RSS Feed

Provide Your Feedback on FDA Regulations That Could Impact Local Producers

I just finished submitting my comments on regulations.gov and to my legislators on FDA regulations that are under consideration right now and could dramatically impact small-scale providers of locally grown and produced foods.

Read the full details of the regulations and their potential impacts here on the Food Renegade blog.

I adapted the language on that site with my own comments and submitted it to regulations.gov at these links:

On-Farm Produce Rule: http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=FDA-2011-N-0921-0199

Preventitive Controls/HARPC Rules: http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=FDA-2011-N-0920-0188

I then sent the same comments to my federal legislators asking them to take my comments into account if they play any part in the process of finalizing such regulations.

Please consider doing the same thing. You can use my comments below:

As a consumer of locally produced food from farms in my area of the Eastern Shore of Maryland, I urge the FDA to address the following issues in the proposed FSMA rules. It is so important to make it EASIER for these small farms to operate, rather than throwing up hurdles and roadblocks.

Industrial agriculture lays waste to land that could feed local populations so much more easily, with less damage to the environment, and healthier food options for consumers. Save the onerous paperwork and inspections for the industrial-scale operations that are poisoning our land and our food with pesticides and GMO crops. Let the smaller-scale producers flourish.

Tester-Hagan “qualified exemption” in both the Produce Rule and the Preventive Controls Rule:
The gross sales test to qualify for the Tester-Hagan provision should be based on sales of food that is subject to FSMA, whether the produce standards or the preventive controls rule. Sales of food that would not be regulated under FSMA should not be included.

The FDA should not rush the process of revoking a producer’s Tester-Hagan exemption. The agency has other mechanisms it can use if there is an immediate threat of foodborne illness.
a) The FDA should be held to specific evidentiary standards before it can revoke a farmer’s or food facility’s Tester-Hagan exemption.
b) A farm or facility that is exempt under Tester-Hagan should be given at least 90 days to submit evidence and defend its exemption if FDA seeks to revoke it.
c) If the exemption is revoked, the farm or facility should have at least two years to come into compliance with the FSMA rules.

On-farm Produce Standards Rule:
The FDA’s approach to traditional farming methods, such as diversified livestock-crop farms, the use of working animals, and the use of biological soil amendments, is fundamentally flawed. The agency should not restrict these sustainable methods of farming without data showing an actual, verified increased rate of foodborne illness; the simple fact that these methods include diverse microbiological communities is not a sound scientific basis for restricting them.

The waiting period between applying manure and harvesting the crop should be no more than 4 months, and there should be no waiting period between applying compost and harvesting the crop. The excellent track record for safety on organic farms shows that this standard is sufficient.

Compost teas and other biological inoculants, including normal additives such as molasses, should be treated the same as compost.

Water testing should not be required more often than once a month, and farmers should be able to test less frequently after establishing the safety of their water source through consecutive negative tests. In addition, farmers should be given the option to test for pathogens, rather than having to treat or stop using the water that tested positive for generic e. coli.

The provisions on wildlife and domestic livestock need to be clarified to protect farmers who use biologically diverse farming from field inspectors using their discretion to require measures such as fencing or destruction of habitat.

Preventive Controls and HARPC Rule:
“Very small facilities” should be defined as being under $1 million in total annual sales, adjusted for inflation. Imposing HARPC requirements on businesses smaller than that is unnecessary and overly burdensome.

Any requirement for “supplier verification” should not prevent a facility from purchasing foods or ingredients from farms and facilities that are exempt from the regulations under the Tester-Hagan provision or other exemptions.

Low-risk activities conducted by a farm using its own products, such as making jams, grinding grains, or dehydrating vegetables, should not be subject to these regulations.

Low-risk activities, when conducted off-farm or by multiple farms working together, should not be subject to the same requirements as high-risk processing activities. The requirements should address both the scale of the operations and the level of risk of the activity.

Advertisements

About baysideresearch

I am a genealogist based on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. I also like food and try to eat as locally and sustainably as possible. I have blogs about both!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: