This is an email I received from a member of the Nebraska Food Cooperative.
It is vital to our rights as consumers to sit up and take notice of these things. Take a stand!
* * *

Thank you to the many people who have called or emailed their Senators to
urge them to amend or oppose S. 510, the Food Safety Modernization Act! The
bill continues to be delayed and its future is unclear. But it still poses
a threat to producers of local, nutrient-dense foods.

ACTION TO TAKE
If you have not yet called your Senators, please do so now! I cannot stress
how important it is to make your voice heard on this issue. Urge them to
support the Tester-Hagan amendments to exempt small-scale and direct
marketing producers from the most burdensome provisions of the bill. Also
encourage them to support the Senator Feinsteins proposal to ban Bisphenol A
(BPA) from food containers because this endocrine-disrupting chemical has no
place in our food.

You can find your Senators contact information at www.Senate.gov or by
calling the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121 or toll-free at
877-210-5351.

IMPORTANT TO NOTE
Several members have received responses from their Senators extolling
provisions in the bill that allegedly help or exempt local food producers.
Its very important that we continue to educate these Senators about the real
impacts of the bill. Check out the questions and answers below for more
information.

QUESTION: Does S. 510 help small farmers and local food producers?

NO! The bill does include provisions to try to reduce the burdens that will
be imposed on small producers, such as providing for longer deadlines for
compliance and directing FDA to consider various issues facing organic farms
and small businesses. But none of these actually prevent FDA from imposing
new, burdensome requirements. The provisions essentially tell FDA to be nice
to local food producers, but do not create enforceable limits on the
agency's power.

The only enforceable limit is that FDA's new regulations cannot contradict
the regulations for certified organic producers. But many local food
producers are not certified organic. And even certified organic can still
be subject to additional regulations by FDA imposing impractical or unfair
burdens, so long as the regulations dont directly contradict the organic
regulations.

While the industrial food system is in need of reform, the well-publicized
problems with food safety have not come from the sustainable, local food
system. No one has demonstrated any need to have local producers regulated
by FDA more than they already are! The Tester-Hagan amendments are a
reasonable method for protecting local food producers from unnecessary and
unfair regulations.

QUESTION: Are direct marketing farms exempt from the bill?

NO! Under the bill as written, all farmers raising produce are subject to
the produce safety standards (section 105 of the bill) regardless of how
they market their fruits and vegetables. The Tester-Hagan amendments are
needed to protect direct marketing produce farmers from being told how to
grow and harvest their crops by FDA bureaucrats.

QUESTION: Are direct marketing food processors exempt from the bill?

NOT CLEAR! Based on FDAs guidance documents, food processors who market
directly to consumers might be exempt from the requirements for HACCP-type
programs. But the language is far from clear, and subject to change any
time FDA chooses.

The bills provisions for traceability and HACCP-type requirements are
dependent on the definition of facility under the 2002 Bioterrorism Act.
That Act exempted farms and retail food establishments from being
categorized as facilities, but it did not define the terms. So the scope of
these exemptions is defined by FDAs regulations and guidance documents,
which can be changed by the agency without Congressional approval.

In addition, the current definitions do not appear to address the majority
of our local food producers. Under FDA's guidance document, a "retail food
establishment" is an establishment that sells food products directly to
consumers as its primary function. However, the FDAs definition of consumer
excludes end users such as restaurants, local grocers, and schools. So many
food producers who provide healthy, safe foods to these institutions would
be subject to HACCP-type regulations under the bill and current definitions.

Moreover, the specific examples of retail food establishments are
establishments such as grocery stores, convenience stores, and vending
machine locations. Not only are farmers markets, farm stands, and CSAs not
listed, but they may not qualify because they typically sell food at a
different physical location than where the food is held, packed, or
processed. Consider the typical example of a small-scale processor who buys
local ingredients and makes jams, breads, cheeses, etc. to sell at the
farmers market. It may be that the farmers market itself qualifies as a
"retail food establishment" -- but the commercial kitchen where the goods
were prepared would not qualify, because the main purpose of that location
is to process food, not sell to consumers. Different physical locations may
mean different requirements under the FDAs definitions.

"Farms" are also exempt from registration requirements. But the definition
of "farm" specifically excludes any place that manufactures or processes
food, unless that food is consumed on location. Take a typical farm that
processes some of its own fruit into jams. Farmer Joe argues that he is
exempt from registration as a "farm." FDA points to the fact that, if he's
selling any of that jam, he's a facility because of the limitation on the
definition of farm. While Farmer Joe might fit under the literal terms of
the "retail food establishment" definition, FDA has a very strong argument
that Congress wouldn't have acquiesced in the narrow definition of farm if
it intended these locations to be exempt.

The bottom line is that some direct marketing food processors would be
exempt from the requirements as "retail food establishments," but the FDA's
definitions do not appear to cover many of our local food producers, and FDA
can change the definitions at any time. Local food processors are already
regulated by the local and state authorities, and FDA regulation is not
needed. The Tester-Hagan amendments are a reasonable way to protect
small-scale businesses from overly burdensome and unnecessary regulations.

QUESTION: What is BPA?

Bisphenol A (BPA) is a chemical found in the linings of cans and in
polycarbonate plastic, including some sports bottles, food-storage
containers and baby bottles. It has potential links to a wide range of
health effects, including an increased risk of diseases or disorders of the
brain, reproductive and immune systems. A recent CDC study showed that more
than 90 percent of Americans have BPA in their urine, suggesting that
exposure to BPA is likely prevalent and ongoing. In January, the FDA changed
its position on the safety of BPA, voicing some concern about its effects on
children and infants, but stopped short of calling for a ban. Previously the
agency had said trace amounts of the chemical that leach out of food
containers are not dangerous, only later admitting that it relied on a small
number of industry-sponsored studies

Dig Deep: BP Oil

First, I would like to say that I am incredibly glad that the situation has worked out better than most of us had hoped. Watching the mass of slimy black eek it's way toward our shoreline, coating everything in it's path like the Blob from the 70's horror flick was disconcerting, to say the least.

So, for all of you die hard optimists and those would criticize for my negative take, we've got it covered.

Now. The networks reporting on this incident owe the families of those eleven people who were killed in the Deep Horizon explosion a very sincere apology for turning them into statistics tacked onto the bottom of every article and news story since it happened.

At least BBC put them at the top. August 5th BP to pump cement into...

"Oil leaked into the Gulf from 20 April when the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion killed 11 workers. The flow was stopped on 15 July."

The CBC network in Canada and CNN posted similar articles as well. CNN even made pretty videos. (That's another point all together. Analyze this.)

Consider too that they all report pretty much the same basic facts. The filler and composition differ, as to be expected between writers. Mostly, it's an optimistic platitude. A glossy picture on a magazine cover, if you will, that only offers highlights of what's really going on inside. (Everything is getting better, remember what happened? Aaannnnd, this is what they did.)

What they don't show you is that the European Space Agency predicted this early on. On May 19th, twenty-nine days after the explosion, the ESA reported that the BP oil spill had slipped into the loop stream current, a major component of the ocean's water flow pattern. Because of this, they cautioned that

"...since the Loop Current is a very intense, deep ocean current, its turbulent waters will accelerate the mixing of the oil and water in the coming days.

"This might remove the oil film on the surface and prevent us from tracking it with satellites, but the pollution is likely to affect the coral reef marine ecosystem," Dr Collard said."

It was also reported on by United Press International.

Which is exactly what happened. We can no longer see the oil on the surface of the water. Pay attention to the next expert call in, or video interview. They strongly advise caution, urging us to allow time to take its course before any damage assessments can be done. Our work is not over. LSU professor Ed Overton was one of them, on CNN's program Anderson Cooper 360.

Kudos to the Obama Administration's crack PR team. With a strong hand of concern and optimism, they managed to put a face of cautious responsibility on a volatile situation, which is hard to do.

I, for one, am tired of getting my news through a thinly veiled lens of sensationalism and marketing 'spin'. Why can't we just get the facts, all of them, upfront?

Is this the whole story? No. There is always more. Dig Deep. Find out.