This diary dissects an article about Rosa DeLauro which pans the blogosphere, discovering the blogosphere is on firm ground and there are questions about Ms. DeLauro's assertions.
DELAURO’S PROPOSAL
U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro Pushes Measure On Food Safety
By DANIELA ALTIMARI | The Hartford Courant
April 9, 2009
"The rhetoric in the blogosphere couldn't be more overheated: "U.S. seeks to make organic farming illegal!" screams one headline."
The Hartford Courant article continues:
"Food safety bill may criminalize U.S. farmers!" asserts another.
The 'food safety" bills would apply million dollar a day penalties as well as up to ten years in prison for non-compliance with as yet unspecified regulations. In applying criminal penalties which will be applied to organic as well as to all other farms and to anyone "holding" or "transporting" food , one can rationally and reasonably and logically call this "criminalizing."
And since HR 875 and potentially the other bills as well, contain a highly disguised threat to all normal seeds, one can again rationally say that the bill can "criminalize organic farming."
The ultimate danger to organic farming, and to democracy here, is corporate/government control over all seed. It has been done to Iraq already, and is happening to seeds in the EU.
Given the current state of the world seed supply, it is more important than ever that people know how to save their own seed and select their own strains. ...
Much of our seed is produced by hand, and so is available in limited quantities. ...
Biopiracy: It is becoming sadly common for large companies to patent traditional vegetable varieties, and claim them as their own. The subject is complex, but we do not believe it is correct to patent food plants. We reserve the right to refuse membership of our seed club, and to refuse to supply seed to anyone, without explanation. Likewise, as policy, we do not supply samples to other seed companies or individuals involved in the trade. ...
In the EU, there is now a list of 'official' vegetable varieties. Seed that is not on the list cannot be 'sold' to the 'public' (even though it is perfectly legal to grow it!). To keep something on the list costs thousands of pounds each year, so it's only worthwhile to 'keep listed' varieties that sell in bulk to farmers, who have very different needs to home growers ...
Hundreds of thousands of old heirloom varieties (the results of about eleven thousand years of plant breeding by our ancestors) are being lost forever, due to some rather poorly drafted EU legislation.
http://www.realseeds.co.uk/...
Here is a description of "the current state of affairs of the world seed supply":
In 1995, an article in Nexus magazine implied that I had stated that Plant Breeders' Rights (PBR) is part of a conspiracy between seed/chemical companies and government to gain control over our lives. Instead of being a conspiracy (and indeed more powerful than being a conspiracy), the activities of what may be called the bio-industrial complex are really part of the everyday business-as-usual and top-down management approach undertaken by dominant elites in our (money-focussed) society. More precisely--as an integral part of the move by capital interests to industrialise Nature for commercial and private gain--the role of PBR is to provide a second route to the commodification of the seed, the first being hybridisation. PBR is an extension of property rights to plant germplasm.
Critics contend that PBR enhances economic concentration in the seed industry, facilitates noncompetitive pricing, constrains the free exchange of germplasm, contributes to genetic erosion and uniformity, and encourages the privatisation of public breeding. On the other hand, corporate proponents argue that PBR stimulates private investment in plant breeding which, in turn, leads to a greater number of superior and more genetically diverse varieties of seeds. From a US historical analysis, rural sociologist Jack Kloppenburg has clearly identified that PBR is not an isolated event but is the outcome of a process involving the more complete takeover of plant breeding by private industry. Kloppenburg also found that as US and European companies have reached out for global markets they have sought global extension of PBR, that the most potentially profitable species have received the most attention, that while the number of varieties has greatly increased most of this has been due to cosmetic changes--the main purpose being product differentiation.
... Jean Christie of the Canada-based Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI) comments: "By legal sleight of hand, living organisms themselves are deemed inventions of human intellect, and become the subject of monopoly patent claims".
... Patent extensions (including the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS) now administered by the World Trade Organisation) coupled to PBR underpins the new biotechnology revolution in agriculture .... To innovate and bring home the loot through the widescale diffusion of gene-technology onto the marketplace, it is essential that private ownership mechanisms are in place over 'green and gene gold'. ...
Because the seed--as a package of DNA--is the vector for agro-biotechnological change between research and development (R&D) and the market, it is the gateway to control over the production process as a whole. Subsequently, under the dual impacts of PBR and the rise of genetic engineering for new hybrid varieties, corporations have invested billions of dollars in acquiring seed and plant breeding companies especially since the early 1980s. As chief executive Robert Fraley of Monsanto--the aspiring plant molecular biology IBM of the 21st century--said: "What you're seeing is not just a consolidation of the seed companies, it's really a consolidation of the entire food chain."
These quotes from the UK and Australia provide a rational context for strong, legitimate concerns across the internet over the "food safety" bills' power and even apparent method for taking control over all seed in the US.
The blogoshere makes a straight foward, logical argument for what the bills should do - and openly.
The concerns about the bills are many:
they cover everything to do with food,
they could potentially send anyone to prison for non-compliance,
they do not include due process,
they do not include or judicial review,
they appear set for Monsanto to be "the Administrator."
The broad scope and the criminal penalties and the lack of normal due process and review are why the bills have been compared to the Patriot Act.
The blogosphere argues that had every specific been spelled out, there would be no issue because people could see what was involved and accept or reject the bills based on that. But apecifics are to filled in after a year ... by "the Administrator." And that person appears at the moment to be set to be a Monsanto executive named Michael Taylor, who approved rBGH, the first genetically engineered product ever approved.
The Delauro article continues:
Elsewhere in cyberspace, there are dire predictions that farmers markets will disappear and that backyard gardeners will be arrested for growing tomatoes.
The original articles warned only that farmers markets will be crushed by regulations and home gardens are included in the bill(s).
The Delauro article continues:
"The target of these impassioned outbursts is a federal bill, sponsored by U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro, that aims to overhaul and strengthen the nation's food safety net.
For the record, the Food Safety Modernization Act doesn't regulate home gardens ..."
The blogosphere would strongly disagree. And it offers readily available proof that homes (and thus home gardens) are potentially covered.
The Delauro article continues:
"and makes no mention of organic farming."
Exactly so. Including NOT to exclude it or small farms. Not a word.
Across the blogosphere, the point has been made repeatedly that the bills are extremely vague (even intentionally so, many suggest) and yet extremely broad in their reach. Writers have said that those crafting the bills (and those do not include the general public or farmers) would be foolish to come out and say directly what they will do to organic farming because the uproar would ensure the bills would never pass. But because laws in the EU are harmonized with these bills, organic farming (farming of all kinds) is affected (that is EU laws = US bills), the blogosphere is logically right that organic farming will be affected.
The Hartford Courant article about the internet and DeLauro continues:
"DeLauro, a Democrat who represents the 3rd District, has posted a fact-sheet on her congressional website addressing the "hyperbole and paranoia" swirling around the bill."
But as can be seen in breaking down each issue, neither hyperbole nor paranoia are involved. Instead, blogosphere material is based on both rational and serious reason for concern over immense issues and an approach to the legal power in bills and an absence of fundamental constitutional safeguard which mimick the Patriot Act. The blogosphere also points out factually that Ms. DeLauro receives large donations from Agribusiness. And much on the internet comes from farmers and families attempting to reach the public to say what these bills will do to them since media has not covered most of these issues.
"The Internet claims were also debunked by the nonpartisan website factcheck.org."
Fact.org, in fact, admits its own confusion:
The e-mail above argues that DeLauro's bill "[e]ffectively criminalizes organic farming but doesn't actually use the word organic." We're not sure how exactly a bill would criminalize something it doesn't mention, but the e-mail is correct in that the word "organic" is nowhere to be found. Another Internet posting more alarmingly claims: "Bill will require organic farms to use specific fertilizers and poisonous insect sprays dictated by the newly formed agency to 'make sure there is no danger to the public food supply.' " But the quoted phrase isn't in this bill. Nor is there any mention of chemical versus organic fertilizers or "poisonous insect sprays," or, for that matter, pesticides in general.
The blogosphere has provided one of the bills (HR 875), broken it down, demonstrating in detail how without ever using certain words, the bill could nonetheless apply control over organic farming, seeds, pesticide use, animals, etc.
Additional articles have scrutinized HR 875 further, supporting the dangers inherent in this one bill but one can extrapolate the same method of disguised legal power to others.
Also, Factcheck.org appears to have gotten some of their information from Food and Water Watch, which appears to have gotten theirs from DeLauro's office.
The Hartford Courant article continues:
"Introduced in February, the legislation would establish a new Food Safety Administration withinthe U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to better monitor farms and food processors, tighten record-keeping requirements and institute tougher penalties against companies that refuse to comply, among other changes."
HACCP is the last major government instituted "food safety" regime. It increased paper work, eliminated inspection, and was - similar to these "food safety" bills - connected to the WTO and Monsanto. Illnesses increased. It is so flawed, USDA inspectors are suing the agency for not inspecting, calling the system a joke.
And yet the "food safety" bills are an increase in the HACCP approach to food and are designed to be a further move away from inspection, applying even more industrial method.
From ex(?)-Monsanto executive Michael Taylor, the man Food Democracy Now says is set to control the entire US food supply from an office inside the White House (and there have been no denials about this):
"We need to complete the transformation of FSIS as a food safety agency, away from inspection to a science-based public health agency."
The DeLauro article continues:
"We have a crisis in food safety in this country,"
Do we? Or not at all? By simply looking at the medical data, it is apparent, there is no crisis and food born illness is one of the lowest threats to health of any kind in the US. So, the assertion of "crisis" is factually untrue, The dangers from food born illness are actually considerably less than the risk from aspirin, ibuprofen, tylenol, aleve, etc. something the FDA is unconcerned about.
The Hartford Courant article continues:
"DeLauro said in an interview Wednesday. "We've watched nine people die of salmonella poisoning from peanut butter. ... This bill is an attempt to address that issue in a very reasoned and thoughtful [way]."
How many people died in the US during the same time period from aspirin alone, which the FDA does not call a crisis or address in any way? More than three times as many people die from prescription non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) - deaths from over the counter NSAIDs are not even included - and yet there is no slew of bills to create a new gigantic agency with police power and no judicial review, to "fix" the "crisis." Instead, the FDA blocks cherry farmers from letting people know that cherries are potentially 10 times stronger for controlling pain and harmless.
The blogosphere says that HACCP is at the root of food safety issues (and the current bills would increase this HACCP approach).
TO: AMBER HEALY, FOOD CHEMICAL NEWS
RE: CLARIFICATION IN APRIL 6, 2009 FOOD CHEMICAL NEWS
Hello Amber:
I’d like to clarify two statements in your story entitled “House Hearing pits FSIS against FDA in search for answers”. The fourth paragraph includes the following statement: “If a food borne illness outbreak prompts a recall, FSIS has the ability to trace the source of the contaminated food back to its point of origin”.
The sixth paragraph from the end includes the following statement: “By having FSIS responsible for inspection, growth regulations and transportation to processors, it would rely on its vast inspector work force, HACCP program and electronic records for being able to trace any outbreak back to the original point of production, he suggested”. This statement was attributed to John Hanlin, V.P. of Food Safety for SUPERVALU.
Amber, both statements are blatantly false, but are central to the façade FSIS has orchestrated of the HACCP ideal. I intend to provide you irrefutable evidence in this letter not only to demonstrate how tracebacks to the origin are not being accomplished, but that FSIS policies have been specifically designed to prevent such tracebacks. ...
I could say lots more, and provide more evidence, but I’ve already spent six pages. Suffice it to say, FSIS not only avoids tracebacks to the origin, but has implemented policies preventing tracebacks. Perhaps a fitting conclusion to this letter is a statement made by Bill Smith at a Senate Field Hearing held in Billings Montana on December 11, 2002 entitled “Food Safety Recall Procedures”. On page 38 of the transcript of the hearing, I stated “….it is my contention that both the inspector and the plant management should work together and fully document all that information so that, in the future, three days later, if it (the sample) is presumptive-positive, there can be no question”. Part of Bill Smith’s response, found on page 39 of the transcript, was “…..we could have inspectors doing more important things”. Amber, I hope you realize now that now only does the agency consider the true origin of contaminated meat unimportant, but FSIS also would find such evidence damaging to the public relations image of the agency, as well as exposing HACCP’s underlying deregulatory faults.
I feel it important that you, and all America, know “the other side of the story”. Until we come to grips with the dark side of this HACCP Hoax, consumers will continue to get sick (some will die), while FSIS sleeps at the wheel, by its own intentional design.
John Munsell, Manager
Foundation for Accountability in Regulatory Enforcement (FARE)
Miles City, Montana
April 4, 2009
http://mail.google.com/...
The Hartford Courant article continues, now including the input from small farmers whose concerns mirror those on the blogosphere:
Although the bill has won the backing of a number of consumer organizations, some small-scale farmers are worried that they'll be hurt by what they view as the federal government's approach to food safety.
"We all want to deliver healthy, safe food to our customers," said Bill Duesing, executive director of the Connecticut Chapter of the Northeast Organic Farming Association.
"But there's a tendency in Washington to solve the problems created by the 1,000-acre spinach grower in California," not the small family farmer with several acres in Connecticut, Duesing said. "We've been working for decades to build up this small, local food system and we don't want to see that set back by regulations that enable industrial agriculture."
The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund also has concerns about how DeLauro's bill might affect small farms.
"We think there are two food systems in this country, the industrial food system, which does have food-safety problems, and the local food system, which is thriving," said Pete Kennedy, interim director of the fund. "This proposed bill adopts a one-size-fits-all regulatory approach."
The DeLauro article goes on:
One of the allegations flying around the Internet asserts that DeLauro crafted the bill at the behest of Monsanto
This is also factually wrong. The internet "allegation" was simply about her husband's connection to Monsanto which is a fact. No one suggested Monsanto asked Ms. DeLauro to craft the bill.
http://www.dailykos.com/...
and other large agribusiness companies to stamp out local farmers.
No, one has asserted she crafted the bills, only that she introduced them (fact) and that she takes large donations from Agribusiness (fact). www.opencongress.org/person/show/400103_rosa_delaurHer agribusiness donations went up from over $100,000 in 2006 to over $185,000 in 2008.
The Hartford Courant article continues:
"The bloggers and anonymous e-mailers say she did this because her husband, pollster Stanley Greenberg, consults for the company."
Again, the emails are about her husband's connection to Monsanto and about her money from agribusiness. Both are facts.
The Hartford Courant article continues:
"Not true, DeLauro says. According to her "myths and facts" website, Greenberg never worked for Monsanto and has not conducted surveys for the company in the past decade."
His website says otherwise.
"DeLauro's food-safety proposal is one of several pending in Congress. And notwithstanding the Internet buzz, other "much worse" bills have also been introduced, according to Steve Gilman, policy coordinator of the Northeast Organic Farming Association.'
Yes, that is true, but people took on HR 875 because it came in with 39 sponsors and was the largest.
"He cites a bill proposed by Rep. John Dingell that would require farmers and food processors to maintain electronic records, a requirement that many small operators and family farmers fear would be costly and time-consuming. "The small farmers barely have enough time in the day as it is," Kennedy said."
The electronic system is a reference to NAIS, a system that Jim Hightower, former Texas agriculture commissioner, refers to as lunatic. Maria Magliani, a high school student in DeLauro's own state of Connecticut, researched NAIS brilliantly, including its constitutional violations, and strongly opposes. This young girl's work puts DeLauro's condescending and harsh remarks about farmers in her effort to force it onto them, into a disturbing relief.
The Hartford Courant article continues:
'For local farmers and producers, food safety and government oversight is "an emotional issue," said Elizabeth Gillman, a cheese maker from Colchester. Gillman said that the bill has become the chief topic of conversation among growers at the green market in New York City, where she sells her Cato Corner Farms cheese.
DeLauro said that she is listening. "I hear the concerns that are legitimate," she said. "Small farmers want to make sure their interests are protected."
What qualifies to DeLauro as legitimate?
Is this legitimate? Farmers around the country are attempting to talk to Vilsack about their literal terror that NAIS will not only destroy them financially but that the "premises ID" portion strips them of ownership of their land.
Yet, she says the following to Vilsack in an ag committee hearing:
"I don't know how long you're going to need to talk to these people, but it needs to be a very short conversation."
In contrast, to the Hartford Courant, she says:
Each of the food-safety bills is a work in progress and small farmers will have plenty of opportunities to make their voices heard, she added.
Yet, as reported by FarmOnline, this exchange occurred between Vilsack and DeLauro about whether farmers will be allowed "plenty of opportunity" (time) to get heard:
"Vilsack has again asked for an opportunity to meet with opponents of NAIS to see if their concerns could be addressed.
"The clock is ticking. [DeLauro said.] I don't know how long you're going to need to talk to these people, but it needs to be a very short conversation."
[Emphasis by scaredhuman.]
The Hartford Courant article continues:
"We did not want to exempt people from food safety,
From Michael Pollan, in an interview with Bill Moyers (including video):
"Our highly centralized food system is very vulnerable to contamination-both deliberate and accidental. ...
"Instead of seizing on these threats as a reason to decentralize our food supply, the government is bringing in more regulation and technology.
"Progressive senators are proposing that we begin to regulate farms the way we regulate meat plants. That will put small farms out of business.
'So you see what happens as industrial agriculture fails and sickens us. The solutions promote more industrialization of agriculture.
"And that's what we need to resist." [Author's emphasis.]
The blogosphere has brought attention to exactly this - to HACCP which increased the risks of food safety and which actually prevents trace back to industry contamination sources, and has shown how these bills multiply HACCP and extend it over all food and all citizens who "hold" food, while adding massive financial penalties and prison terms, all without due process or judicial review. And Michael Taylor, a Monsanto executive is set to run it.
And the Courant ends with this DeLauro comment:
but we recognize the strong record small farmers have in providing safe food to families."
The blogosphere suggests that words - whether used by DeLauro or missing in the bills- are separate from actions and from what these bills will do to small farmers, organic farmers, farmers markets, seeds, gardens, and ALL who "hold" food. And the public would be best served by insisting that the current bills be withdrawn entirely and any future bills be transparent and quite different in focus.
It is clear that these bills are a vast centralizing of our food system, with police state power added.
The blogosphere would like to see Michael Pollan's suggestions followed - to decentralize the American food system. The blogosphere would like to see guaranteed protection of and the removal of burdens from small farmers, all direct farm-to-consumer sales, and the free access to seed, and to see a return to and increase inspection of industrial facilities. The current "food safety" bills allows for a variance (exemption) to foreign food, and does not include labeling of or adequate regulation for country of origin labeling, of GMOs, of pesticides, antibiotics, hormones, steroids.
In short, the concerned-for-farmers-and-for-the-purity-of-our-food blogosphere would like American small farmers fully constitutionally protected from industrial control over their animals and their land and their seed, for Americans to be constitutionally secure in their own homes and gardens and have their own control over seed, and for all food not sold by direct, face to face, sales, to be fully and honestly labeled.