Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Don't believe the naysayers: HR 875 is a good bill

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
jmowreader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-12-09 07:05 PM
Original message
Don't believe the naysayers: HR 875 is a good bill
House Resolution 875 is the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009.

There are currently some fairly negative and erroneous beliefs about this bill floating around the internet. What caused me to write this thread is a General Discussion post which claimed the bill would outlaw vegetable gardening and ban farmers' markets. Oh my. You should have seen the shitstorm that followed. There's probably even a "they can have my rake when they take it from my cold dead hands" comment over there. I didn't look, but that's the tenor of the comments. There are also plenty of "this is a gift to Monsanto" posts, which are scary since Monsanto neither grows nor processes food. The company Monsanto, as it is constituted today, makes two things: seed, and agricultural chemicals. But Monsanto is a story for another day.

Today's subject is HR 875. To understand why we need this bill we should look at the current environment.

Right now, food is regulated by the same agency that regulates drugs--the Food and Drug Administration. President Eisenhower appointed the last FDA commissioner who didn't hold a doctorate in a medical field--and of all the commissioners since them, almost all were MDs. One was a pharmacist, one a neurophysiologist and the last a veterinarian who moonlighted as a crook. (Dr. Lester Crawford served the FDA for seven weeks and was rewarded for his work with a $90,000 fine and three years' supervised probation. Needless to say, he was appointed by Shrub.) Now, there's nothing wrong with doctors. They're perfectly fine people, and they do yeoman service in keeping the nation's drug supply reasonably safe. They're also working in a climate where they're underfunded, understaffed, expected to "run the department like a business" and tasked to maintain the safety of four completely different sectors of the American economy--drugs, medical devices, foods and cosmetics. Cosmetics is now essentially self-regulating--it has to be; the FDA doesn't have the resources to step into that industry. The FDA does a decent job with drugs and medical devices. But food? Upton Sinclair would have a field day in today's food marketplace.

HR 875's major purpose is to split the FDA into two organizations--a Federal Drug and Device Administration, and a Food Safety Administration. In the new operation will be all the food-safety operations of the current FDA, plus NOAA's seafood inspection operation. Both will report to the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

The anti-875 contingent claims this bill will get rid of organic farms, farmer's markets and even home gardens by putting them under onerous levels of regulation. None of this is true--in fact, 875 doesn't regulate food producers or retailers. (The rumor going around says 875 will put hot dog stands under some sort of draconian control. The bill doesn't regulate restaurants.)

The bill institutes a good food safety program, including requiring imports to meet the same safety standards domestically-produced food is held to, reducing food adulteration, and--for the first time--giving the government the power to order recalls. At the present time all recalls are voluntary.

The problems I see with this bill--the problems that have caused all the negative publicity to form--are Sections 208 (Imports) and 210 (Traceback Requirements). Check out the introduction to Section 208:

In General- All imported food under this Act shall meet requirements for food safety, inspection, labeling, and consumer protection that are at least equal to those applicable to food grown, manufactured, processed, packed, or held for consumption in the United States.


Now understand, "food" in this bill means any ingredient that can be put in either human food or animal food. Hence, they can't cut powdered milk with plaster of Paris anymore. I think we can all agree that right now China is the Wild Wild West when it comes to their business practices--the fuckers would paint sand white and label it "powdered milk" if they thought anyone would buy it. The problem here is, US food companies will have to buy only from accredited Chinese producers, which is bad for the bottom line because you KNOW the price of accreditation and its recurring inspections will be added to the price of a company's wares.

As for Section 210...this will cause severe grief for companies that maintain commodities in bulk. The opening paragraph:

In General- The Administrator, in order to protect the public health, shall establish a national traceability system that enables the Administrator to retrieve the history, use, and location of an article of food through all stages of its production, processing, and distribution.


Every lot of product used in a food item will have to be tracked from field to fork, and it's cumulative--flour makes bread, which makes bread crumbs, which makes meat loaf, which makes frozen dinners. If the flour, bread, bread crumbs, meatloaf and frozen dinners are made by five different companies...well, there ya go. In a perfect world this would be welcomed by a food company--if it turns out the corn meal factory made lot number 3001 without cleaning the peanut meal out of the milling machine, the recall of the tamales they made out of the corn meal will be limited to "Lot 2014" which is the only one that used that corn meal, not "all tamales made between March and August." But recordkeeping costs money all the time, while recalls only cost money when they happen. So fuck it, eh?

There's also a requirement that packaged foods be labeled with instructions on how to prepare them so as to eliminate, as much as possible, foodborne pathogens. Most foods are already labeled as such, but things like canned vegetables aren't. Redesigning the labels will be a one-time expense, but the food companies won't want to make it.

Hence the need for astroturfing. Given the fact this bill is going to cost the food industry quite a bit if it passes, even though they can pass the costs on to the consumer, they are most definitely interested in seeing it go away. The cheapest way is to invade the blogosphere and start posting untruths.

It's a good bill. Don't believe the negative hype.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-12-09 07:09 PM
Response to Original message
1. Thank you. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
4lbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-12-09 07:13 PM
Response to Original message
2. Yes, very good post. K&R'ed.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marketcrazy1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-12-09 07:14 PM
Response to Original message
3. thanks for the post
Edited on Thu Mar-12-09 07:18 PM by marketcrazy1
when I finish reading the ENTIRE bill ( if I can find it ) I will check back in............. here it is, only 117 pages. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-875
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-12-09 07:17 PM
Response to Original message
4. kicking
so more can see
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-12-09 07:20 PM
Response to Original message
5. I don't blame people for being skittish..
... the wording is so broad it could mean anything.

No thanks. I'd rather have the benign neglect of the FDA than the food gestapo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-12-09 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. What wording? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laurab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-12-09 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #5
12. Actually, I think we've had that for 8 years or so.
"the benign neglect of the FDA" - GW thought manufacturers could regulate themselves, pretty much. I haven't read the bill, but from the bits I've seen, it looks as though they just want to go back to protecting our food supply and our drug supply - something that hasn't been done well over the past 8 years.

I worked for the FDA for quite some time years ago, and keep in touch with a few people who still work there. Knowing what I know about how the FDA is SUPPOSED to work, and how it's been working, I am glad to see this. If you trust manufacturers to regulate themselves, that's your choice, but there are a number of things I gave up eating after reading one of Molly Ivin's books, where she talked about the lack of oversight under bush (in specifics).

They were not, and will not be the "food gestapo". They WILL once again have the backing of the Executive Office when they investigate the manufacturing plants that process our food and drugs. Without that, they were not very useful, and I seem to remember quite a few problems with imported foods, drugs getting approved without proper testing (I'm happy I never filled that Vioxx prescription I was given years ago). The FDA tests imported foods as well as domestic foods, and in the past they never had much to do with produce, stores, farms, etc - that was the Department of Agriculture's forte.

I, for one, will feel a whole lot safer now - I know from experience what a great agency the FDA can be, and the kind of people who are employed there. It's about time they were able to return to their job of protecting our food and drug supplies. I imagine it was a frustrating 8 years for them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stlsaxman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-12-09 07:25 PM
Response to Original message
6. Thank you. I almost fell prey to the naysayers, but something didn't scan...
so i read the bill and who was signing on and it became clear that it's a good bill that has the safety of the consumer at the heart of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wednesdays Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-12-09 07:31 PM
Response to Original message
7. Hear, hear.
We really have to be vigilant about "fifth column" threads that creep up on DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ColbertWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-12-09 07:34 PM
Response to Original message
8. We need a bill. But we need to make sure Monsanto doesn't get shit from it. k+r, n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-12-09 07:57 PM
Response to Original message
10. If Monsanto wants it, I probably don't.
Just sayin' ...

:shrug:

-Laelth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-12-09 08:15 PM
Response to Original message
11. It is a federal takeover of the food supply...
I am against it.

I am also inclined to think that if Monsanto is defending it, then it cannot be a "good bill."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmowreader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-13-09 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #11
15. There are arguments in favor of a federal takeover of the food supply
This is what happens when the Wonderful Free Unregulated Market is in charge of our food supply:

E. Coli:

1993: 700 sickened, four dead from Jack in the Box hamburger
1994: 23 sickened from dry-cured salami
1996: 70 sickened, one dead from apple juice
1997: 108 sickened from alfalfa sprouts
1999: 781 sickened, two dead from drinking water
2006: Two incidents:
200 sickened, three dead from fresh spinach
53 sickened from onions
2007: A dozen sickened, one business forced into bankruptcy over 21.7 million pounds of ground beef

Salmonella:
2008-2009: 666 in 45 states as of February 24, 2009, from Peanut Corporation of America products.

This is the map of salmonella infections from last year's tomato scare:


This is a map of salmonella infections caused by breakfast cereals:


This is a map of salmonella infections caused by cantaloupes:


We must also not forget the melamine problems--dog food, cat food, baby formula...NO ONE deserves to die from eating a hamburger. No one deserves to lose a cat because Mao Lijun decided he could make more money by selling flour mixed with melamine than he could by selling gluten. According to http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/03/business/food.php, the main Chinese factory involved in the melamine scare--AFTER the world figured out what the fuck was happening--tried to step up production of its melamine/flour mix. On March 21, 2007, they made a post to an e-commerce website: "We urgently need a lot of melamine scrap."

I'm tired of seeing people die from the machinations of the free market. We deserve better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rexjobs Donating Member (1 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-12-09 11:20 PM
Response to Original message
13. did you read the same bill I did?
Why are you saying "875 doesn't regulate food producers." That's clearly incorrect.

Section 3, Paragraph 14 defines "FOOD PRODUCTION FACILITY" as *ANY* farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined animal-feeding operation.

Then, in Section 206, it outlines all the regulations that apply to them. As an example, Section 206a(4) allows the gov't to...

"conduct monitoring and surveillance of animals, plants, products, or the environment, as appropriate."

Finally, see Section 405a(1)a. Failure to comply = $1,000,000 fine.









Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmowreader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-13-09 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. Tell me you don't think that's necessary
Yes, I managed to overlook Section 206.

Then again...our vegans have a list of videos of animal cruelty in factory farming operations. They've got one REALLY wonderful video of workers in a chicken facility (whether it was a farm or a slaughterhouse I don't remember, but it was one of the two) stomping chickens to death. IIRC flvegan is our point man on this subject.

As to "the environment," recall that on June 21, 1995, there was a hog waste lagoon breach at Oceanview Farms in Onslow County, NC. It dumped 25 MILLION gallons of liquified pig shit into the New River. Could federal surveillance of Oceanview's lagoons have averted the problem? It's very possible.

To tell ya true, after eight years of Ronald Reagan's "the market knows best," four years of Poppy Bush's "the market knows best," eight years of the GOP jumping Clinton's shit if he even suggested the market may not know best and eight years of Shrub's "the market knows best," I have come to the conclusion the market only knows what's best for the market. I would really like it if SOMEONE at least looked like he cares what's good for me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCKit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-13-09 04:00 PM
Response to Original message
16. "...the price of accreditation... will be added to the price of a company's wares."
Which will, in turn, make it profitable to produce those wares right here, at home.

Regulation, wage parity, unionization and ending illegal government subsidies of foreign goods would all go a long way toward making "Made in the U.S.A." realistic. The difference between "Free Trade" and "Fair Trade".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tashca Donating Member (935 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-13-09 04:24 PM
Response to Original message
17. A good start
Thank you for outlining the bill. I believe this is a good start to getting our food supply back to a safe system and regulation out of the hands of free market forces. This is about food safety period. I can understand the food industry's frantic attempts to kill this one.
I especially like the attempt to put teeth into regulation of imported foods.

I have no idea how Monsanto got into this argument. There is nothing there that I can see that would impact them positive or negatively.........yet I keep seeing them mentioned. I suppose they fear the next bill will come after them maybe??

Please....if someone has a statement from Monsanto saying they favor this bill... please post it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 01:47 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC