This past weekend I had the pleasure to meet at least six people who are engaged in sustainable farming in Virginia. These individuals worked on farms for a number of years for very little money. Their pleasure was learning how to grow organic foods, eating the same foods and supplying others with their produce.
This organic farming lifestyle has become a subculture in America – a quiet revolution. It is built upon the hopes of twenty- to thirty-something-year-old individuals, both male and female, who enjoy working the land in the most sustainable ways. They are not illegal immigrants, nor are they drifters. Many are students, and just as many are married and live on the land they farm as responsible stewards.
I was impressed with these individuals, as they believe in providing an alternative food source to local residents and they love their work. So, when I learned about H.R. 875 [PDF], the “Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009,” yesterday I was alarmed and concerned for these small farmers. This bill is designed to regulate the food industry and, in the process, help eliminate or reduce the number of illnesses, deaths and recalls that U.S. citizens have experienced recently as the result of eating processed foods. I wondered how this bill might hurt the farmers I met last week, as these folks want to make a profit, yet they don’t own enough land to feed thousands of people.
My horror was mitigated, however, by the very nature of some opinion pieces written against this legislation. Those articles seemed alarmist and were just as vague as some of the wording in this legislation. So, I decided to ask a few friends to read over the bill with me and I did a bit more digging on the sources. Here is what I discovered:
- H. R. 875 was introduced on 4 February 2009 by Representative Rosa DeLauro (D – CT). Although Rep. DeLauro is lauded for her work on the Paycheck Fairness Act, she also is questioned for her connections to large agricultural conglomerates and corporations. A look at PAC money contributed to DeLauro in 2008 shows $182,000 from Agribusiness, the largest amount provided outside Labor.
- If you follow the PAC link above, you can click on different links to dig deeper and find companies like farmer-owned cooperative Land O’Lakes and Agri-Mark, another cooperative, as DeLauro’s supporters. While, on a personal level, I cannot support some of the companies that support DeLauro, I also don’t see Monsanto or any other genetic-altering food company on that list of financial backers.
- On the other hand, DeLauro’s husband, Stanley Bernard Greenberg, is a Democratic pollster and political strategist who counts Monsanto as one of his clients. Monsanto, therefore, is less than six degrees away from DeLauro, but there remains a question about how much influence Monsanto might have on DeLauro’s decision-making processes.
- The first article against this bill that caught my eye was produced by Campaign for Liberty. The president of Campaign for Liberty is John Tate, a man who specializes in political strategy, fund raising and grassroots lobbying. John served as the National Political Director for The Ron Paul Presidential Campaign Committee and is currently President of the newly formed Campaign for Liberty. He is well known in Virginia as a long-time political activist.
- Considering Tate’s and DeLauro’s politics, I consider Tate’s campaign against H. R. 875 a political stance against DeLauro or even the Democratic party rather than a stance against the bill itself. The tirade against this bill, for instance, assures readers that H. R. 875 will destroy the ability to grow backyard or home gardens. However, there seems to be an exclusion for this type of ‘farming’ in Sec. 3, Paragraph 13B (page 11, line 21). where it states, “the term ‘food establishment’ does not include a food production facility as defined in paragraph 14 [below], restaurant, other retail food establishment, nonprofit food establishment in which food is prepared for or served directly to the consumer.” As far-reaching as this sounds, this exclusion could include a home garden (nonprofit food establishment in which food is prepared for or served directly to the consumer). Also, the following Paragraph 14 states, “The term ‘food production facility’ means any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined animal-feeding operation.” So, there is a difference noted in this bill between “food establishment” and “food production facility.” These terms are worth noting when reading this bill, but they also are of a concern to the small commercial farmer who also eats his own food…the paperwork for this scenario as defined by this bill could prove a nightmare.
- While this bill seems to concentrate on food processing plants and food distribution areas, it does not touch specifically on small farmers or organic farming – small commercial businesses that do food processing at the ’sustainable’ level. Think free-range chicken ranches and farms that package produce for farmers’ markets (even putting items in crates could be considered ‘packaging’). These businesses are not non-profit ventures. They are commercial, and – therefore – may be included in this legislation and would need to meet the same oversight as larger food production facilities.
- Tate’s campaign against this bill is understandable, as the bill advocates increased government oversight, a practice that many Americans have come to distrust. Increased government oversight also adds to the bottom dollar, which means an increase in market prices. This increased oversight may add an undue financial burden on the small farmer as well as to the consumer who wishes to purchase alternative food sources.
- Moving on to other opinions, the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund is opposed to this bill, but the Center for Science in the Public Interest is for the bill. The first group is a nonprofit organization that supports local farmers and the latter is a government organization that wants to regulate the food we eat. Common sense might tell me to go the way of the local farmer; but, I also want to know if that local organic farmer tested the soil for chemicals and used sanitary conditions to move produce to markets.
The questions are big ones, and the answers are not readily available. I invite you to read H. R. 875 [PDF] to form your own opinions. You might want to read more opinions, such as Is Congress Aiming to Kill Organic Farms to learn more about how others view this national legislation. And, you might want to talk this bill over with your local farmer(s).
Currently the bill has been introduced and referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee (majority Democrat) and the House Agriculture Committee (majority Democrat). No Virginia representatives serve on those committees. Those committees will then report on their findings and it will be voted on in the House and then the Senate before it is signed into law by President Obama. You can follow the progress on the bill at Govtrack.us.
There is some time for public comment, and there is time to contact Representative Perriello (or any other representative) about the bill as well. I am anxious to hear your comments on H. R. 875, as I need help in understanding the bill, too. I think it is important, considering the growth of small organic and sustainable farms in Virginia, that there is dialogue about this legislation before it becomes part of our daily lives. Please feel free to use the comment section below for your thoughts or to point readers to other resources that might help everyone decipher this bill.