Small farms squeezed

It's getting difficult to name a food that hasn't recently caused a pathogen outbreak. Bagged salad, peppers, beef and peanuts are just some dietary staples that have been caught spreading E. coli, salmonella and other diseases. These outbreaks have inspired a legislative push to make America's food safer, which sounds like a good thing. Unfortunately, the effort has resulted in pending and proposed legislation that, as written, threatens to punish the people and businesses that produce the safest and healthiest food of all, while depriving consumers of the opportunity to eat it.

The outbreaks are all coming from the big ag side of our food system, and the new laws aim to regulate the factory farms, processors and distributors that are creating the problem. But the legislation also exposes small family farms to the same regulations and fees.

click to enlarge food_flash1-1.jpg

Food produced on small farms and marketed locally hasn't been implicated in any of the recent outbreaks for several reasons. Small farms create fewer situations in which diseases can thrive; livestock confinement operations, for example, are swimming with E. coli, while the microbe is relatively scarce in smaller livestock operations. Food produced by large operations, already more likely to be contaminated, is fed into long supply chains where the contamination can spread during transport, storage or processing.

Food grown on family farms and sold locally is usually sampled by the farmers and their families first—a built-in first line of quality control. And if there is a problem with small, local farm food, the consumer population that might be exposed is small and localized, making the problem inherently traceable. Meanwhile, state and local public health and sanitation laws are already in place to regulate small ag.

Nonetheless, the recently passed House Resolution 2749 and the proposed Senate Bill 510 (aka the Food Safety Modernization Act) lump small ag and big ag together in the same regulatory framework.

As written, the Senate bill would require small producers and processors to submit to the same cumbersome Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) system, which would add an onerous burden of paperwork, record keeping and possibly infrastructure investments to companies that don't necessarily have the resources to handle it.

The House resolution includes a fee system in which the small players subsidize the regulation of the big ones: All food processing facilities would have to pay the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) a $500 annual fee to help cover the costs of enacting the law. This would be a drop in the bucket for large corporations like Dole, which would likely be more expensive to regulate, and disproportionately burdensome for mom-and-pop operations that sell to their neighbors. And while the Senate bill currently contains no language regarding funding, if Obama's spending freeze gains any traction, then inspection and registration fees would likely be inserted into the final language.

The current version of the Senate bill would also authorize the FDA to establish "science-based" rules governing the growth and harvesting of crops that are deemed high risk. In the event that farmers have concerns about the FDA's designation of high-risk crops or the regulations regarding how they are grown, the bill mandates only three public forums during the one-year rulemaking period. Stakeholders would bear the expense of traveling great distances to one of these three meetings to voice concerns, and the FDA has a history of being insensitive to timing with regard to the realities of the farming season. Last year the agency scheduled a discussion on the National Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement in the middle of the summer.

"Everybody who participated in [the agreement] who was a farmer had to set aside what makes them their living in one of the most critical periods of the year—and that's crap," Harry Hamil, a North Carolina farmer and activist, told Food Safety News. "There needs to be a statement about the timing of such things."

Many small farmers and consumer groups, such as the Western Organization of Resource Councils (WORC), are working to ensure the Senate bill only targets companies marketing at a wholesale level for wide distribution, while exempting small farms and processors that market directly to consumers, restaurants, hospitals, schools, hotels and other local institutions. Other groups, like the Make Our Food Safe Coalition, want food safety legislation passed as soon as possible, with or without small farm exemptions.

While many are understandably frustrated that the government isn't doing enough to protect us from food-borne illness, we can't let the haste to make our food safer lead to crushing the producers that grow the safest food of all. It may create a short-term gain in food safety, but it would represent a long-term loss in health.

While making the Senate bill friendlier to small farms is an uphill climb, it's not without precedent. Hamil points to the FDA's new egg rule to help minimize Salmonella enteritidis, finalized last summer, as an example of the kind of tiered regulation that could be applied to the rest of the food industry. The egg rule specifically applies only to egg producers with more than 3,000 laying hens. Hopefully that kind of scaling can make its way into the Senate bill. And if it passes, hopefully such changes will remain after it's reconciled with the House resolution.

If Americans are going to eat food that's grown, processed and combined with other ingredients in large facilities thousands of miles from where the food is ultimately consumed, enhanced supervision of all steps in that supply chain is warranted. What isn't warranted is the application of the same regulations to small producers and processors that are part of the solution, and not part of the problem.

So the pressure is on to make some common-sense changes quickly. Call or write your senator.

Ask Ari

Honey help

Dear Flash,

Q: I want to know the best way to deal with crystallized honey. If I microwave it, do I kill the good stuff in the honey? Or is it better to do it in hot water?

—Hard Honey

A: I'm not sure what you mean by the "good stuff" in honey. Honey is a potent antibiotic, making it unlikely that anything is living in your honey. It's been used as a wound dressing for thousands of years, and now you can even find highly filtered "medical grade" honey.

Honey will generally crystallize when stored below 70 degrees; warming your crystallized honey will reverse the process. Using a microwave is fine.

Dear Flash,

Q: I've been seeing a lot of organic honey in stores and on restaurant menus. Can you tell me how it's made?

—Show Me the Honey

A: Most honey that's labeled organic, including all domestic honey, is not certified organic. That's because the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) doesn't even have a definition of what honey is, much less rules or inspectors for certifying honey as organic. Nonetheless, there is a problem with some honey being labeled USDA certified organic.

While a lot of honey on the market is cut with other sweeteners and additives, to date only the state of Florida has a codified definition of honey, which dictates that it must be completely pure and unadulterated.

But even Florida beekeepers can't stop their bees from patrolling a 2- to 3-mile radius, which could include stops in fields treated with chemicals.

Honey from faraway lands where chemicals are sparsely used may in some cases truly qualify as organic. Indeed, there are several non-U.S. honey certifiers, each with their own standards. So the question becomes: Who's certifying the certifiers?

Send your food and garden queries to flash@flashinthepan.net

  • Email
  • Favorite
  • Print

Speaking of Flash In The Pan

Readers also liked…

More by Ari LeVaux

© 2016 Missoula News/Independent Publishing | Powered by Foundation