The House Energy and Commerce Committee approved legislation yesterday that will drastically improve the food safety system in the U.S. by giving the government more power to oversee and enforce food safety standards. While there is some uncertainty over how the bill will affect small farmers and producers, overall the bill will afford better protection for consumers, and the Consumer’s Union agrees. We’re only half way through the year and we’ve already had multiple salmonella outbreaks, and a swine flu pandemic that is likely a result of unsanitary farm conditions. The bill focuses on prevention, and a shared responsibility between the FDA and food manufacturers to keep food safety closely monitored. It would also give the FDA authority for the first time to order food recalls, impose new civil penalties and require companies to follow food-safety standards. The improvements will include:
· Inspections of high-risk food facilities at least every 6-12 months as well as inspection of lower-risk facilities at least once every 3 years (FDA currently averages inspections once every ten years). The schedule for high-risk facility inspection is an improvement over previous versions of the bill.
· A requirement that says, after a period of information gathering and study, FDA will be able to require high-risk food facilities to submit the results of testing their finished food products for safety.
· A requirement that all registered domestic and foreign food facilities identify hazards and implement steps to prevent or reduce contaminants that may appear in food.
· A requirement that businesses keep basic safety records in a standard format so they are easier for FDA to review.
· Authority for FDA to order a recall if a company fails to do so when requested.
· A requirement that food facilities selling to American consumers register with the FDA and pay annual fees.
· A requirement that FDA gather information and run a pilot project to set up a method to trace food back to its source in the case of contamination. Such a “traceback” system will have to allow FDA to trace food back to its source within two business days, a power which was clearly lacking at the agency during last year’s salmonella outbreak with peppers.
Also, Sarah will be happy to hear that the bill will require the FDA to take a closer look at the scientific data on the safety of Bisphenol A (BPA), a plastic additive that appears in many food and beverage containers. Hopefully they will realize the urgent need for a ban on this toxic ingredient.
Next up will be for the House to approve the bill, which they hopefully will before their July 4th recess. Stay tuned for more!
CATEGORIES: Environment, Global Health
Related Posts:
Stay Informed with TakePart:
Get Blog Updates:
Blogroll
- AlterNet
- Amnesty International Livewire
- b-listed
- Boing Boing
- Brave New Films
- CauseCast
- Changents
- Climate Crisis
- Democracy Now!
- Ecorazzi
- EdNews
- Environmental News Network
- Ethicurean
- GOOD
- Grist
- Harvard World Health News
- Huffington Post
- Human Rights Watch
- Inhabitat
- Meatless Monday
- Media Matters
- NewsTrust
- NRDC Switchboard
- Rock The Vote
- SEED Magazine
- SocialVibe
- Sustainablog
- TechPresident
- The Daily Dish
- The Democracy Center
- Think Progress
- TreeHugger
- Truthout
- Why Tuesday?
- Worldchanging
What is a “food Facility”? Farm, processing plant, resturant, grocery store, deli, my kitchen. This is way to broad. Frequency and degree of regulation should be related to the degree of risk. The more a “facility” produces the more comsumers potentially exposed to risk if contamination occurs. Small farms, road side vendor and farmers market vendor pose a risk to few people. Large Farms and large “food Facilites” ( Nestle, etc) pose a risk to a hugh population. Large commerical operations can also better afford greater regulation. Does this Bill involve the NAIS ( Nat’l animal identifcation system)?
Are you talking about HR 875 and S 425? Do you realize this bill’s main sponsors are Monsanto, Cargill, ADM and other agri-giants? Why would you support this bill?? It’s language is so broad as to include organic farms and even home gardens? It is intended to give yet more power to huge agri-business to wipe out the competition of organic and small bio-regional food distributors! Under the “guise” of food safety. Please do some more research!
please add me on facebook i believe what you say and would like to connect more on HR 875. F..monsanto!!! kayty brown and this is my url (if it works to help get you there) http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1116737409#/home.php?ref=home
I am shocked that you are supporting this bill. How about you read it? It will be devastating to small farmers and those trying to buy direct. It goes against everything your blog purports to support. Until the legislation is specific about what type of “food facilities” are to be regulated and how large a business has to be before its regulated then I think you should be against this type of legislation.
please connect to kayty brown in eugene oregon …on facebook i would like to discuss it more. thank you! i agree!
This bill will put small farmers and ranchers at a disadvantage. The fees and requirements for record-keeping (tracing every piece of food would mean registering every animal!) will mean that only large farms and ranches with dedicated staff can comply.
No wonder the large corporate food producers love this thing!
It will NOT be good for us, the people. The former USSR, communist China under Mao, and still today North Korea had much more strict central planning for food production –and many millions of people starved under each regime!
It is naive to think that the best bureaucrats, using the best scientific results, will make our food supply safer. Our scientific knowledge about life and ecology is not perfect, and the heavily lobbied process of making laws and regulations is much farther from perfect!
Ecologically, making agricultural practice more uniform will make our food supply more vulnerable to diseases, pests and climate change. Over the past decade, controlled studies have shown that more biodiverse ecosystems are more resilient to adverse changes.
This proposed legislation will reduce the diversity of crops and animals produced and the ways that they are produced, because it will enforce uniform federal standards on everyone, even in different states with vastly different climates and local environments. Worse still, by driving small producers out of business, it will further reduce the diversity of our agricultural production.
I sincerely oppose this proposal as too risky, too costly, and morally wrong for favoring large producers over small family farms.
Sincerely,
S. Lan Smith, PhD
http://researchpages.net/people/s-lan-smith/
can we start with labeling our food? i would not like to buy GMO food. Second the e-coli spinach and cilatro and whatever else you GMO to be resistant to e-coli can create cancer…so the lesser of 2 evils is that the answer? just like our presidents. Since Monsanto has been backing every campaign with the most $ since Reagan you may want to look at the long term of not labeling our food. Maybe someday you will realize our children are an experiment of GMOs. Maybe you should ask yourself why have other countries banned GMO all together maybe Monsanto didn’t give them any money : ) Or maybe they unlike Americans can not be bought out for short term gain.