It is that time of year. Leaves are turning and the air is getting chilly. And politicians are coming out of the woodwork. Yes, boys and girls, it is election season! While trolling the net for some interesting food safety tidbits, I ran across an
article relating to food safety and politics. It seems that Frank Guinta, the Republican candidate for Congress from New Hampshire’s first congressional district, would like a smaller government. In a
recent appearance, Mr. Guinta told the audience that he could buy fresh farm food from a local New Hampshire farm, therefore, “I don’t need the FDA to make that transaction.” Politics aside, I see a glaring misunderstanding contained in that statement. Contrary to what many people believe, buying food directly from a local farm does not
guarantee that it is safe! As this 2008
Newsweek article points out, when the FDA advised consumers that homegrown tomatoes were not affected by an outbreak of salmonella, it was easy for consumers to assume that locally grown produce would also be safe. The Newsweek article addressed some of the reasons that locally grown produce may be safer, but pointed out that contamination with food borne disease can happen at any point in the food production process.
A few weeks ago I addressed
S.510, the FDA Food Safety and Modernization Act. One of the
criticisms of the bill is that it unfairly penalizes small farms and producers, and all but outlaws growing and selling produce from small farms and gardens. While that assertion may be an exaggeration, there is some
legitimate concern that S.510 applies a “one size fits all” approach to food safety regulation. Consumers' Union points to a
Michigan law which exempts very small producers and sellers from stringent governmental regulation as an example of wisely balancing the need to protect the public with the need and desire to buy and sell locally produced food. As the Senate prepares to vote on S.510 sometime in November, debate rages about the so-called
Tester amendment to the bill. The amendment would exempt small farms and processors which have less than $500,000 in annual sales and that primarily sell products directly to consumers, restaurants or stores within the same state or within 400 miles of the farm or processing facility.
While at first glance the amendment seems reasonable, there may be cause for concern from a consumer standpoint. The
Make Our Food Safe (MOFS) Coalition, which includes the American Public Health Association, Consumers Union and victims of food borne disease, is concerned that the amendment would have unforeseen consequences and pose risks to the public health. On the opposite side of the debate is the
National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NCAS) which believes the Tester Amendment would improve food safety by creating regulatory alternatives based on the size of the food producer/growers. NCAS is composed of grassroots agricultural groups and growers, which explains its staunch support for the Tester amendment. While both groups want safe food, they don’t agree on the best way to make that happen. A lot of the
debate raging about the Tester amendment deals with the language: MOFS feels the language is too broad and sweeping and will include producers outside of the intended scope of the amendment. As you can see, the issue of food safety legislation is a complex, far-reaching issue. The question of what we eat should not be a political issue, but it obviously is. So, as with any other political issue of import, we need to educate ourselves and make sure our
senators know where we stand. You don’t need to be part of a coalition or organized voice to have a say! And don’t forget to vote!
It is that time of year. Leaves are turning and the air is getting chilly. And politicians are coming out of the woodwork. Yes, boys and girls, it is election season! While trolling the net for some interesting food safety tidbits, I ran across an article relating to food safety and politics. It seems that Frank Guinta, the Republican candidate for Congress from New Hampshire’s first congressional district, would like a smaller government. In a recent appearance, Mr. Guinta told the audience that he could buy fresh farm food from a local New Hampshire farm, therefore, “I don’t need the FDA to make that transaction.” Politics aside, I see a glaring misunderstanding contained in that statement. Contrary to what many people believe, buying food directly from a local farm does not guarantee that it is safe! As this 2008 Newsweek article points out, when the FDA advised consumers that homegrown tomatoes were not affected by an outbreak of salmonella, it was easy for consumers to assume that locally grown produce would also be safe. The Newsweek article addressed some of the reasons that locally grown produce may be safer, but pointed out that contamination with food borne disease can happen at any point in the food production process.
A few weeks ago I addressed S.510, the FDA Food Safety and Modernization Act. One of the criticisms of the bill is that it unfairly penalizes small farms and producers, and all but outlaws growing and selling produce from small farms and gardens. While that assertion may be an exaggeration, there is some legitimate concern that S.510 applies a “one size fits all” approach to food safety regulation. Consumers' Union points to a Michigan law which exempts very small producers and sellers from stringent governmental regulation as an example of wisely balancing the need to protect the public with the need and desire to buy and sell locally produced food. As the Senate prepares to vote on S.510 sometime in November, debate rages about the so-called Tester amendment to the bill. The amendment would exempt small farms and processors which have less than $500,000 in annual sales and that primarily sell products directly to consumers, restaurants or stores within the same state or within 400 miles of the farm or processing facility. 
While at first glance the amendment seems reasonable, there may be cause for concern from a consumer standpoint. The Make Our Food Safe (MOFS) Coalition, which includes the American Public Health Association, Consumers Union and victims of food borne disease, is concerned that the amendment would have unforeseen consequences and pose risks to the public health. On the opposite side of the debate is the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NCAS) which believes the Tester Amendment would improve food safety by creating regulatory alternatives based on the size of the food producer/growers. NCAS is composed of grassroots agricultural groups and growers, which explains its staunch support for the Tester amendment. While both groups want safe food, they don’t agree on the best way to make that happen. A lot of the debate raging about the Tester amendment deals with the language: MOFS feels the language is too broad and sweeping and will include producers outside of the intended scope of the amendment. As you can see, the issue of food safety legislation is a complex, far-reaching issue. The question of what we eat should not be a political issue, but it obviously is. So, as with any other political issue of import, we need to educate ourselves and make sure our senators know where we stand. You don’t need to be part of a coalition or organized voice to have a say! And don’t forget to vote!
As usual Ellen, you have done a good BLOG. Food safety should always be a concern, especially with some of the pesticides that are used, but not always reported. Understandably, what we eat and where we get what we eat shouldn't be as much of a political issue as it appears to be. What we eat and where we get it should be a matter of safety by all that handle it, from producer to harvester to those who transport it to whatever market places they go to, and the safety shouldn't stop there. I'm reasonably sure that one of those suppliers in this area,
ReplyDeleteFulton Farms, is most conscientious of food safety, since it delivers, or at least one time, delivered produce to Meijer. I'm not sure where Kroger's food supply is, but hopefully there are also safety practices in place there as well. As you mentioned, it is important to get out and cast that ballot on election day!!