Posted on 05/04/2007 1:06:30 PM PDT by TheBethsterNH
Article published May 4, 2007 New agriculture bill would allow sale of uninspected chickens
MONTPELIER A bill to allow poultry farmers who sell fewer than 1,000 birds a year to avoid facilities inspections was endorsed Thursday by the state Senate.
Backers said they hoped to promote small poultry operations enough so that it would be economical for more slaughterhouses to open in Vermont, filling a void that makes it difficult for some farmers to process their chickens.
Rep. David Zuckerman, P-Burlington and chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, said New York had just repealed a law allowing small poultry producers to go without inspections, prompting the opening of more slaughterhouses to serve small producers.
But opponents raised the specter of tainted chicken sickening or even killing people and ruining Vermont's image as a producer of wholesome products.
The poultry provisions were contained in a far-reaching agriculture bill that also calls for working with other states to revive the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. It would also promote more farm energy projects like those that burn methane from cow manure to make electricity and contains a host of other measures.
One calls for the state to fund a mobile slaughterhouse that could be used by small producers. Amy Shollenberger, director of the farm advocacy group Rural Vermont, which supports the poultry provisions, said more processing facilities are needed before it's practicable to expect all poultry producers to be inspected.
The poultry provisions caused feathers to fly during Senate debate. An amendment to strike them failed after lengthy debate.
Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Sara Kittell, D-Franklin, argued that with their business reputations on the line and with legal liability at stake, small poultry producers and restaurant owners would see to it that birds were processed in a sanitary fashion.
But Sen. Ann Cummings, D-Washington, countered that if she or a loved one were to eat tainted meat, "I'm not going to care about who's liable. I'm going to care about who's sick and who's dead."
Sens. Jane Kitchel, D-Caledonia, and Dick Mazza, D-Grand Isle-Chittenden, said putting a label on the poultry saying "not inspected," as the bill requires, would drive consumers away.
Kitchel said it was her goal to "develop a system of inspections that is accessible, affordable and addresses the needs of our poultry farmers."
The amendment to strike the poultry provisions died on a 22-7 vote, followed by a vote to advance the underlying bill of 26-3.
It's expected to go up for final approval in the Senate on Friday. Zuckerman said if no major changes are made before the final Senate vote, the House would be likely to concur with the Senate's changes, saving the need for a conference committee to work out differences between the two versions.
Welcome to Peoples Rep. of China, Calvin...tis’ a strange set of things happening...diseases and food-borne illness stuff that was irradicated centuries ago are becoming “new” again. And where are the food police? Still bickering over Oreo’s and soda?
I'm not saying food producers should be able to just produce dirty ill prepared food. I just have very little faith in gov't inspectors.
I don’t have a lot of faith in them either. I have people that I care about who eat. I want as much of a buffer as I can get.
Don't forget the popcorn made in coconut oil.
Small family farmers may not be chicken producers solely. Instead it may be one component of a diversified farm. With no anonymity his operation depends on his ability to produce a good product.
If Pilgrims Pride recalls 4 million pounds of turkey around thanksgiving it is a temporary drop in the quarterly profits. But, nothing changes as there is no specific identity as to where the problem arose. Same for spinach and peanut butter etc.
BUT, if farmer John brings a tainted chicken to market the grocer will never buy from him again. He is out of business.
I would, and do, eat chicken from just such sources as they are far better tasting to begin with. Also, there is a infinitely smaller chance of contamination than a factory operation.
Don’t trust a label. Also, under WTO rules there is the regulation of ‘equivalency’. That means if another country has an inspection process it must be recognized as the same as our USDA. So, the chicken you bought at Wal Mart might have come from China but still gets the USDA seal even though no US inspector has ever seen the package.
Bon Apetit.
I read and understand what you are saying. I don’t agree with setting an arbitrary threshold below which no inspection takes place.
I don’t see the alternative to inspectors for the US food supply. Your assertion that small businesses do it better is questionable.
As for the local small businesses can do it better what is your question? I already indicated if a small business provides a tainted product they will go out of business. If a large one does then it simply is a dip in profits. Schwans Ice Cream is a good example. So was Pilgrim’s Pride turkey I used as an example. If you think it is questionable support your statement and we can discuss the point.
I think we agree on the concept. Neither of us will dictate the details though.
You got that right. It is strictly big money and lobbyists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.