by Jacoba Charles
Owners of small farms rarely have extra time or money. But they may soon need more of both, as pending federal legislation would tighten regulations on the growing, harvesting, and processing of produce.
The Food Safety Modernization Act currently making its way through the Senate emerged in the wake of the E. Coli outbreaks in 2006. The bill is expected to create additional regulations that will be applied to farms of all sizes and styles. What is still unknown is how onerous those requirements will be for small and organic farmers.
“The bill has a lot of potentially big and unpleasant impacts on small-scale agriculture and local food chains,” said Helge Hellberg, executive director of Marin Organic.
Ramifications of the bill could include extensive food safety plans; electronic tracking of all products; an annual fee; and a variety of on-farm regulations ranging from water testing to exclusion of wildlife to verification that workers washed their hands after using the bathroom.
“It’s easy for the big farms if someone needs to monitor the toilets, but a small farm couldn’t do that,” said Dave Runsten, director of the Community Alliance with Family Farmers. “Is the farmer suddenly going to become responsible for writing down on a sheet of paper every time someone uses the bathroom, and vouch that they washed their hands?”
Advocates for small farms don’t question the need for improved safety regulations, particularly regarding industrial food processing – which they say causes the majority of contamination and illness. But they do worry that regulations designed to improve food safety in large agricultural operations will also be applied to small farms.
“As a nation, there are lots of reasons why we need better regulation of industrial food,” Hellberg said. “But at the same time we have to allow this beautiful, emerging local food movement to get stronger and stronger.”
Efforts to exempt small farms from the new legislation have failed, to date. However, advocates of small and organic farms have been working to get some of the bill's language and requirements of the bill changed before it is approved.
“We’re trying to limit the impacts on smaller farms and people who aren’t just pursuing conventional agriculture,” Runsten said. “We’re trying to get rules that people can live with.”
The bill has already been greatly improved from its original form, according to Runsten. Accomplishments include specifying that the new rules be compatible with the USDA’s National Organic Program, and reducing the product tracking requirements.
Many credit the current popularity of local and sustainably grown food as the reason such changes are possible.
“I think if it wasn’t for that movement that was happening, the FDA and other legislators wouldn’t even want to talk to us,” said Jo Ann Baumgartner, director of the Wild Farm Alliance.
But the battle over the Senate bill is only one step in a prolonged process that will determine the legislation’s eventual impact on farmers. A similar bill was passed by Congress last year, which was much less amenable to small farming operations. Once the Senate bill is approved, a committee will merge the two bills and create a new, final piece of legislation.
Even if the changes that have been incorporated into the Senate bill survive in the final law, local farmers will almost certainly be affected. For Runsten, an example of good news would be if only one water quality test is required per year; bad news would be if a test is required every time a new crop is planted. And the paperwork will certainly increase, he said – it’s just a matter of by how much.
“Farmers are already maxed out with their work load, and adding more layers of bureaucracy isn’t going to make things any easier,” said Jesse Kuhn of Marin Roots Farm on the Point Reyes-Petaluma road. “Paperwork is one of the hardest things about the farm business. I don’t think any farmer got into this to do paperwork, and especially being certified organic there’s already an amazing amount of it.”
If the new law calls for substantial changes to infrastructure – like upgraded washing stations – it could spell the end of his business, Kuhn said.
One of the most common concerns is that the legislation brings farming more directly under the oversight of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which will be responsible for interpreting and enforcing the new legislation.
“Famers big or small are nervous because the FDA has always acted as kind of police agency,” Runsten said. “They come out and take pictures and take records and so on.”
The FDA denies that this will be the case. “We will not approach this in the conventional way where FDA sets a standard and sends inspectors out trying to enforce it,” spokesperson Patricia El-Hinnawy wrote in a prepared statement.
Addressing the worries of small farmers, the FDA stated that it recognizes “the critical diversity of the commodities involved—geographical diversities, differences in scale of operations, and differences in the nature of operations, such as conventional versus organic.” But what this will mean on the ground remains unknown.
Though the legislation has not been finalized – and it’s unclear when it will be – the FDA has already begun the process of making the rules that the law will eventually allow them to enforce. They conducted “listening sessions” in 13 states, including California, and are now accepting public input on how to improve food safety on farms.
“I think the FDA has heard the message and now they’re looking for practical solutions,” Runsten said. “They want to hear from the farmers – what can you do, what can't you do? How much do these things cost?”
“It’s not going to hurt for consumers to tell the FDA, ‘Back off my food supply,' either,” he added.
Public comments on the Food Safety process will remain open until July 23. Readers can register their comments at http://www.regulations.gov using docket number FDA-2010-N-0085. Written comments may be sent to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
(Originally published in the Point Reyes Light on June 24, 2010)
