Lucille
08-31-2013, 09:24 AM
So after the fascists pass the bill and O Duce signs it into law, the MSM finally gets around to reporting what so many of us said all along. It will destroy small farms and ranches, and the Tester amend. was BS.
Why is this a judge's business?
Small Farmers Revolt Over FDA’s Proposed Food Safety Rules
http://reason.com/archives/2013/08/31/small-farmers-revolt-over-fdas-proposed
Earlier this month a federal judge ordered the FDA to speed up the process for adopting rules under the Food Safety Modernization Act.
That is exactly the opposite of what the agency should do.
The FDA's very deliberate deliberation over the proposed rules foreshadowed the fact the agency lacks the ability to come up with clear and fair rules.
Nevermind the fact that, as I wrote last year, the key provisions of the FSMA have only the potential to bring about up to a "four-percent reduction in cases of foodborne illness" if they're implemented with absolute perfection (at a cost of $500 million each year).
Now that those who will be regulated under the Act have had time to review and consider the FDA's proposed FSMA rules, small farmers--who had hoped they were protected by an amendment to the Act--are panicking. And with good reason.
Sen. John Tester (D-MT) pushed to exempt small farmers from the FSMA's most onerous requirements. The "Tester Amendment," which passed as part of the Act in 2011, was supposed to do just that.
"We won... We won," claimed Tester in a victory lap for small farmers after the Amendment was included in the final version of the FSMA.
But it's those same small farmers and their allies who are now venting that the Tester Amendment has no teeth.
"Small farmers primarily are concerned that they will not be able afford to comply with the rules and that they may not qualify for an exemption," says Lauren Handel, an attorney who represents small farmers and other growing food businesses with Jason Foscolo LLC, in an email to me. "A farmer would not be exempt if his total annual food sales exceed $500,000, even if the vast majority of those sales are potatoes or some other commodity not covered by the rule.
"Thus," says Handel, "there is a significant disincentive for that potato farmer to diversify his business by, for example, growing a small amount of produce for a CSA or farmers’ market."
The FDA is hosting a series of public fora on the FSMA around the country. And what small farmers are telling the agency about the proposed FSMA regulations isn't pretty.
[...]
Newspaper editorial boards around the country have also taken note. Many have been increasingly vocal in recent weeks in warning about dire consequences for small farmers under the proposed FSMA regulations.
[...]
Michael Taylor, who heads the FDA's food safety efforts and who was at the Washington State hearing, told a local farmer who urged the FDA not to further burden him and his business not to worry.
“Rest assured, what you’re saying is being heard,” said Taylor.
But Taylor's I'm-from-the-government-and-I'm-here-to-help routine isn't convincing small farmers and their allies.
"The FDA’s proposed FSMA rules would impose significant expenses and paperwork burdens on farmers and food producers," says Judith McGeary, executive director of the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance, by email.
"The implementation of the Food Safety Modernization Act, through its burdensome regulatory scheme, will result in the local food system losing market share to corporate giants producing inferior quality food," says Pete Kennedy, head of the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, also by email.
Any agricultural law should favor no particular size of farm and should allow farmers of all sizes to compete with each other for market share. The proposed Food Safety Modernization Act regulations will impose costly and inapt new requirements on small farmers.
Sen. Tester claims to have "won" a victory for small farmers. But right now it looks as if his win may yield nothing more than a bitter harvest.
Why is this a judge's business?
Small Farmers Revolt Over FDA’s Proposed Food Safety Rules
http://reason.com/archives/2013/08/31/small-farmers-revolt-over-fdas-proposed
Earlier this month a federal judge ordered the FDA to speed up the process for adopting rules under the Food Safety Modernization Act.
That is exactly the opposite of what the agency should do.
The FDA's very deliberate deliberation over the proposed rules foreshadowed the fact the agency lacks the ability to come up with clear and fair rules.
Nevermind the fact that, as I wrote last year, the key provisions of the FSMA have only the potential to bring about up to a "four-percent reduction in cases of foodborne illness" if they're implemented with absolute perfection (at a cost of $500 million each year).
Now that those who will be regulated under the Act have had time to review and consider the FDA's proposed FSMA rules, small farmers--who had hoped they were protected by an amendment to the Act--are panicking. And with good reason.
Sen. John Tester (D-MT) pushed to exempt small farmers from the FSMA's most onerous requirements. The "Tester Amendment," which passed as part of the Act in 2011, was supposed to do just that.
"We won... We won," claimed Tester in a victory lap for small farmers after the Amendment was included in the final version of the FSMA.
But it's those same small farmers and their allies who are now venting that the Tester Amendment has no teeth.
"Small farmers primarily are concerned that they will not be able afford to comply with the rules and that they may not qualify for an exemption," says Lauren Handel, an attorney who represents small farmers and other growing food businesses with Jason Foscolo LLC, in an email to me. "A farmer would not be exempt if his total annual food sales exceed $500,000, even if the vast majority of those sales are potatoes or some other commodity not covered by the rule.
"Thus," says Handel, "there is a significant disincentive for that potato farmer to diversify his business by, for example, growing a small amount of produce for a CSA or farmers’ market."
The FDA is hosting a series of public fora on the FSMA around the country. And what small farmers are telling the agency about the proposed FSMA regulations isn't pretty.
[...]
Newspaper editorial boards around the country have also taken note. Many have been increasingly vocal in recent weeks in warning about dire consequences for small farmers under the proposed FSMA regulations.
[...]
Michael Taylor, who heads the FDA's food safety efforts and who was at the Washington State hearing, told a local farmer who urged the FDA not to further burden him and his business not to worry.
“Rest assured, what you’re saying is being heard,” said Taylor.
But Taylor's I'm-from-the-government-and-I'm-here-to-help routine isn't convincing small farmers and their allies.
"The FDA’s proposed FSMA rules would impose significant expenses and paperwork burdens on farmers and food producers," says Judith McGeary, executive director of the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance, by email.
"The implementation of the Food Safety Modernization Act, through its burdensome regulatory scheme, will result in the local food system losing market share to corporate giants producing inferior quality food," says Pete Kennedy, head of the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, also by email.
Any agricultural law should favor no particular size of farm and should allow farmers of all sizes to compete with each other for market share. The proposed Food Safety Modernization Act regulations will impose costly and inapt new requirements on small farmers.
Sen. Tester claims to have "won" a victory for small farmers. But right now it looks as if his win may yield nothing more than a bitter harvest.