 |
|
|
|
From the Farmer
- to - Consumer Legal Defence Fund
www.farmtoconsumer.org |
1. FDA does not
respect individuals' rights to obtain healthy, quality foods
of their choice. The agency has stated as a matter
of public record, that:
"There is no absolute right
to consume or feed children any particular food."
"Plaintiffs' assertion of a
'fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health,
which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume
for themselves and their families' is similarly unavailing
because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any
food they wish."
FDA has even participated in armed
raids on small-scale co-ops and membership organizations. This
agency should not be given any additional power.
2. FDA has adequate powers
under existing law to ensure food safety and effectively deal
with foodborne illness outbreaks. FDA has power
to inspect, power to detain product and can readily obtain court
orders to seize adulterated or misbranded food products or
enjoin them from being sold. The problem isn't that FDA needs
more power; it's that FDA does not effectively use the power it
currently has. The agency has power to inspect imported food yet
inspects only 1% of food coming into this country from outside
our borders.
3. FDA has used its existing power to benefit the
pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries at the expense of
public health (e.g., allowing the overuse of
antibiotics in confined animal feeding operations and refusing
to require labeling for genetically-modified foods). This bill
does not address the fundamental problems at this agency in
order to truly protect public health.
4. S.510 will expand
FDA's involvement in regulating food in
intra-state
commerce, further interfering with local communities. State
and local governments are more than capable of handling any
problems related to food in intrastate commerce. All the major
outbreaks of foodborne illness involve either imported food or
food in inter-state commerce.
5. S.510
will hurt our ability as a nation to be self-sufficient in food
production because it has more lenient inspection
requirements for foreign than domestic producers creating an
unfair advantage for food imports. Giving an advantage to
foreign producers will only increase the amount of food imported
into this country that does not meet our domestic standards.
S.510 does not address food security--the ability of a country
to produce enough food to meet its own needs.
6. S.510 does nothing to address many significant food
safety problems in this country, such as those
resulting from confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs),
genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and various contaminants
(e.g., BPA, pesticides, herbicides, etc.).
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
HB46 "Farmer Protection Act" Update |
Hello Every one - here is an update on State House
Bill HB 46 "Farmer Protection Act" aka "Farmer Liability Bill" that protects New
Mexican farmers and growers against being sued by Biotech companies for
accidental contamination by patented genetically modified crop pollen and seed.
The vote on Tuesday (yesterday) was tied, 34-34, after an hour debate on the
House Floor. This is a losing vote.
OUR REPRESENTIVE ELICIO ALCON VOTED NO. PLEASE CALL HIM
505-986-4243 ASAP AND ASK HIM TO CHANGE HIS VOTE TO YES.
The Biotech industry is purposely misleading our legislature claiming no NM
farmer will ever be sued, and that there are conflicts with federal law, which
is not true. Make no mistake, the Biotech industry is in the BUSINESS of suing
farmers for patent infringement; absolutely, they will find a way to do it in
New Mexico. Also, no NM Dairy Farmer foolish enough to feed his dairy cows GM
alfalfa will be prevented from doing so by this bill. Representative Alcon needs
to vote BASED ON THE FACTS.
If you are a farmer, rancher or grower, please identify yourself as such. This
bill is to protect farmers from unintended possession of a GE product. Calls are
more effective than emails right now.
Representative Begaye made a motion to reconsider, since a few Representatives
were not present on the Floor for the vote. This motion passed 38-31. The bill
is now on the Speaker's table and can be heard at any time.
We had a HUGE impact yesterday. Thank you for all your calls and emails and for
your continued support! Let's keep the momentum going!
Read the Fact Sheet
|
|
|
|
HB46 & SB384 Update
Hearings are scheduled for Feb15, 16 |
They are voting in the State Senate on Feb.15 and the House
on Feb.16 on the Farmer Protection Act - Our representative in the House is
Eliseo Lee Alcon. His number is 505-986-4243.
We should all call to ask him to support HB 46, the Farmer Protection Act.
Thanks, Jackie
SB384 will be heard
Today, Tuesday the 15th at
1:00 pm in Senate Conservation, Rm 321
HB46 will be heard
Tomorrow, Wednesday the 16th at
1:30 pm in House Judiciary, Rm 309
1. Please call, and/or email Senate
Conservation Committee members, if you had not done so.
Senate Conservation Committee – Today, Tuesday 15th - 1:00 p.m. Room 321
Senator Room Extension 505-986 x
Bernadette Sanchez - Chair - D 218A 4267
Richard Martinez - D 319 4389
David Ulibarri - Vice Chair - R 323 4265
Phil Griego - D 328B 4861
Clinton Harden - D 414B 4369
John Ryan - R 414C 4373
William Sharer - Ranking Member - R 415H 4381
Stephen Fischmann - D 416C 4377
2. Please Call, Visit, and Email the House
Judiciary Committee
HB46 will be heard tomorrow, Wed. at 1:30, Room 309
House Judiciary
Representative Room Extension 505-986 x
Al Park - Chair D 308A 4413
Joseph Cervantes - Vice Chair D 204B 4234
Eliseo Lee Alcon - D 205A 4243
Paul Bandy - R 206B 4248
Cathrynn Brown - R 203F CN 4211
Gail Chasey - D 314C 4844
David Chavez - R 412C 4451
Zachary Cook - R 203J CN 4454
David Doyle - R 206A 4249
Brian Egolf - D 316A 4423
Nate Gentry - R 206A 4249
Antonio Moe Maestas - D 204A 4233
Bill O'Neill - R 203B CN 4464
Bill Rehm - R 206B 4248
Mimi Stewart - D 312B 4344
Email addresses: Copy and paste. Put “Please Support HB46” in the header.
alpark.nm@gmail.com, eliseoalcon@msn.com, paul@paulbandy.org, brown55@windstream.net,
gailchasey@msn.com, david@davidchavez.com, zachjcook@gmail.com, ddoyle@ebnm.com,
brian@brianegolf.com, natefornm@gmail.com, rep16@moejustice.com, oneillhd15@fastmail.us,
bill.rehm@nmlegis.gov, mstewart@osogrande.com
|
|
|
|
Update on
First HB 46 Hearing |
Here is an update from February 6. Thanks - Jackie
Hi Everyone, Thank you all for your calls and/or presence at the
hearing!
The bill was tabled until Monday because the copies of the substitute bill were
not available for the committee. Rep. Bandy did get to present. The room was
packed with supporters with no chairs left. Unfortunately, supporters were not
allowed to speak, only the opposition. TJ Trujillo the Biotech lobbyist, Charlie
Marquez with the NM Chile Association and Vicente with NMSU.
TJ brought up diversionary tactic again by restating the argument that the bill
pre-empts federal law (which it does not). Similar versions of this bill have
passed in other states - California , North Dakota , South Dakota , Indiana ,
etc. - and they have never been challenged as such.
Please rally the troops for the next round on Monday morning at 8:30 as we will
be the first bill (HB46) to be heard. If people have not called, please do so.
Also, please write letters to the editor for Sunday's publications.
Tuesday the bill (SB51) is scheduled to be heard by the Conservation Committee
in the Senate at 1:30 pm, in Room 311. We need to again pack the room and make
our concerns heard. Please do all you can to be there and / or call Senators on
the committee.
This bill is very simple and extremely reasonable. It is designed to provide a
basic protection to those who choose to not grow GE crops. It merely states that
a farmer who is contaminated by a GE crop cannot be sued if the contamination is
de minimis or unintended. The bill also sets up jurisdiction of a legal suit
against such a farmer to be in the district court of the dispute rather than in
the GE Manufacturer’s home court. |
|
|
|
OSA to Challenge
USDA's Approval of
Genetically Engineered Sugar Beets
Partial Deregulation
Comes Before Court-Ordered EIS |
|
February 4, 2011
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced
today that it is allowing genetically engineered (GE) sugar beets to be planted
before its court-ordered Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is complete.
Organic Seed Alliance (OSA) will once again challenge the agency in court
alongside other coalition members represented by the Center for Food Safety. The
decision comes just one week after USDA's full deregulation GE alfalfa.
In November 2010, USDA proposed a "partial
deregulation" of GE sugar beets under a permitting process. This is a means to
temporarily commercialize GE sugar beets while the EIS is conducted. USDA
permits have historically only been used for experimental field trials, not
wide-scale, commercial releases.
"USDA's decision dismisses the adverse economic
effects that contamination by GE sugar beets will have on organic and non-GE
seeds and crops," says Kristina Hubbard with Organic Seed Alliance. "This is a
threat the agency continues to minimize."
As evidenced also by last week's deregulation of GE
alfalfa, USDA continues to put the interests of the biotechnology industry
before those of farmers and consumers who choose to plant and eat organic and
non-GE products. Farmers have a right to purchase seed that is uncontaminated
and the freedom to operate without ongoing fear, expense, and constraints on
choice caused by the commercial planting of GE sugar beets. The courts have also
stated that consumers have the right to choose GE-free food.
OSA has little confidence that USDA's oversight of
GE sugar beet seed production is adequate for protecting the integrity of
organic seed. USDA's own Inspector General and the U.S. Government
Accountability Office have both criticized the agency's oversight of GE crops.
If contamination is not prevented, the burden of
protecting the integrity of seed, agricultural products, and markets is solely
on the shoulders of farmers who choose organic and non-GE seed. This is an
unfair burden that is exacerbated by USDA's decision to release a GE crop that
the federal court deemed improperly deregulated, especially before the findings
of a full EIS are released.
"OSA works hard to create economic opportunities
for farmers through participation in healthy, regional seed production and
marketing systems that add value to their farm," says David Lively with
Oregon-based Organically Grown Company and board member of Organic Seed
Alliance. "USDA's decision affects current and future opportunities for farmers.
The reality is simple: When farmers lose the genetic purity of their seed, they
lose their freedom to operate free of GE contamination."
Read OSA's December 2010 comments in response to USDA's proposal.
CONTACT: Kristina Hubbard,
Director of Advocacy, (406) 493-6965,
kristina@seedalliance.org
Note From Jackie Rossignol,
Farmers' Market Co-manager. "Remember, as you read this, that unless
an items that lists "sugar" as an ingredient says CANE sugar, than there's a
chance it is, or will be, genetically modified...isn't it amazing how USDA
blows off the courts?" |
|
|
|
Hearing for HB 46 |
|
For the last two years a coalition of
farmers, ranchers, advocates, and representatives from various groups worked to
pass legislation protecting farmers from being sued for unintentional possession
of genetically engineered (GE) products like seeds and plants. Our efforts were
unsuccessful, but we must get it passed this year.
Our bipartisan sponsors, Rep. Paul Bandy and
Sen. Stephen Fischmann, are committed to helping us get a bill passed this
year. The bill numbers are House Bill 46 (HB46) and Senate Bill 51 (SB51).
They have been working diligently to present a bill that is acceptable to all
parties.
The first hearing is scheduled for Friday,
February 4th at 8:30 am, Room 310 in the Agriculture and Water
Resources Committee at the Roundhouse.
Please call the committee members and
ask for their support (Please support House Bill 46). And more importantly, we
need people to attend the hearing. We must pack the room and hallways.
Together we can save our farms, ranches and our seeds!
|
Hearing for HB 46 |
Rep. Bandy - Farmer
Liability
House Agriculture and Water Resource Committee
Date: Friday – Feb 4th
Time: 8:30 am
Place: Room 310 at the Round House
ACTION ITEM:
CALL Committee Members ask them to support HB46.
Email members and put “Support HB46” in the header.
Show up if you can,
we need to PACK the room
If you are a member of the Farm Bureau or use their services, tell
them to support this bill.
If you are an organization that supports this bill, email us for
inclusion on a list for Rep. Bandy to present.
Questions: email us at: info@savenmseeds.org |
|
Representative
|
Room |
Call: 505-986 x
|
|
James Roger Magdalena -Chair D
|
314 A
|
4417 |
|
Ray Begaye - Vice Chair D
|
413D
|
4435 |
|
Cathrynn Brown-R
|
203FCN
|
4211 |
|
Zachary Cook-R
|
203JCN
|
4454 |
|
Joseph Cervantes-D
|
204B
|
4234 |
|
Joni Marie Gutierrez-D
|
413C
|
4436 |
|
Dona Irwin-D
|
204B
|
4234 |
|
Larry Larranaga-R
|
201A
|
4215 |
|
Terry McMillan-R
|
202B |
4220 |
|
Don Tripp-R
|
202B |
4220 |
Email addresses: Copy and paste.
jrmadalena@fsipinc.org, ray.begaye@nmlegis.gov, brown55@windstream.net,
zachjcook@gmail.com, jonig@zianet.com, donagale@zianet.com, larry@larranaga.com,
docmcmillan@msn.com, trippsdon@netscape.neto
WHY DO WE NEED THIS BILL
If you have seen the movie Food, Inc. or have heard of Percy Schmeiser, then
you have heard from farmers and a seed cleaner who were sued by Monsanto for
allegedly “stealing” or inducing people to “steal” Monsanto’s patented
technology – roundup resistant seeds.
Cross contamination is inevitable. This is what plants do naturally.
Several states have passed laws to protect farmers from this type of
lawsuits. New Mexico now needs such a law. Why? As of last week, GE
alfalfa is now on the market. A GE chile is being developed by New Mexico
State University for the NM Chile Association. NMSU claims they will own
the patent and it will possibly be available within two years.
Alfalfa is grown in all New Mexico counties, except one. Chile is grown
throughout the state and is a staple food crop for many New Mexican
families. And many more farmers save their seeds annually to feed their
families and communities. It is also a reason why tourists come to our
state. Please help us protect our farmers and ranchers.
Please go the our website:
www.savenmseeds.org for the Fact Sheet and other
information. Thank you for your continued support.
|
|
|
|
December
9th, 2010
From the
National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition |
|
House Passes Senate
Food Safety Bill
with FY 11 Appropriations |
Editors’ note – the good news, is the protections for
small and mid sized family farms is intact. The bad news is the EQIP
program, designed to help develop small and midsized organic sustainable
farms was stripped of $270 million of its funding, the only Farm Bill cut..
Thanks everyone, for calling our Congressmen to support small producers. Its
not over yet, but we’ll keep you posted.
On Wednesday evening, December 8, the House passed a combined Continuing
Resolution-Food Safety bill by a vote of 212-206. All Republicans and 35
Democrats voted no.The Continuing Resolution
would fund all government functions for the remainder of the current fiscal
year 2011, which ends September 30, 2011. The current short-term Continuing
Resolution expires on December 18.
The Food Safety bill is nearly identical to the bill
the Senate passed last week, with the only differences relating to language
about user fees.
The food safety part of the vote is a victory for
supporters of small and mid-sized family farms, local and regional food, and
conservation. Since the Senate passed its bill, trade associations
representing produce industry and agribusiness interests have been hammering
away against the Senate compromise package, urging the House to insist on a
conference committee with the Senate for the purpose of stripping out small
and mid-size farm provisions from the bill. Their effort failed as the House
adopted the Senate package intact, with the exception of some relatively
minor changes to its user fees. The bill, now packaged with the
all-government spending bill, now returns to the Senate for final action.
(Read more on the House food safety bill action on
Food Safety News website.)
Senate Democrats are attempting to pass an Omnibus
Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2011 instead of the House-passed
Continuing Resolution. However, with respect to the food safety bill,
there is a leadership agreement that the same language that has now passed
the House will be attached to the Omnibus and, should the Omnibus fail, will
be attached to a final House-Senate negotiated Continuing Resolution.
The House-passed full year Continuing Resolution caps
government discretionary spending at the FY 2010 levels though it makes
numerous adjustments within that flat-line spending. Some of the big
decreases include cuts for the Census (needed in 2010 but not in 2011), high
speed rail, unspent highway funding, and funding to close defense bases.
Some of the larger increases include Pell grants, Pentagon spending,
Veteran’s medical operations, nuclear weapons spending that is part of the
deal to try to pass the START treaty, and President Obama’s “Race to the
Top” education grants.
Within the agriculture portion of the bill, there is a
$6.5 million increase for USDA’s Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI)
and a large increase in formula funds for land grant universities that is
roughly offset by a decrease in congressional earmarked research and
extension projects, leaving the earmarking decisions up to USDA and the
universities. There is an important increase of $31.9 million needed to
simply maintain Farm Service Agency direct and guaranteed loans at roughly
the same program levels as 2010. There are also increases for child
nutrition and commodity assistance feeding programs and for the Food and
Drug Administration. The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)
is cut by $270 million from its 2008 Farm Bill level, but no other farm bill
conservation cuts are included.
Sadly, the large increase for the Sustainable
Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program that was contained in the
President’s budget and in the House Committee bill and partially contained
in the Senate Committee bill is not part of the Continuing Resolution. Hence
SARE funding would be static under the House measure.
Relative to the House-passed Continuing Resolution,
the yet to be made public Senate Omnibus Bill contains more up to date
spending decisions for many key areas of the government. Whereas the House
bill represents a cut of $46 billion from the budget amounts requested by
the Obama Administration, the draft Senate bill would restore about $18
billion of those cuts. The largest share of those restorations would be in
Defense, State, and Homeland Security. The Senate bill also includes
congressional earmarks that have been largely stripped from the House bill.
However, in the agriculture portion, rumor has it that
the total spending level would be $1 billion lower than FY 2010 levels and
the House bill. While the details have not been released, it is well known
that the Senate omnibus would include major reductions to farm bill
mandatory funding for conservation and energy programs. Appropriators
sometimes raid mandatory accounts, which they theoretically do not control,
in order to make up for shortfalls in discretionary spending that they do
control.
The politics of passing the Omnibus in the Senate
hinges on a handful of Republican Senators, mostly appropriators, who may
decide that higher funding levels for defense and homeland security plus
their own earmarks may make it worthwhile to join hands with Democrats and
pass a real appropriations bill rather than a long-term Continuing
Resolution. In addition to the choice between the long-term Continuing
Resolution and the Omnibus, a third choice, favored by many Republicans, is
yet another short term Continuing Resolution that would expire in March and
allow the new Republican-controlled House to rewrite all the appropriations
bills for the last half of fiscal year 2011.
All of this drama will play out over the course of
the next week. While the outcome on appropriations among the three
leading options remains in doubt, whatever option is ultimately chosen the
final appropriations vehicle should carry with it the food safety bill as
passed by the House yesterday.
http://sustainableagriculture.net
|
|
|
