Tweet
Yesterday, a draft of the new Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009 was released. Jill Richardson has the details of what it does & doesn’t do:
- Gives the FDA mandatory recall authority.
- Requires all food producers to register with the FDA & pay a registration fee of $1,000. It applies to both US and foreign producers and will fund the FDA’s activities.
- Requires companies to prepare food safety plans. The FDA can audit them and can specify minimum requirements.
- The FDA is required to issue food safety regulations for production and harvesting of fruits and vegetables. This worries me A LOT. The California Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement provided "safety" guidelines for leafy greens that were absolutely idiotic and harmful. That is what we DON’T want to see happen here. However, that part will be hammered out by the FDA, not by Congress. It’s just something to pay attention to for the future.
- Inspections: High risk facilities must be inspected every 6-18 mos. Lower risk facilities can be inspected every 18 mos to 3 years. Warehouses must be inspected every 3-4 years.
- Traceability:
FDA would be required to issue regulations that require fod producers, manufacturers, processors, transporter, or holders to maintain the full pedigree of the origin and previous distribution history of the food and to link that history with the subsequent distribution history of the food; and to establish an interoperable record to ensure fast and efficient traceback (current law permits facilities to hold a record in any format – paper or electronic – making efficient tracing of foods difficult for FDA). Prior to issuing such regulations, FDA would be required to conduct a feasibility study, public meetings, and a pilot project.
Farms that sell directly to consumers or restaurants are exempted from this provision.
- The bill does NOT include: A requirement that companies test for pathogens and report positive results to the FDA. THIS SHOULD BE ADDED to the bill, if we’re going to have a strong and effective bill
The Grocery Manufacturers Association is going to be lobbying hard to narrow the bill, complaining that the flat $1000 fee on registrants is an undue burden. If they want to propose weighting the fee based on the size of the company, I’m all in favor.
Kraft and Kellogg Co. have opposed such legislation in the past, but have had a "philosophical shift" after contaminated peanut butter killed 9 people cost Kellogg $70 million.
As Jill notes, it would be great to have a champion on the Energy & Commerce committee willing to fight for pathogens testing. If your congressperson is on the committee, please give ‘em a call and ask for their help.
12 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
So Kraft Foods has to pay the same $1000 FDA fee as Mom & Pop’s Roadside Fruit Stand?
Sweet.
Was wondering about that, after having read this a while back:
http://www.opednews.com/articl…..3-287.html
Jane,
Marketing Agreements are put in place and ‘enforced’ (to the extent that they are enforced) by USDA, not the FDA. USDA has long since been captured by Big Agribidness. I doubt the existing Marketing Agreements/Market Orders are indicative of what FDA will do. There is a chance that the FDA can get this one right.
Pathogen testing/monitoring should be in the bill, because it will require FDA to include those in its proposed regulations.
I think that’s why the GMA is protesting the flat fee.
When you’re designing regulatory fee structures, generating sufficient income to support the program generally requires a capitation fee. I think of it as the Willie Sutton Principle — big fees for big players, because that’s where the money is.
o/t
for Jane
GM reaches deal with Bondholders
NYT
I disagree with Jill on one point. We DON’T want companies to do their own testing. We want the FDA to do testing, just as the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service does for meat and their Animal Plant Health Inspection Service does for other foodstuffs.
Just give the FDA regulatory powers and facilities identical to those of FSIS. Problem solved!
Aha. A $1000 fee barrier to entry for organic food processors and local processors.
WTF is a “safety plan”? Another barrier to entry.
As is company testing. State health departments and the FDA should have inspectors in circuits of smaller facilities and onsite at larger ones, just as in the original meat inspection regulations. Internal audits of inspectors should provide a check against becoming company folk. Inspection fees should be based on performance and plant size. There should be no idea that inspection should be self-supporting corporate risk managers and consumers have a stake in the performance of processing plants. Individual and corporate taxes in the general fund should suffice.
Just on the basis of what is provided above, the legislation is pretty darn weak. On top of that, you’ve got an FDA with a solid track record of whoring for Big Pharma over a number of years. It doesn’t instill confidence, to be sure.
There should at least be some assistance for small food producers to apply the new rules. This will only send many small food companies into the waiting arms of corporate giants, reducing the choices we make at the store.
Personally, I look for smaller companies and Mom and Pop outfits for much of my food. Organic and naturally produced food is my preference. If they get swallowed up or shut down because of these new rules, I’m left with nothing but ADM, ConAgra, and other cancer causing agents.
Food safety is vital but make the big boys pay and help the little guy meet the new standards. I’m tired of seeing a thousand brands on the store shelf coming from only a handful of greedy corporate conglomerates.
I came in here to make the same observation.
could small producers form coops, coop pays fees and any testing?
I think of the small producers I buy from at Farmer’s market. somehow $1,000 per year seems to be a high price to me, but if it was distributed among 4 or 5 growers it would be less onerous.
9 years with USDA. I guarantee you this is a step against the organic/natural slow food movement.
$1000 is a lot of money but look a little deeper. The database and tracking capability they are requiring would cost way way more in terms of time and money than $1000 fee. I am betting the tracking is something only a large scale operation would be able to support financially.
Really we just need to go back to the old ways of doing things before things were deregulated.
CO-ops are a potential idea but you give up your independence and it is like going into business with these other people. It is not really practical if you are really the only producer in your area.
I say make the big boys pay. Let’s face it they are the ones causing the problems anyway. The big conglomerates can certainly afford it.