November 29, 2010 by Debra.

The U.S. Senate is expected to vote on the Food Safety Modernization Act sometime today — this may be your final chance to make sure protections for family farms, local and organic producers are included in the new food safety bill. An op-ed piece by Michael Pollan and Eric Schlosser in today’s New York Times explains what’s at stake:

A Stale Food Fight

 

THE best opportunity in a generation to improve the safety of the American food supply will come as early as Monday night, when the Senate is scheduled to vote on the F.D.A. Food Safety Modernization bill. This legislation is by no means perfect. But it promises to achieve several important food safety objectives, greatly benefiting consumers without harming small farmers or local food producers.

 

The bill would, for the first time, give the F.D.A., which oversees 80 percent of the nation’s food, the authority to test widely for dangerous pathogens and to recall contaminated food. The agency would finally have the resources and authority to prevent food safety problems, rather than respond only after people have become ill. The bill would also require more frequent inspections of large-scale, high-risk food-production plants.

 

Last summer, when thousands of people were infected with salmonella from filthy, vermin-infested henhouses in Iowa, Americans were outraged to learn that the F.D.A. had never conducted a food safety inspection at these huge operations that produce billions of eggs a year. The new rules might have kept those people — mainly small children and the elderly — from getting sick.

 

The law would also help to protect Americans from unsafe food produced overseas: for the first time, imported foods would be subject to the same standards as those made in the United States.

 

You would think that such reasonable measures to protect the health and safety of the American people would have long since sailed through Congress. But after being passed by the House of Representatives more than a year ago with strong bipartisan support, the legislation has been stuck in the Senate. One sticking point was the fear among small farmers and producers that the new regulations would be too costly — and the counter-fear among consumer groups that allowing any exemptions for small-scale agriculture might threaten public health…

To read rest of article online >

 

Contact your local Senator and urge them to support the Manager’s Amendment and pass the Food Safety Bill:

- Senator Olympia Snowe, Maine

- Senator Susan Collins, Maine

- Senator Scott Brown, Massachusetts

- Senator John Kerry, Massachusetts

- Senator Judd Gregg, New Hampshire

- Senator Jeanne Shaheen, New Hampshire

Posted in policy and legislation, author: Debra | Print | No Comments »

November 13, 2010 by Debra.

Debate and voting on The Food Safety Modernization Act (S. 510) are set to begin on the Senate floor this week. While the bill takes important steps to improve corporate food safety rules, it also affects small farms and processors that sell to restaurants, food co-ops, groceries, schools, wholesalers and at farm stands and farmers markets. Via CUESA:

Food Safety Action Alert

Debate and voting on The Food Safety Modernization Act (S. 510) is set to begin on the Senate floor on November 17th. It’s widely agreed that the bill takes important steps to improve corporate food safety rules, but some organizations, like the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC), believe that it shouldn’t set one-size-fits-all rules for both large and small farms and processors. Two amendments — the Manager’s Amendment and Tester-Hagan Amendment — on the other hand, could help create size-appropriate rules for these farms. Visit the NSAC site to learn more or take action.

 

Related: Grist recently hosted a roundtable of food safety and sustainability experts. It’s a four-part series-in-progress that has posed these two important questions so far: Do we really have a food safety crisis? and Will the Food Safety Modernization Act better protect us from contaminated food?

 

Note: Links via our Facebook page —  contact your local Senator and urge them to support the Tester-Hagen Amendment:

 - Senator Olympia Snowe, Maine

 

- Senator Susan Collins, Maine

 

- Senator Scott Brown, Massachusetts

 

- Senator John Kerry, Massachusetts

 

- Senator Judd Gregg, New Hampshire

 

- Senator Jeanne Shaheen, New Hampshire

Posted in policy and legislation, author: Debra | Print | 1 Comment »

June 23, 2010 by Debra.

Using milk in its unpasteurized state is one of the joys of learning to make cheese at home. With a just a little coaxing, raw milk readily transforms itself, unlike the myriad fixes that go into working with over-processed milk. As we often tell our students, it simply wants to become cheese.

Thus it is with great concern that we’re following Organic Valley’s recent decision to ban farmers that also sell raw milk directly to consumers. The reasons are unclear — other processors, such as Horizon Organic, do not prohibit their producers from selling raw milk — but the ruling is certain to affect local producers. In essence, members of the cooperative will now have to chose between selling raw milk to Organic Valley or to local consumers. Following are several links to help you find out more about this controversy:

• “Organic Valley Lays Down the Law on Raw Milk” by David Gumpert, reposted by the Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Association:

Last week, the board voted four to three to prohibit its member dairies from selling raw milk. “It’s not a fun issue here,” says George Siemon, the CEO. “Everyone on the board drinks raw milk.” It’s been the most bitter dispute in the enterprise’s 22-year history, he says.

The decision threatens to tear Organic Valley apart, or at least hamper its business effectiveness, by raising two major risks.

First, Organic Valley could lose a significant number of its dairy members. No one knows how many of its dairies sell raw milk, but 10% seems a conservative estimate, according to co-op insiders. That means 150 or 200 dairies, minimum, are selling raw milk…. A second concern is that Organic Valley’s anti-raw-milk stance could alienate significant numbers of consumers. Organic Valley has many loyal customers among the raw milk crowd, some of whom buy the co-op’s yogurt or cheeses in addition to drinking raw milk.

• With 36 dairy farmers in the coop, “Maine Organic Diary Farmers Question Raw Milk Ban” at Maine Public Broadcasting Network (MPBN):

“If Organic Valley really wants to get picky, there are an awful lot farmers who withdraw a can or two from their tank and either make cheese with it themselves or have another cheesemaker do something for them,” [Spencer] Aitel says. “I don’t think many of them are notifying Organic Valley that that’s happening, and if they wanted to get really nasty about it, they could drop every one of them, and that would probably be better than half.”

•  The Journal of Natural Food and Healing has posted the statement issued by Organic Valley on their raw milk decision:

“At the request of the membership at the co-op’s most recent annual meeting, the board wanted to end this drawn out raw milk debate, and they took the more conservative route, to prohibit the farmer-owners from being in the raw milk business. This decision will require all our farmer-owners who sell raw milk to choose one business or the other. This may end up being a boon for the raw milk movement in the states where it is legal. The Cooperative cannot condone the sale of raw milk in the states where it is illegal.

CROPP Cooperative is not against raw milk. We have let our farmers sell raw milk on the side for two decades. We have gone through a well vetted, inclusive process. It is now time for us to stand by our board’s decision.”

It has not gone without notice that Organic Valley, which was established 22 years ago to help save small family dairies, itself features raw milk in some of their own products such as raw milk cheese.

Posted in policy and legislation, Cheese Chicks, author: Debra | Print | 1 Comment »

June 6, 2010 by Debra.

Our supply of healthy, sustainable, locally-produced meat depends on having access to small, community-based processing plants. In a one-size-fits-all proposal, new rules pose a threat to the continuing existence of these small and very-small USDA-inspected plants. The deadline for comments has been extended to June 19th — your opinion matters! Via MOFGA:

The USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service has proposed new rules that would require all slaughter facilities to do more testing of their product before moving it to market. This will add costs to local meat processing. See a related USDA press release. See a recent article on this subject that appeared in The Atlantic. Your comments in support of flexibility for small processors can help make a difference.

 

Comments are due on June 19th (extended from April 19th due to great interest from the public). Comments should be submitted via email to: DraftValidationGuideComments@fsis.usda.gov or via U.S. mail to: Docket Clerk, USDA, FSIS, Room 2-2127, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Beltsville, MD 20705.

Posted in policy and legislation, author: Debra | Print | No Comments »

June 3, 2010 by Sara Zoe.

For the data driven among us, a very short .pdf illustrating potential areas for positive impact with scale appropriate meat and poultry processors. From ATTRA’s amazing email newsletter:

USDA Evaluating Small Meat and Poultry Processing Needs
The U.S. Department of Agriculture released a preliminary study revealing existing gaps in the regional food systems regarding the availability of slaughter facilities to small meat and poultry producers. The study by USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is a first attempt to identify areas in the U.S. where small livestock and poultry producers are concentrated but may not have access to a nearby slaughter facility. The data creates a county-by-county view of the continental United States, indicating the concentration of small farms raising cattle, hogs and pigs, and chicken, and also noting the location of nearby state slaughter facilities and small and very small federal slaughter establishments. The presentation “Slaughter Availability to Small Livestock and Poultry Producers – Maps” may be found at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/KYF_maps-050410_FOR_RELEASE.pdf.

The first things I notice is how much state meat inspection is working in Wisconsin, and how much York county could use a poultry processor!

Posted in policy and legislation | Print | No Comments »

May 5, 2010 by Heather.

There was another recent article, this one in the Wire, about New Hampshire’s seafood industry and the effects the new regulations will have. The article, written by Matt Kanner, titled “Staying Afloat” came out on April 29, just before the May 1 rule change. Local fishermen commented on the projected terror the rules will have on the local industry:

“From 2009 to 2010, the difference in allocation for harvesting ability will be reduced in the vicinity of 70 to 75 percent,” said Padi Anderson, whose family has two commercial fishing boats in Rye Harbor. “It will compromise our industry—and by compromising our industry, I mean very possibly collapse New Hampshire’s fishing industry.”

The article highlighted many efforts being made to help support the industry in new and hopefully meaningful ways. This article also spent time discussing what consumers can do to help the fishing industry here in New Hampshire. From trying different, seasonal fish varieties to eating the whole fish there were several things mentioned that anyone can do.

The article covered a spectrum of fish-related hot topics. Read the article.

Also, see the earlier article we blogged about, http://blog.seacoasteatlocal.org/2010/04/26/in-the-news-locals-say-rules-could-dry-up-fishing-business/. 

Posted in author: Heather, policy and legislation, seafood | Print | No Comments »

May 5, 2010 by Debra.

Via Slow Food Seacoast:

The Institute for Responsible Technology reports that U.S. negotiators at an international conference on Codex Alimentarius are currently pushing an agenda that could make it difficult to label foods as genetically modified (GM) or even make non-GM claims on a product label.

If you care about keeping food sources good, clean, fair, and HONEST, you should care about food labeling! Please visit the Institute for Responsible Technology’s petition site and sign the petition TODAY.

As many signatures are possible are needed before Wednesday, May 5, but the Institute for Responsible Technology suggests that the public should continue support in opposition to this agenda until the desired result is achieved.

Posted in policy and legislation, author: Debra | Print | No Comments »

April 26, 2010 by Heather.

Alexis Macarchuk recently published a story for Seacoast Online about new fishing regulations and the potential they are going to severely hurt New England fishermen, especially in New Hampshire.

Carolyn Eastman, co-owner of Eastman’s Fish Market in Seabrook, predicts a 70 percent reduction in the number of fish caught by local fishermen this summer—and the potential devastation of her business.

The new regulations put a cap on the number of groundfish that can be caught in New England waters. They are an effort to speed the process of rebuilding fish stocks, mandated by the government by 2014. The regulations are aimed at rebuilding 13 of the 19 species that are still considered understocked. Included in these limits are cod, flounder, and haddock. But locals claim regulators are doing too much at once.

“The goal is gradual reduction of the fishing effort, but at some point we have to take more extreme measures to rebuild fish stocks or we’re in violation of the law,” said National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration communication officer Maggie Mooney-Seus. 

“Everybody wants the same thing. Everyone wants fish stocks to rebuild. The issue becomes how we get there,” Eastman said.

Click here to read the entire article.

Posted in author: Heather, policy and legislation, eating locally in the media | Print | No Comments »

March 24, 2010 by Sara Zoe.

As we posted in more detail last week, the Department of Justice and the USDA are looking into whether companies like Monsanto and DuPont constitute a monopoly in the seed industry. Listening sessions are being held, but, citizens viewpoints don’t seem to be being heard very well. Food Democracy Now, a great and effective group, has an easy to sign petition on their website to help us make sure the USDA and DOJ know we care very much about these issues!

Food Democracy Now petition

Posted in policy and legislation | Print | No Comments »

March 13, 2010 by Debra.

The U.S. Justice Department has announced that they will be investigating anticompetitive practices in agriculture, specifically the seed industry, which Monsanto dominates:

Rapid Rise in Seed Prices Draws U.S. Scrutiny 

 

During the depths of the economic crisis last year, the prices for many goods held steady or even dropped. But on American farms, the picture was far different, as farmers watched the price they paid for seeds skyrocket. Corn seed prices rose 32 percent; soybean seeds were up 24 percent.

 

Such price increases for seeds — the most important purchase a farmer makes each year — are part of an unprecedented climb that began more than a decade ago, stemming from the advent of genetically engineered crops and the rapid concentration in the seed industry that accompanied it.

 

The price increases have not only irritated many farmers, they have caught the attention of the Obama administration. The Justice Department began an antitrust investigation of the seed industry last year, with an apparent focus on Monsanto, which controls much of the market for the expensive bioengineered traits that make crops resistant to insect pests and herbicides.

 

The investigation is just one facet of a push by the Obama administration to take a closer look at competition — or the lack thereof — in agriculture, from the dairy industry to livestock to commodity crops, like corn and soybeans.

 

To read article > 

Also: 

Justice Dept. Tells Farmers It Will Press Agriculture on Antitrust

ANKENY, Iowa — The attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr., traveled to the heart of Midwestern farm country on Friday to declare that the Obama administration was serious about rooting out anticompetitive practices in agriculture.

 

“Is today’s agricultural industry suffering from a lack of free and fair competition in the marketplace? That’s the central question,” Mr. Holder said.

 

He spoke at an unusual public meeting called to discuss the concerns of some farmers and ranchers that a few large companies had come to dominate many agricultural markets, controlling the seed that farmers plant and the milk they sell and the livestock ranchers raise.

 

Mr. Holder and the agriculture secretary, Tom Vilsack, who co-hosted the event, said their agencies would work together on antitrust enforcement.

 

To read article >

Posted in policy and legislation, author: Debra | Print | 1 Comment »