Green Pioneer

On July 30, a week ago, the House passed the Food Safety Enhancement Act and it's now headed for the Senate. They tried to pass it on July 29 but it failed to pass. On Aug. 3, I checked a govt. tracker site and this is what info they had:

Aug 3, 2009: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Related:See the Related Legislation page for other bills related to this one and a list of subject terms that have been applied to this bill. Sometimes the text of one bill or resolution is incorporated into another, and in those cases the original bill or resolution, as it would appear here, would seem to be abandoned.
Votes:Jul 29, 2009: This bill failed in the House of Representatives by roll call vote. The vote was held under a suspension of the rules to cut debate short and pass the bill, needing a two-thirds majority. This usually occurs for non-controversial legislation. The totals were 280 Ayes, 150 Nays, 3 Present/Not Voting. Vote Details.
Jul 30, 2009: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by roll call vote. The totals were 283 Ayes, 142 Nays, 8 Present/Not Voting. Vote Details.

I would argue that this is VERY controversial legislation, and I really have to wonder at the suspension of House rules to "cut debate short" and pass the bill. This Washington Post article mentioned it and I just received this update from an Organic Consumers Association e-mail:


On July 30, 2009, H.R. 2749 was debated and voted on again, this time with only a simple majority required for passage. It passed. See how your Congressperson voted here.

During the debate, several of the concerns of organic and small producers were raised:   Rep. Sam Farr addressed Rep. John Dingell saying, "I have deep concerns ... about the fee structure in the measure, which would charge a farm family making jams or syrup or cheese the same fee as a processing plant owned by a multinational corporation employing hundreds or thousands or workers.  This strikes me as not only unfair but contrary to federal farm policy that has encouraged small and mid-sized family farms to get into small scale value-added enterprises to survive economically.  I am seeking an assurance ... that a more progressive fee structure will be found that does not inhibit our farm families from taking advantage of new markets.

"As a member of the Organic Caucus, I also have concerns about the interplay between this bill and the National Organic Program.  Is it the Chairman's [Rep. Dingell's] understanding that this bill would not establish any requirements for organically produced or processed products which are in conflict with the requirements established by the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 and the USDA's National Organic Program regulations?"   Rep. Earl Blumenauer joined Rep. Farr saying, "I appreciate the efforts of the Chairman [Rep. Dingell] to address some of the concerns of small and organic farmers. ... I am concerned about the impact of this bill on the small farmers in my state and across the country. Over sixty percent of Oregon farmers make their living from a farm that is smaller than fifty acres. I echo Mr. Farr’s concerns regarding the fairness of some of these requirements for these farmers.

"I am also concerned about the language regarding interaction between wildlife, livestock and farming practices. Biodiversity is a prerequisite for a healthy farm and not something we should penalize farmers for. Last week in my state, staff from Oregon State University and the Xerces Society led a tour to four diverse Oregon farms where farmers are utilizing techniques such as naturescaping, floodplain restoration and natural hedgerows to encourage crop health, control pests and invasive species, and enhance soil quality. I am concerned that these practices, which are cost effective and bring benefits to the farm and local wildlife, would be in jeopardy under this legislation.

"I believe we should target reform and safety efforts towards practices which have been directly linked to food disease outbreaks, rather than limiting approaches that farmers have used for centuries to reduce their dependence on pesticides, herbicides and other carbon intensive farming techniques.

"I would like assurance from the Chairman that as the Food and Drug Administration develops these criteria, they will consider the needs of small farms and the practices of organic farmers."

In addition, many small and mid-sized farmers do not sell direct to consumer but the identity of their product is preserved through the supply chain and is on the product when it is bought by the consumer. HR 2749 fails to include an exemption for “identity-preserved” products that specify the identity and location of the farm all the way to the consumer.

These farmers should get the same exemptions that have been provided to grains, oilseeds, hay, honey, sugar, cocoa, and other segments of agriculture that have been recognized in the bill because of their political clout.

And the debate continues:

OCA Web Forum Food Safety Debate

The following is posted by OCA web forum member, Kevin, a Horticultural Scientist from the University of Georgia:

"Who is the government trying to protect? Not us! This is all just another way to assure the big trade corporations can continue to import poisoned produce. Think about it, this is just going to make it tougher for American farmers to make a living. The majority of our produce is imported as it is, about 60%, why should we have to put out more money to make even less profit?... Go out and tell everyone you know to buy local or at least American grown crops. Eventually, these trade companies will go out of business and we will regain a foothold on our food market..."

And go HERE for more discussion and info on the Hr 2749 Food Safety Enhancement Act.