Food Safety; Nutrition; FAO Report; Biofuels; Climate; Trade; and Animal AgFood Safety Lyndsey Layton reported in today’s Washington Post that, “The Senate moved forward Wednesday on long-awaited legislation that would overhaul the nation’s food safety system, grant new powers to the Food and Drug Administration and make farmers and processors responsible for preventing food-borne illness. “The legislation follows a spate of national outbreaks of food poisoning linked to items as varied as eggs, peanuts and spinach, in which thousands of people were sickened and more than a dozen died. “The Senate voted 74 to 25 to begin debate on the bill, suggesting the measure has strong bipartisan support and good prospects for passage. The House approved its version more than a year ago, and food safety advocates have been pushing the Senate to act so differences between the two measures can be reconciled and the legislation signed into law by President Obama by the end of the lame-duck session.”
The Post article noted that, “Debate on the bill is expected to begin Thursday and could last up to 30 hours;” and added that, “The bill would place greater responsibility on manufacturers and farmers to prevent contamination – a departure from the current system, which relies on government inspectors to catch tainted food after the fact. “Farmers and processors would have to develop a strategy to prevent contamination and then continually test their production methods and their products to make sure their food is safe.” Today’s Post article explained that, “Although the bill has wide backing from groups representing consumers, public health advocates, major growers, food processors and retailers, it has revealed a deep rift between large farming corporations and the burgeoning local farming movement. “Boosters of sustainable agriculture and the local food movement want small farmers to be exempt from the regulations, which they say could force small operations out of business. “Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), himself a farmer, negotiated language into the bill late Wednesday to exempt small farmers who have annual sales of less than $500,000 and sell the majority of their product directly to consumers, restaurants and retailers in their state or nearby.” Philip Brasher reported yesterday at the Green Fields Blog (Des Moines Register) that, “‘We can no longer tolerate the unnecessary pain, suffering and death caused by America’s antiquated, inadequate food-safety system,’ said Sen. Tom Harkin, the Iowa Democrat who chairs the committee that approved the bill nearly a year ago. ‘Let’s put it plainly. Our current regulatory system is broken.’” (Note: To listen to an additional portion of Sen. Harkin’s comments yesterday from the Senate floor, just click here (MP3- 2:05)). “But Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss, an original sponsor of the bill who is the senior Republican on the Senate agriculture committee, took the floor after the vote to announce that he several problems with the legislation, including the definition for small farms that are exempted from some of the bill’s requirements.” (Note: To listen to some of the remarks made by Sen. Chambliss yesterday, just click here (MP3- 5:07)). In his remarks, Sen. Chambiss referred to a letter that was signed by 30 agriculture organizations, which stated that, “We urge the Senate to reject the notion of providing blanket exemptions for segments of the food industry based solely upon size, location, or type of operation. Consumers should be able to rely on a federal food safety framework that sets appropriate standards for all products in the marketplace.” Ag Policy Editor Chris Clayton reported yesterday (link requires subscription) that, “With strong bipartisan support, the Senate voted 74-25 on Wednesday to bring to the floor the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, meaning debate on the legislation now begins and the bill will not be filibustered. Negotiations continue over the final language of the bill, including an amendment by Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., that would exclude small farmers and processors from some of the inspection, costs and paperwork provisions. “Depending on talks, a vote on a final bill could come up as early as Thursday, but is more likely to be delayed until senators return after Thanksgiving.” Reuters writer Christopher Doering reported yesterday that, “‘There are people all across America who understand that when you go shopping at the food store and buy groceries or buy produce there is a sort of built-in assumption that it’s safe,’ said Dick Durbin, the No. 2 Senate Democrat. “‘The simple fact of the matter is there are wide gaps when it comes to food safety in America and those gaps need to be closed by this bill,’ he said.” (Note: To listen to an extended portion of Sen. Durbin’s remarks from the Senate floor yesterday, just click here (MP3- 1:41)). The article added that, “Backers are hopeful the bill will win final congressional approval, but acknowledge they must move quickly to do so before this session of Congress ends next month. Even if the bill passes the Senate, lawmakers still must iron out a handful of differences with the House measure before President Barack Obama, who backs the legislation, can sign it into law.” To listen to remarks made yesterday on the Senate floor by Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) regarding he food safety bill, just click here (MP3- 2:45). AP writer Mary Clare Jalonick reported yesterday that, “[Pres.] Obama issued a statement in support of the Senate food safety bill Tuesday, saying the legislation would address ‘long-standing challenges’ of the FDA by helping producers prevent foodborne outbreaks and giving the government more tools to keep food safe.” However, Lisa Mascaro and P.J. Huffstutter reported in today’s Los Angeles Times that, “On Wednesday, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) — who has long challenged the Senate’s food safety bill — said he was pushing to tack onto the bill a controversial amendment to ban earmarks in the next Congress. “Republicans decided this week to do away with the practice of taking the specially directed funds to their home states and want to pressure Democrats to do the same. “Such an amendment would force Democrats and some Republicans into an uncomfortable vote on earmarks, which have become a symbol among conservatives of government excess. The attempt to include the earmark legislation also could delay and potentially complicate the passage of the otherwise bipartisan bill.” Nutrition DTN Political Correspondent Jerry Hagstrom reported yesterday (link requires subscription) that, “Key Democratic anti-hunger leaders say that the House should pass a bill that would provide more money for the school lunch program so schools could buy more nutritious food, but some anti-hunger advocates say that Congress should not use a small cut in future food stamp benefits to pay for improvements to child nutrition programs. “Earlier this year, the Senate unanimously passed the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, a five-year reauthorization of the child nutrition programs. It would provide an additional $4.5 billion over 10 years for the school lunch program so that schools could afford to buy more nutritious food, including fresh fruits and vegetables, whole-grain breads and low-fat dairy and meat products. “But the bill failed to pass the House before the election because anti-hunger groups opposed an offset that would include cutting a temporary increase in food stamp benefits for five months in 2013. The economic stimulus package increased food stamp benefits on a temporary basis, but the increase is lasting longer than expected because food inflation has been so low.” After more detailed analysis, Mr. Hagstrom noted that, “Three key House Democratic hunger leaders have written their colleagues asking them to support the bill. House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-Calif.; House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn.; and Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., urged their colleagues in a letter to support the bill because it ‘addresses the critical challenge of childhood obesity and hunger with historic improvements’ in the child nutrition programs and the special nutrition program for women, infants and children, known as WIC.” In a separate article from yesterday, Jerry Hagstrom reported at DTN (link requires subscription) that, “In a signal that the Obama administration is unlikely to support proposals to fight obesity by restricting the foods that food stamp beneficiaries can buy, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said Tuesday that instituting such rules ‘could create nightmares’ in grocery store checkout lines. “In response to a question after a speech on the child nutrition bill to the Aspen Health Stewardship Project, Vilsack said that restricting what food stamp program participants can buy is ‘complicated.’ The administration, he said, sees nutrition education and incentives for the purchase of certain foods as an alternative to the restrictions.” FAO Report (Food Security) Javier Blas reported yesterday at the Financial Times Online that, “The bill for global food imports will top $1,000bn this year for the second time ever, putting the world ‘dangerously close’ to a new food crisis, the United Nations said. “The warning by the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation adds to fears about rising inflation in emerging countries from China to India. ‘Prices are dangerously close to the levels of 2007-08,’ said Abdolreza Abbassian, an economist at the FAO. “The FAO painted a worrying outlook in its twice-yearly Food Outlook on Wednesday, warning that the world should ‘be prepared’ for even higher prices next year. It said it was crucial for farmers to ‘expand substantially’ production, particularly of corn and wheat in 2011-12 to meet expected demand and rebuild world reserves.” The FT article added that, “The agency raised its forecast for the global bill for food to $1,026bn this year, up nearly 15 per cent from 2009 and within a whisker of an all-time high of $1,031bn set in 2008 during the food crisis” (See related graph). Bloomberg writer Rudy Ruitenberg reported yesterday that, “Corn has jumped 31 percent this year in Chicago trading, wheat is up 25 percent and soybeans have added 17 percent. “Next year’s harvests will be ‘crucial’ in determining whether food prices will continue to rise in 2011, the WFP said. ‘Continued rises could increase pressure on the hungry poor and at the same time raise the cost of providing food assistance,’ the agency said.” In a closer look at domestic issues, Brian Baskin reported in today’s Wall Street Journal that, “Skyrocketing prices in the agricultural futures markets won’t translate into as big a bump in food costs for consumers, U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said on Wednesday. “‘I’m not sure that commodity prices necessarily translate directly and proportionately into food costs,’ Mr. Vilsack said in an interview, adding, ‘They go up and down all the time.’” Article continues: http://www.farmpolicy.com/?p=3516#more-3516 |
|
