-lease.
No, people WILL die. But it will continue to be a tiny number compared to other causes and certainly not enough to justify draconian legislation, huge expense and loss of rights.
Dave also purposely muddles the use of "facility." Now the bill isn't particularly clear on the specifics, but Dave sure seems to think it is.
No, I think that the bill leaves the definition of facility wide open, creating the opportunity for abuse.
The bill does more to mention what a facility is NOT (a facility is not a private kitchen or, interestingly, a restaurant, for instance),
This is one of the areas of improvement. Originally it was left entirely open to interpretation, but people like me complaining about it made them put at least some restrictions on it. That's the whole point here.
What's truly sad is that Dave and his ilk will continue to waste their lives wishing for days gone by and crying about a presumed loss of liberty that exists only in their imaginations
If you actually believe this then please just go check yourself into a long-term care facility on an IV of valium and leave those of us who care about the country alone.
This is a very basic issue. I simply want to make sure that my neighbors can continue to sell their produce and craft foods at the local farmers market. Is that too much to ask?
And BTW, I realize you just object to anything I post on a knee jerk basis, but in this case I'm taking sides with "liberal" interests and you're siding with big government conservatives and against the people. Be proud.
Dave
21 - Silas Kain
Do you ever tire of being a sheep?
Dave, if ever there were a rallying cry to sum up where we are at in this country it is the above!
Americans, are you tired of being sheep? Instead of listening to the pundits and submitting to the politicians, become leaders. Attack this system head on. Break free from the corrals we're in and show your mettle.
Begin at the ballot box. If you cast your ballot on a computer screen, DEMAND a paper printout of your vote to be deposited into a lock box so there will be no question as to how you voted.
Next, stop by your respective Congressperson's local office this week. They're on summer recess. They're supposedly going back home to talk to constituents. This ain't a paid vacation, folks. Go visit YOUR member of Congress and make certain they're at work for YOU!
And finally, go shop at a locally owned business. Forget the thongs you can buy at WalMart for $6. Instead, go to the locally owned lingerie shop. Spend $12 on a nice thong that will last more than a year. Sure you'll pay more, but it will last longer and you won't get a yeast infection. After all, do you even have the health coverage to get a yeast infection treated?
22 - roger nowosielski
Too late, Silas. We've become a nation of Wall-Mart consumers. The little ghost town where I happen to be stuck has no social life to speak of - unless you count the honky-tonk bars or the churches. But they've surely got the Wall Mart - the spiritual and cultural hub of Hopkinsville, KY.
The damnedest thing is, these backwards people don't even know a good honky-tonk bar. They're not even good Southerners - just Appalachian white trash.
23 - Bliffle
There's no doubt that the Bush administration politicized regulatory agencies such as the FDA and the USDA, which has put us in some deep holes that we have to dig out of, partly by appointing qualified professionals instead of political cronies and partly by passing legislation to bar such bad policies in the future.
For example, during the Bush regime meat inspectors were fired from the USDA payroll (putatively to save money) and the meat factories were required to pay their own inspectors. Of course, the factory paid inspectors returned ratings favorable to their bosses, which resulted in some scandals.
24 - Dave Nalle
Next, stop by your respective Congressperson's local office this week. They're on summer recess. They're supposedly going back home to talk to constituents. This ain't a paid vacation, folks. Go visit YOUR member of Congress and make certain they're at work for YOU!
We've already got that going on here in Austin. There was a protest earlier today which really took Congressman Lloyd Doggett unprepared. He seemed rather nonplussed when hundreds of chanting protestors showed up at his carefully planned photo-op and drowned out the handful of dem loyalists who had been recruited to be there.
Doggett really is one of the worst and I hope every appearance he makes is ruined by protestors.
And finally, go shop at a locally owned business. Forget the thongs you can buy at WalMart for $6. Instead, go to the locally owned lingerie shop. Spend $12 on a nice thong that will last more than a year. Sure you'll pay more, but it will last longer and you won't get a yeast infection. After all, do you even have the health coverage to get a yeast infection treated?
I'm not sure WalMart thongs are any more yeast infected than any other thongs. But that aside, this is kind of the point I was making. This bill benefits big business and harms the small businesses which we ought to be trying to support.
We need to fight for Capitalism 2.0 -- where the economy is diversified through small entrepreneurial and local businesses and less and less dependent on large national and international corporations. It's one of our best insurances against future economic problems and a sure route to greater prosperity.
Dave
25 - Silas Kain
We need to fight for Capitalism 2.0 -- where the economy is diversified through small entrepreneurial and local businesses and less and less dependent on large national and international corporations. It's one of our best insurances against future economic problems and a sure route to greater prosperity.
Amen, Dave. That's what we're trying to do. For the last several months we've been slowly working on a marketing campaign -- community by community to get the locals to open up and see what's at stake. We're doing it in creative ways, thinking outside the box and doing our best to leave politics out of it.
I came up with a motto once -- Homeland security begins at home. As a matter of fact there's a company that uses it thanks to me. That being said, it's important to remember that homeland security isn't only about shoe bombers and rabid religious nuts. It's about forcing car makers to create products that don't depend on foreign energy. It's about utility regulators laying down the law and getting solar, wind and yes nuclear power back up to snuff. It's about mandating that all housing projects funded by the government across this land be completely energy self-sufficient in ten years. It's about economic independence and the cultivation of that traditional entrepreneurial spirit which once drove this country's economy. We must get back to basics and realize that all this superfluous nonsense we've been fed by the media and advertisers has done more to harm national security than a Camp David Accord.