Posted on 11/18/2010 7:32:30 AM PST by Peter from Rutland
Senate Food Safety Bill Moves Ahead by Helena Bottemiller | Nov 18, 2010
The Senate made substantial progress on the pending Food Safety Bill Wednesday. To move the sweeping food bill forward, the upper chamber voted 74-25 to limit debate, circumventing Sen. Tom Coburn's (R-OK) objection. And key stakeholders resolved the two controversial issues that have plagued the bill: bisphenol A and small farm exemptions.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein's (D-CA) amendment--which originally aimed to ban the chemical bisphenol A, or BPA, in all food containers, but had since been scaled back to only containers meant for infants and small children--officially kicked the can.
"Unfortunately, the compromise agreement on a BPA amendment to the food safety bill has been blocked," announced Feinstein on the floor of the Senate. Feinstein said she and Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) had, after months of negotiation, finally reached a compromise that would have banned the use of BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups and required the FDA to issue a revised safety assessment on BPA by Dec. 1, 2012.
That compromise was shut down by the leading chemical industry group, according to Feinstein. "Unfortunately it has become clear that the American Chemistry Council (ACC) has blocked and obstructed the agreement from being added to the Food Safety Bill currently on the floor."
"I regret that the ACC puts the sale of chemicals above the safety of infants and children," she added. "The chemical lobby came in at the 11th hour opposing this ban."
The ACC has maintained it should be up to the Food and Drug Administration, not Congress, to rule on BPA safety.
The Tester-Hagan Amendment, on the other hand, remains a real possibility. The amendment, introduced by Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) and supported by Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC), would exempt farms and food producers that either fit the FDA's definition of "very small business," sell most of their products directly to consumers, restaurants, or retailers within state lines or within 400 miles that have annual sales of less than half a million dollars.
Late last night, consumer groups and sustainable agriculture advocates, who have been at odds over the amendment's language for months, reached a compromise that could be adopted into the manager's package. Though the details are not yet public, the agreement is rumored to reduce the distance threshold and allow the FDA the ability to withdraw an exemption if a farm or facility is linked to a foodborne illness outbreak.
"We are happy with the outline of the final deal on the Tester-Hagan amendment," Ferd Hoefner policy director of the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition told Food Safety News, adding that specifics of the deal were embargoed.
"It is not exactly what we wanted, but it is something we can live with and get behind. We support its inclusion in the Manager's amendment, and with its inclusion support passage of the Manager's amendment and final passage. We congratulate the bill's sponsors and the amendment's sponsors for their dedication to reaching an agreement that is good for family farmers, good for healthy food consumers, and good for food safety."
Tester, a farmer himself, told reporters yesterday that he will fight tooth and nail for the provision, believing that small-scale local producers are not presenting large-scale food risks.
"What this amendment is simply there to do--it isn't to give anybody a loophole they can drive a truck through, it's to give them a loophole they can walk through with a wheelbarrow full of locally grown farm-processed food," he said.
For Tester, the measure is as much about food safety as it is about the direction of American agriculture.
"If we were to pass this bill without this amendment you're going to see more concentration in agriculture," he told reporters. "You're going to see less choices for the consumer and bigger industrialized agriculture in the country. I don't think that's positive, I don't think it creates jobs, I don't think its good for the economy and I don't think it's good for our food system."
It remains unclear whether the major food and agriculture industry groups, who have recently grown louder in their opposition to any blanket exemptions, will find the deal amenable.
Yesterday, Robert Guenther, vice president of public policy for the United Fresh Produce Association-- which signed a letter opposing the Tester amendment sent to Senate staff Monday--reiterated industry opposition to exempting sectors based on "geographic location, size of operation and to whom they sell their food products."
"The fact remains that when a food safety incident occurs, farmers, wholesalers, distributors and retailers, regardless of size, suffer significant economic hardships," said Guenther. "Most importantly, the vast majority of businesses who suffer this economic hardship have nothing to do with any single food safety incident. In addition, small and local food operations have been associated with a number of food safety incidents and recalls over the last decade and are not immune based on size of operation, distance of geography or commodity."
The Senate is set to debate the food safety bill at 9:30 a.m EST Thursday, likely through late afternoon.
"The Tester-Hagan Amendment, on the other hand, remains a real possibility. The amendment, introduced by Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) and supported by Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC), would exempt farms and food producers that either fit the FDA's definition of "very small business," sell most of their products directly to consumers, restaurants, or retailers within state lines or within 400 miles that have annual sales of less than half a million dollars."
I noticed that too. That amendment, if adopted and placed in the final bill, would deflate a lot or most of the objections I’ve read.
What is the bill number ? Is this SB 510 ?
Yet, the government leviathan grows.
Abolish the FDA.
” and allow the FDA the ability to withdraw an exemption if a farm or facility is linked to a foodborne illness outbreak “
In an earlier thread, this little bit of ‘fine print’ left it up to the FDA to withdraw anybody’s exemption if it perceived a problem.... Either way, it allows the FDA to exercise some arbitrariness (define ‘linked’...) with no due-process, and no recourse....
This is, IMO, a ‘fig-leaf’ amendment, and, probably, won’t survive the reconciliation process....
S510
Why do we accept that the federal government is supposed to set up massive bureaucracies to protect us from what we eat? Are we all stupid children drooling in a corner waiting for nanny government to come fix us up? Why is it the federal government's job to have ANY say in the direction of American agriculture?
The government can go to hell.
Government planning (disaster) and regulation of agriculture has destroyed the independent producers for the past 3 generations. Actions have consequences.
Now with PVPA, USDA regulation and this bill the outlook is more of the same. Tilting the control to Corporate Agriculture and the Federal Government. If you want high food prices and no perceived increase in food safety, support this crap.
The solution for the nation and agriculture production is less government and less regulation. More freedom.
“The government can go to hell”
Agreed. It is irritating to see people oppose more government regulation, until it’s regulation they like. By the time everybody gets their pet regulations enacted, we have intrusive government.
Whenever I see a posting about a bill without its number I get suspicious. Anybody got a link to this (bill) thing. It sounds like a mini version of the curley que light bulb or worse. WLW’s (Cincinatti am700) midnight talkie Steve Summers was on of the few talkies bringing this up.
That is a link to the bill.
Don't allow another new law to be passed until they repeal twenty- or thirty-thousand pages of the CFR.
Are they going to adjust that “small farm” $500,000 for inflation then?
I don’t like it AT ALL. I am against giving ANY more power to the EPA.
Also, have any freepers read the whole text to see what could be hidden in there?
” Also, have any freepers read the whole text to see what could be hidden in there? “
I haven’t read the bill, so this is hearsay - I read it on a couple of of the many ‘3rd party’ websites I visited while trying to track this thing down yesterday —
It’s being reported that this bill, among other distasteful features, gives DHS (Homeland Security) and/or DOD (Defense) the authority to nationalize the entire food chain (or any part) in the event of an unspecified/undefined ‘emergency’.....
I don't think we need to worry. The federal government knows what's best for us and loves us all.
They wouldn't do anything like destroy food when people are starving, or anything.
Wait, what? You mean the federal government did that in the '30's when FDR, the saint, was president?
NO way!
What do they consider an emergency? The people on in the rural areas voting the wrong way? Like how people out in the rural, Russian countryside resisted the Soviets?
Thank You !
S.510, so-called “food safety” bill vote to be this evening. This has GOT to be KILLED. Time for one final FReeping of Senators.
I was just told Thune voted for voting on it.
Toll-Free number to the Congressional Switchboard
(866) 338-1015
Thanks!
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.