Market Forces: Creating Jobs through Public Investment in Local and Regional Food Systems | Union of Concerned Scientists.

President Obama signed the Food Safety Modernization Act today, after a long bout of legislative wrangling by local food advocates, small farmers and their allies for food safety rules that protect consumers without curbing the growing movement toward fresh, local and regional food.  The food safety bill passed by the House in July of 2009 would have imposed a one size fits all regulatory system biased toward  industrial agriculture with a regressive registration fee, expensive food safety plans, and regular on-farm FDA inspections regardless of the degree of the potential risk for food borne illness.  The new regulatory burdens threatened to erect formidable barriers to the developing local and regional markets for many small and moderate sized farms.

In the past two years, small farm advocates worked to win small and mid-size farm amendments to the legislation.  One organization that was key to the efforts was the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

The  amendments incorporated into the Food Safety Modernization Act and signed today by the President include:

• An amendment, sponsored by Senator Sanders (I-VT), giving FDA the authority to either exempt farms engaged in low or no risk processing or co-mingling activities from new regulatory requirements or to modify particular regulatory requirements for such farming operations.
• An amendment, sponsored by Senator Bennet (D-CO), to reduce unnecessary paperwork and excess regulation required under the preventative control plan and the produce standards sections of the bill, including instructions to FDA to minimize the number of different standards that apply to separate foods, to make requirements scale appropriate, and to prohibit FDA from requiring farms and other food facilities to hire outside consultants to write food safety plans.
• An amendment, sponsored by Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), to provide for a USDA-administered competitive grants program for food safety training for farmers, small processors and wholesalers, with a priority on small and mid-scale farms.
• An amendment,  sponsored by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), to strip the bill of wildlife-threatening enforcement against “animal encroachment” of farms and require FDA to apply sound science to any requirements that might impact wildlife and wildlife habitat.
• An amendment, sponsored by Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH), to exempt farmers from extensive and expensive traceability and recordkeeping requirements if they sell food directly to consumers or to grocery stores, to allow labeling that preserves the identity of the farm through to the consumer to satisfy traceability requirements, and to in most cases limit farm recordkeeping to the first point of sale when the product leaves the farm.
• An amendment, sponsored by Senators Jon Tester (D-MT) and Kay Hagan (D-NC),to provide a size appropriate and less costly alternative to preventative control plans and produce standards for farmers who:
  • Direct market more than 50% of their products directly to consumers, stores or restaurants,
  • Have gross sales (direct and non-direct combined) of less than $500,000,
  • Sell to consumers, stores, or restaurants that are in-state or within 275 miles, and
  • Provide their customers with their name, address and contact information.

The NASC will now engage the Administration over the details of how they implement the important provisions we all fought so hard to secure.  Please help them to do this work and to respond quickly to other threats and opportunities for sustainable agriculture by making a tax deductible donation to NSAC today.

The food safety bill hit a roadblock after passing the Senate in late November because a provision requiring the collection of user fees violated the Constitutional mandate that all revenue-generating measures must originate in the House.  House leaders then attached the bill as an amendment to two separate spending bills, neither of which were able to gain Republican support in the Senate.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) circumvented the original technical mistake by attaching the bill to a House-originated measure (HR 2751) authorizing a cash-for-clunkers program – a “shell bill” with bipartisan support.  Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), who had threatened to filibuster S.510 in November, dropped his objection at the last minute, allowing the food safety bill to pass unanimously.  The Washington Post reported this morning that Coburn staffer John Hart did not know why the Senator relented.

Text of the Bill: HR2751

President Obama is expected to sign the bill before Christmas.

Action Alert – Local and Regional Food at Risk

Update on Federal Food Safety Bill S.510

Read: Senate Food Safety Bill Moves Ahead.

As of 2006, 89% of the soybeans grown in the U.S. were genetically modified.

A study by Russian scientists concluded that GM soy-fed hamsters lost the ability to reproduce in three generations. The details are a cause for concern and emphasizes the need for more research into the long term effects of genetically modified foods and the chemicals that are used to grow them.  There are other reports of similar effects in domestic animals in Austria, Italy and in the United States.

Read the Detailed Article – Institute for Responsible Technology.

More information on U.S. grown soybeans at Wikipedia.

Read the preliminary_ohiograss.pdf (application/pdf Object).

Issue 2 would establish a Livestock Care Standards Board. It’s about time we had some standards for livestock care! Do you know what horrible things they do to animals on those factory farms?

That’s just the point.  It’s those factory farms that want Issue 2 to pass. They’ve seen voters in California and elsewhere outlaw the use of battery cages so small that the laying hens in them can’t spread their wings and gestation crates that prohibit a hog from turning around for the entire duration of her pregnancy.  Factory farms in Ohio don’t want to have to abide by rules like these, so they’re seeking to preemptively cut off the ability of the voters or the legislature to make any such rules. They hope to do this by creating a board of non-elected political appointees who will have absolute power to make rules related to agriculture in Ohio.

I’m not exaggerating when I say “absolute power.”  This board would be established by our state constitution.  This means that no Ohio court could judge their rules to be unconstitutional. They’d have no direct oversight by the legislature, and the Ohio Department of Agriculture would be obliged to enforce whatever rules this board comes up with.  Issue 2 doesn’t say how the Board is to come up with its rules.  It does say that they shall consider certain things, like food safety and disease prevention, but it doesn’t say that those are the only considerations, or that the stated considerations should supersede all others. That is to say, the Board could declare, “Yes, battery cages probably cause some stress to the hens inside them, but requiring that cages be roomier would increase the cost of producing eggs, and that’s simply unacceptable.”

The board wouldn’t have absolute power. All their regulations would have to be approved by the General Assembly.
Issue 2 doesn’t say that.  (Here’s a link to the actual text of the Joint Resolution from the General Assembly.) It says, “The Board shall have authority to establish standards governing the care and well-being of livestock and poultry in this state, subject to the authority of the General Assembly.”  That doesn’t mean that each regulation that comes out of the Board would have to be submitted for approval from the Assembly.  It just means that the Board has authority to make these rules so long as the Assembly says they do.  In other words, it’s not the standards that are subject to the Assembly’s authority. It’s the Board’s authority that’s subject to the Assembly’s authority. Presumably, if the Board started making rules that resulted in really egregious human rights abuses or something along that line, the Assembly could step in and establish some guidelines.  Still, the existence of the Board would be constitutionally mandated, and the members would be appointed as stated.  There’s nothing the assembly could do to change that.  Basically, if we vote this Board into existence and decide we don’t like some of the rules they’re passing, the only way to do anything about it is for the Ohio voters to pass another constitutional amendment repealing this one.

Besides that, even if the Board did have to get approval from the Assembly for any new agriculture regulations, what’s the likelihood the Assembly would contradict them? This board will be regarded as “the experts” in agriculture in Ohio.  If they–veterinarians and industry bigwigs–say that something is a good practice, how reasonable is it to think that a majority of the General Assembly is going to oppose them?  It’s true that elected politicians like to get re-elected, and that legislators need to be responsive to voters.  They’re not going to want to get caught between the voters and the Board, though, so it’s easier for the legislature to skirt the whole dilemma by giving the Board blanket authority from the outset. Then, if voters protest to their Representative about a new Board regulation, the legislator can say, “I share your concerns, but this isn’t a legislative matter.  It’s the Board that makes these rules. You should appeal to the Board directly.”

The commercial said a Yes vote will ensure safe, locally grown food, and that livestock are well treated.

Big Ag isn’t clueless. They know consumers prefer safe, locally grown food, and that consumers want livestock to be well treated. In other words, they know that the public objects to the way they do business. This is why they fought so hard to prohibit natural dairy farmers from advertising their hormone-free milk as being hormone-free.  (The compromise the courts came up with is that labels can say that milk is rGBH free, but they also have to say that rGBH-free milk is no different than milk from cows on steroids.) They know that if consumers get to choose between safe, ethical, locally grown food from a small, family farm, or scary, questionable stuff produced by a multinational corporation, they’re going to go for the former, often even if it costs more.

To stay in the game, they’ve co-opted these buzz words to push public opinion in favor of a constitutional amendment that can protect them.  Really, it’s a bold move.  Big Ag is trying to win the support of the people who hate them most, because they know that if Issue 2 passes, they don’t have to do anything to please anybody ever again.  The Board can give a free pass to factory farm abuses and outlaw anything that gives small farmers a market advantage. Things like the milk labeling issue wouldn’t be settled in court anymore.  The Board would decide.

Did they lie? Not exactly. It’s not lying if you believe it yourself.  In the opinion of the industry, industrial food is safe.  In their opinion, factory farms are humane.  If a facility in Ohio is raising cattle in a confined feeding operation to sell to Japan, it’s still an Ohio farm.  That makes it local food, right?  If a family owns a farm with several hundred acres, millions of dollars in assets, and several employees, and it raises half a million chickens a year on contract for Tyson, it’s still a family farm, isn’t it?  In their view, what they’re doing is providing safe, local food from family farms. What farmers like me are doing–raising animals naturally and selling directly to the people in our own communities–doesn’t even count.

If you talk to the farmers at your local farmers’ market, most of them will tell you they oppose Issue 2–assuming they’ve researched the matter.  The reasons vary, but the bottom line is the same: whether it will hurt us or not, changing the constitution to establish the Livestock Care Standards Board will not do anything to help us. Having a bunch of corporate lobbyists get together to make rules–whether they favor Big Ag or not–is not going to make my animals happier, me wealthier, or you healthier.  It could possibly have the opposite result, but it can’t improve on what I’m already doing.

Actually, I guess that’s not exactly true. With this enormous amount of power they’d be given, the Board could issue an edict that rules null and void all prohibitions against livestock. They could see to it that chickens, pigs, and dairy goats are welcome in every city, subdivision, and gated community across Ohio, even if clotheslines and non-conforming house colors are not. Yeah…that’ll happen.  I’m sure that’s exactly why it’s being supported by all the factory farm organizations–because they want people to raise their own food in their own communities.  More likely, if we see a loosening of these restrictions come to pass, it’ll be because they want to allow a hog factory to be built in a place where the zoning prohibits it.

Election day is tomorrow.  If you haven’t already voted, please go vote NO on Issue 2.  A local, free-range farmer asked you nicely.

“The board would have far-reaching powers to set standards for livestock and poultry care, food safety, supply and availability, disease prevention, farm management, and animal well-being. It would have minimal legislative oversight.”
Read the Full Story

That’s too much power for a single entity and it would circumvent the democratic public comment process we are used to in regulation of this type.

Regardless of how you feel about specific standards for raising livestock. There are some good reasons why supporters of sustainable agriculture and transparent,  accountable government should vote against Issue 2.

Upon reading the position of OEFFA (Ohio Ecological Food and Farm Association) I was glad to see they had a similar reason for opposing it. Here is OEFFA’s statement:

Vote No on Issue 2!
OEFFA affirms the importance of livestock in sustainable agricultural production systems and in providing prosperity for Ohio’s farm families. OEFFA equally affirms the ethical imperative and economic rationality of the humane treatment of farm animals. As an accredited
organic certifier under the U.S.D.A., OEFFA Certification is responsible for the enforcement of standards for the humane treatment of livestock and poultry, as detailed in the National Organic Standards.

OEFFA does not support Issue 2, which will, by constitutional amendment, create a Livestock Care Standards Board for Ohio. We urge our members and voters to vote “No” on Issue 2.

Our opposition is based on the following points:

* The Ohio Constitution should not be used to create a Livestock Care Standards Board. This is not the role of the state Constitution, which exists to establish the structure and rules of our government. Agricultural operations are already subject to the jurisdiction of State
and Federal Departments of Agriculture.

* The proposed constitutional amendment would give the Livestock Board the ability to make wide-ranging decisions related to farms and food in Ohio that have the force of law. Any future changes to the Livestock Board would require a new constitutional amendment.
We instead encourage a process that promotes citizen input, transparent debate, flexibility, and accountability.

* The amendment serves the economic interests of factory farms,1 opening the door for the proliferation of these Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations in Ohio. We oppose such facilities due to resulting air and water quality degradation from handling massive quantities
of manure. These operations encourage the routine use of antibiotics in livestock, which threatens the preservation of antibiotics for human use.

* The amendment emphasizes the need of the livestock industry to provide “affordable food,” yet ignores its hidden costs, including environmental contamination, human health impacts, and the loss of rural communities. Given that today’s farmers receive only about 20 cents
from each dollar spent on meat or poultry, our efforts are better spent controlling costs after the product leaves the farm, thereby benefiting both farmers and consumers.

For all these reasons, OEFFA opposes Issue 2. We applaud our members and others who produce livestock and do so using practices that allow them to safeguard the health of their animals, the environment, and Ohio’s citizens.

For more information about Issue 2, go to http://www.ohioact.org

Know How and Where to Vote
Here’s some helpful information from the Ohio Secretary of State that will help you navigate the voting process:Registering to Vote
In order to be eligible to vote on November 3, you must register to vote no later than October 5. A completed voter registration form must be postmarked or submitted in person to your Board of Elections, the Secretary of State’s office, any public high school, or any public library by October 5. A voter registration form is available at http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/upload/publications/election/VRform.pdf.

Ways You Can Vote
Voting on Election Day—As always, you can vote in person on election day with a valid form of identification. To find your polling place, go to http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/pollinglocation.aspx?page=361

Early Voting—You can vote in person with a valid form of identification from September 29-November 2 at your local County Board of Elections. To find your County Board of Elections, go to http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/elections/boeDirectory.aspx

Absentee Voting—You can vote by mail through October 31. To request an absentee ballot, to go http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/upload/elections/forms/11-A.pdf

For more information about voting, contact the Ohio Secretary of State’s office at (877) 889-6446 or visit their website at http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/