Government Regulation of Farming
Food safety bills; HR875 and S510
(as of 3/5/12, I have posted the numbers and some You Tube videos. I shudder to think of trying to explain the bills in detail.) The full text and summaries are available from;
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-875 for HR875,
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-510 for S510.
S. 510 -the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act- was signed into law by President Obama on January 4, 2011. As it was passed, it incorporates the Tester-Hagan amendment.
Associated You tube clip;
(as of 3/5/12, I have posted the numbers and some You Tube videos. I shudder to think of trying to explain the bills in detail.) The full text and summaries are available from;
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-875 for HR875,
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-510 for S510.
S. 510 -the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act- was signed into law by President Obama on January 4, 2011. As it was passed, it incorporates the Tester-Hagan amendment.
Associated You tube clip;
Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance
The Tester-Hagan amendment to S510
A low-key explanation of the amendment;
http://farmandranchfreedom.org/Tester-Hagan-explanation
A somewhat more lively discussion; excerpted in part, also from the website of 'The Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance' (home page link is above);
http://farmandranchfreedom.org/action-11-21-10
'...Agribusiness Shows Its True Colors!
'...November 21: For over a year, the big Agribusiness trade organizations have supported passage of S.510, the Food Safety Modernization Act. From Agribusiness’s perspective, the bill was a win-win: they could absorb the costs of the regulations because of their size; they’d gain good PR for supposedly improving food safety practices; and the competition created by local food producers, which are rapidly growing, would be crushed by the regulatory burdens.
'...This was only speculation until now. But when the Senators agreed to include the Tester-Hagan amendment in the bill, to exempt small-scale direct-marketing producers from some of the most burdensome provisions, Agribusiness revealed its true colors. Twenty Agribusiness trade organizations fired off a letter stating that they would now oppose the bill.
'...The letter from the Agribusiness groups states: “[B]y incorporating the Tester amendment in the bill, consumers will be left vulnerable to the gaping holes and uneven application of the law created by these exemptions. In addition, it sets an unfortunate precedent for future action on food safety policy by Congress that science and risk based standards can be ignored.”
'...What science and risk? No one has produced any data or evidence of any widespread problems caused by local producers and marketed directly to consumers. All of the major foodborne illness outbreaks have been caused by products that went through the long supply chains of Agribusinesss.
'...Agribusiness’s real concern about the Tester-Hagan amendment isn’t food safety, but the precedent set by having Congress recognize that small, direct-marketing producers are different, and should be regulated differently, from the large Agribusinesses.'
http://farmandranchfreedom.org/Tester-Hagan-explanation
A somewhat more lively discussion; excerpted in part, also from the website of 'The Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance' (home page link is above);
http://farmandranchfreedom.org/action-11-21-10
'...Agribusiness Shows Its True Colors!
'...November 21: For over a year, the big Agribusiness trade organizations have supported passage of S.510, the Food Safety Modernization Act. From Agribusiness’s perspective, the bill was a win-win: they could absorb the costs of the regulations because of their size; they’d gain good PR for supposedly improving food safety practices; and the competition created by local food producers, which are rapidly growing, would be crushed by the regulatory burdens.
'...This was only speculation until now. But when the Senators agreed to include the Tester-Hagan amendment in the bill, to exempt small-scale direct-marketing producers from some of the most burdensome provisions, Agribusiness revealed its true colors. Twenty Agribusiness trade organizations fired off a letter stating that they would now oppose the bill.
'...The letter from the Agribusiness groups states: “[B]y incorporating the Tester amendment in the bill, consumers will be left vulnerable to the gaping holes and uneven application of the law created by these exemptions. In addition, it sets an unfortunate precedent for future action on food safety policy by Congress that science and risk based standards can be ignored.”
'...What science and risk? No one has produced any data or evidence of any widespread problems caused by local producers and marketed directly to consumers. All of the major foodborne illness outbreaks have been caused by products that went through the long supply chains of Agribusinesss.
'...Agribusiness’s real concern about the Tester-Hagan amendment isn’t food safety, but the precedent set by having Congress recognize that small, direct-marketing producers are different, and should be regulated differently, from the large Agribusinesses.'
The Relevance of Regulation
Whether or not regulation will 'work' in a given situation depends in large part on 2 factors. 1) There needs to be someone there willing and able to enforce the regulation. 2). The affected group needs to be willing to obey the regulation.
Point 1) can fail in any 1 (or more) of 3 ways. If no one is able, if no one is willing, or if no one is present to enforce the regulation, then the regulation is functionally irrelevant.
Point 2) is more simple; either the populace is willing to abide by the regulation, or it is not. In the case of 'good' regulations, or a 'good' populace, they might be willing to 'self-regulate' in the absence of enforcers.
The world we are in, at the present time, is one of 'Big Agro'; feedlots, factory farms, GMOs, pesticide and herbicide Hell, lobbyists, government that is- shall we just say- not above suspicion concerning the subject of corruption- etc etc.
In a case such as that, IF regulations result in less cases of salmonella and E. Coli food poisoning, that is a GOOD THING.
IF, OTOH, regulations are used by (for example) 'Big Agro' to harass and squeeze out small farming, guerilla gardeners, and seed savers, then that is a BAD thing. It could be especially bad if what then ensues is some cataclysm where there is a real necessity to have a variety of resilient plant species and seeds in multiple hands, to plant in multiple areas, to meet multiple local needs. Seeds in Svalbard will not help people around the world if they can't get to them. And if the seeds are guarded by 'Big Agro'- well, you get the picture. So the question arises, who DOES guard the seeds in Svalbard? (See 'Sustainable Agriculture, 'Seed Saving'.)
Point 1) can fail in any 1 (or more) of 3 ways. If no one is able, if no one is willing, or if no one is present to enforce the regulation, then the regulation is functionally irrelevant.
Point 2) is more simple; either the populace is willing to abide by the regulation, or it is not. In the case of 'good' regulations, or a 'good' populace, they might be willing to 'self-regulate' in the absence of enforcers.
The world we are in, at the present time, is one of 'Big Agro'; feedlots, factory farms, GMOs, pesticide and herbicide Hell, lobbyists, government that is- shall we just say- not above suspicion concerning the subject of corruption- etc etc.
In a case such as that, IF regulations result in less cases of salmonella and E. Coli food poisoning, that is a GOOD THING.
IF, OTOH, regulations are used by (for example) 'Big Agro' to harass and squeeze out small farming, guerilla gardeners, and seed savers, then that is a BAD thing. It could be especially bad if what then ensues is some cataclysm where there is a real necessity to have a variety of resilient plant species and seeds in multiple hands, to plant in multiple areas, to meet multiple local needs. Seeds in Svalbard will not help people around the world if they can't get to them. And if the seeds are guarded by 'Big Agro'- well, you get the picture. So the question arises, who DOES guard the seeds in Svalbard? (See 'Sustainable Agriculture, 'Seed Saving'.)