Undermining Rural Communities In The Name Of Safety

We may have a serious problem.

Under the auspices of the federal government, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) - through it’s Food Safety and Modernization Act(FSMA) - seeks to bring under its umbrella and regulatory authority that which has historically been the domain of urban and rural families and communities.  In essence, the Act would impose structural and economic limits on the most basic pillars of our local economies - specifically the production of food.  The trojan horse being used to accomplish this, once again, is public safety.

Whether this imposition is an intentional attempt to limit the ability of the community to self-regulate the production and distribution of its basic necessities through local small business, or whether the FDA is actually well intentioned in its attempt to prevent us from sickening ourselves, certain facts remain.  Not only has the FDA been unsuccessful in regulating larger producers and processors, it is still even less equipped to enforce its proposed rules at the community level, notwithstanding the additional fact that it has only a novice understanding of the systems it seeks to impose its rules upon.

Further examination of the proposed rules revealed fundamental flaws that, if not dealt with, could limit our communities’ ability to increase the number of small farms and cottage industries that are the backbone of the local food movement which guarantees clean and healthy food.  This would be done by setting dollar limits to what is considered an exempt or “covered” farm, and then requiring these farms to comply with rules by establishing certain Good Agricultural Practices for the smallest of farms.  There are two rules proposed by the FDA (Produce Rule, Prevention and Control Rule) that will affect most farms providing food to the general public.  Currently, the rules, will not “cover” farms that earn $25,000 and below.  Meaning that small farms at or below this limit will not be subject to the new Produce Rule, which generally applies to farms mostly involved in the growing of food.  Under the Prevention and Control Rule, which is meant to apply more to those farms operating as a processing facility of agriculture goods, this threshold is raised to somewhere between $250,000 and $1,000,000 – the FDA is seeking public guidance to determine what this limit should be.  In addition, the current language does not guarantee that being exempt means that a small farm earning below $25,000 under the Produce Rule, or $250,000 under the Prevention and Control Rule, will not have to prove (through records and paperwork) its status in order to qualify for the exemption. 

 

Of the most egregious failures of the proposed rules is their inability to foster, protect, and increase the number of local family-scale farms.

The rules do not encourage small farms to grow and increase their levels of production to serve local customers.  By placing a $25,000 maximum to define a point beyond which a small farm will have to submit to further scrutiny and satisfy more FDA requirements under the Produce Rule, the rule both punishes and fails on two accounts.  First, it does not allow small farms to earn a living wage without having to report personal information to the federal government concerning farm activities and receipts.  Second, the $25,000 limit does not separate costs of production from actual profit (the living wage portion of the revenue).

If we are to assume that our families, small businesses, farms, educators, conservationists, etc…are now self-aware, and that this significant majority of our population makes up an established and vocal “Community Party”, then three possible options exist:

1)   During this “comment period” respond with language that insists the FDA does not seek to regulate small farmers and processors/distributors at the community level, but instead, limit their activity to multi-regional or trans-national corporations involved in commodity-level food production and processing.

2)  Respond with specific revised language that proposes annual farm earnings (adjustable for inflation) that take into account costs of production and reflect a “livable wage”, while eliminating any registration, exemption, or safety protocol requirements for the smallest of farms and processors.

3)  Do nothing.

Option one clearly requests new rules and defines a boundary that we, representatives of a local economy, expect the federal government to respect.  Necessarily, establishing a boundary requires consequences to be formulated, and an ability to administer consequences requires an organized mobilization of resources.

Option two - while establishing more appropriate and realistic levels of earnings and costs - legitimizes the federal government’s assumption that it can expand its authority to encompass how we maintain our communities at the most basic levels.  We therefore become an unwitting accomplice in what I see as undermining our own community authority, expertise, and experience.

I cringe every time another food borne illness in the media gives the FDA and USDA another excuse to expand regulation over small businesses and farms growing for the local community, while their regulatory ambitions need to be more punitive and focused on those only interested in quantity.