Produce trade groups: Our way or no way.
The Food Safety Bill, AKA S. 510, is in the midst of a congressional tug-of-war, but, according to the perpsicacious Helena Bottemiller at Food Safety News, a final vote on the bill probably won’t happen until after the Thanksgiving break.
The biggest development came yesterday when the Tester/Kagan amendment was adopted (Cooking Up a Story). Now, as we’ve discussed, this bill has found longtime sustainable ag allies suddenly on opposing sides of the debate, but I think many agree that the Tester/Kagan amendment is an improvement on S.510, since it attempts to shield small farmers from undo regulation.
And that’s the crucial sticking point.
On one hand, S 510 would increase regulation and inspection on the most intricate and sprawling sectors of the food industry. These are the sectors where, if one giant “farm” starts churning out tainted eggs, the public health threat is enormous. That makes S. 510 basically a good bill, in this one aspect and at its heart of hearts. The fact that lawmakers and industry were supporting it gave many hope that a good food safety law could be created.
But the wrinkle is this: Why should small farmers be expected to keep the same strict records and perform the same food handling practices as giant factory farms and food franchises?
My quick answer: They shouldn’t.
We have two very different food systems in America: Big and regional/small. If a small orchard produces jarred apple sauce, sells direct to a few local groceries, and uses its own brand on the label (along with dates and lot codes), it’s a “what you see is what you get” (WYSIWIG) food system. Contrast that with the DeCoster egg recall where there were so many brands-within-brands, and companies within companies, selling those tainted eggs that the recall was very confusing to consumers and it disrupted business all over America.
Big Ag doesn’t agree with my little “two food systems” theory, though. The drumbeat from Big Food and Big Ag is “consistency”. Whether we’re talking about a large, fast food chain or a mom-and-pop cafe, a microbe infects customers in exactly the same way, and, therefore, the “risk assessment” is identical. Consequently, Big Ag/Food says that all food producers have the same risks when it comes to food safety and that legislation should be based on this idea of identical risk assessment.
So it’s understandable that when the Tester/Kagan amendment was added to the Food Safety Bill late last night, Big Veg trade groups unloaded all their guns on the Tester amendment and refused to support the bill if it was attached. Specifically, in a joint letter to the Senate, Big Veg said the Tester amendment was unfair and unscientific:
Unfortunately, by incorporating the Tester amendment in the bill, consumers will be left vulnerable to the gaping holes and uneven application of the law created by these exemptions [for small operations]. In addition, it sets an unfortunate precedent for future action on food safety policy by Congress that science and risk based standards can be ignored. And most importantly, this amendment rejects the fundamental purpose of S. 510 that requires FDA to develop standards and set requirements that are based on science and risk.
In short, if we say that small farmers in a more direct food system obviously don’t need ALL the regs imposed by S. 510, because what you see is what you get, then law is being applied unequally and science is being ignored.
This is a deliberately narrow and intellectually dishonest view of food science. Of course salmonella behaves the same whether it’s at Pop’s Cafe or McDonald’s, But that’s a “straw man” argument — no one’s saying it does. But science says that on a public health, epidemiological level, Pop’s Cafe could never sicken as many customers with salmonella as McDonald’s. Eggs sold at a farmer’s market serving 500 people, or even 50,000, could simply never infect as many people as the DeCoster egg empire could.
The heart of the Tester amendment is this: Small, local/regional food systems provide bulwarks against the spread of pathogens. Unless we build these fortifications, nourish their creation, and recognize that a decentralized food system is inherently safer, we are ignoring epidemiological science and basic math. The Tester amendment is absolutely necessary for this Food Safety Bill to be remotely effective.
These “Big Veg” trade groups are deliberately avoiding this fact in their letter. Out of self-interest, they’re ignoring the basic public health benefit of local food because if small WYSIWYG systems become more prevalent, smaller farming members of these trade groups will have their own markets, their own face-to-face customers, and become less reliant on the marketing benefits of trade associations.
What we’re watching is Big Veg keeping Small Veg down. And this is no clearer than in Big Veg’s letter to the Senate:
Comments from Senator Tester and supporters are now making it abundantly clear that
their cause is not to argue that small farms pose less risk, but to wage an ideological war
against the vast majority of American farmers that seeks to feed 300 million Americans.
We are appalled at statements by Senator Tester reported today in the Capital Press that “Small producers are not raising a commodity, but are raising food. Industrial agriculture, he said, takes the people out of the equation.”
See what I see? Big Ag is absolutely terrified of local and sustainable food. They have no substantive argument against this runaway trend of direct, person to person, “what you see is what you get” food. Tester is right, and they know it. Of course industrial agriculture “takes people out of the equation” – that’s precisely what production-based industry does, its M.O, it’s reason for being. Customers and farmers scattered all over the place? That only slows industry down. Production-based ag deliberately consolidates, homogenizes, streamlines, and maximizes efficiency. If they didn’t, we wouldn’t have a food industry.
And that’s all good. Let industry be that, since there will always be a place for cheap mass-produced food, I imagine. But regulating that all of agriculture and food production must do exactly as production-based Big Food/Ag does is clearly “consistency” for the sake of closing markets to the small farmer, small business, and entrepreneur. Demanding that a meat-share CSA in Wobegon, Minnesota adhere to the same practices as a 10,000-cow per day Cargill slaughterhouse?
Laughably stupid and transparently selfish on the part of the signers of that letter.
Update: S. 510 is now scheduled for a vote on November 29, the Monday after Thanksgiving. More from Philip Brasher at the Des Moines Register.
In paragraph two, I think you mean “undue,” and not “undo.” Other than that, I appreciate you finding the words that substantiate what many of us see in the split between the food industry and farming. Let’s hope that the Tester/Hagan perspective is adopted along with this bill.
Thanks, Doug. You’re right, and thanks for reading.
excellent article, thanks for spreading the light on a important food policy issue that is rarely covered in mainstream media. I also agree with your points, especially about the difference in risks associated with population between food distribution models. My only concern being; where should the line be drawn to define which farm belongs to which system. What is a big farm in terms of acres, or goods produced? How many different hands does the good go through? How large is the health risk of product( meats, dairy, and bagged lettuce are usually associated high risks.) Perhaps a logarithm could be devised to determine proper regulation that is based on distribution area versus the cost of higher food safety. Or maybe a safety tax issued to producers based on size, where the big guys would pay more because their potential damage could be greater. The principle seems tight but in practice the line between food safety and paranoia is not always clear for producers or consumers regardless of size.