What would I do if I were the magic Food Safety Fairy?  I believe that this answer requires taking a rather long view of U.S. history to understand where we are now and how we got here before deciding how to fix our present situation.  The current U.S. food safety system first came into place following the initial rise of prepared and canned foods in the early 1900s. Canned foods themselves came into widespread use beginning around the time of the Civil War, and, to a public that was unused to purchasing food that they couldn’t see, the cans posed a problem.  All of a sudden, a swindler could fill cans with sawdust, water, and food dye, then label them with a picture of mouthwatering food, and the customer would not know he or she had been ripped off until after the purchase was made.  Or, of course, even a well-meaning manufacturer could put food in the can without taking proper safety precautions and make the customers sick. 

This was also the time of the horrific scenes in the Chicago stockyards documented by Upton Sinclair in “The Jungle,” which were made possible by another 19th century development: railroads (and more specifically, refrigerated rail cars).  Prior to the advent of refrigerated rail cars, live cattle were transported for sale on the east coast–a costly trip.  Transporting whole cattle when only a part of the actual carcass would be sold and eaten was costly, but producers also lost money as the cattle lost weight during the long and difficult trip.  Once refrigerated rail cars were invented, the cattle could be slaughtered in Chicago at their top weight and then only the meat would be shipped east for sale.  If this system ever worked well, by 1906 it had degenerated into the grotesque spectacle Sinclair wrote about.  (Among other observations, Sinclair said, “there were things that went into the sausage in comparison with which a poisoned rat was a tidbit.”)

Prior to the passage of the food safety laws that make up the backbone of our food safety system, large food corporations opposed regulation.  (No surprise, right?)  But at a certain point, they had a change of heart.  If Congress passed food safety legislation, perhaps their smaller competitors would not be able to afford to comply with the regulations, and it would push them out of business?  And they were right.  Consider if you wanted to get into the food business today.  Could you simply start baking cookies in your own kitchen?  Of course not. You need to use a commercial kitchen.  Farmers selling meat and dairy products face even more strict (and costly) regulations.  Not that these regulations are a bad thing–in many cases, they are necessary and they save lives.  However, it’s interesting that the same issue that came up in the recent food safety debate was also present a century ago.  As the 2010 food safety bill was debated, small producers claimed it would put them out of business unless they were exempted from its regulations, and food safety advocates claimed that the addition of such loopholes would allow larger operations to duck under the regulations. 

Until the recent Food Safety Modernization Act, the two bills that governed our food safety system were the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938.  By 1906, America already had slaughterhouses with disgusting, unsanitary conditions, but even by 1938 we still lacked technologies, food additives, farming methods, and even foodborne pathogens that we have today.  Small wonder why, over 70 years later, our food safety system is ready for an overhaul.

That said, before continuing discussion about any new regulation, I want to share some recent experiences in food safety.  During 2010, I traveled to Latin America four times, to Cuba, Bolivia, and two different parts of Mexico.  The food safety situation on these trips was utterly terrifying.  When we arrived in our destination on one trip, a tiny town in Jalisco, Mexico, our leader very clearly pointed out the two restaurants in town that have never caused anyone on her trips to become ill.  The message was clear: eat anywhere else at your own risk.  I stuck to her advice religiously.  Others didn’t.  All I can say is before that trip, I never thought I would ever see a grown man have diarrhea in his pants.  Fortunately, on that trip or any other, none of the food poisoning incidents were serious.

On another trip, also to Mexico, our group cooked our own food.  This was even more terrifying to me.  At one point, we made a salad.  “A salad?” I thought, “You’ve got to be kidding me!”  Unless we washed the vegetables in water with bleach, there was no way to safely eat it.  And who wants to ingest bleach?  Mealtimes were serious business.  Everything had to be boiled or sanitized with bleach.  Communication had to be perfect, and it wasn’t.  At one point, one person on our trip drank un-boiled water (which he followed up with some sort of medicine to prevent illness after he realized his mistake).  In another case, we thought for a moment that someone had accidentally poured a water and bleach solution into a pot of beans, assuming that it was just water.  I nearly drank coffee laced with bleach once, but poured it out and refilled my cup.  For me, eating had never been so perilous before!

I bring this up because I want to note that there is some truth when people boast about the safety of the American food supply (even though I disagree with the sentiment they are usually trying to convey, that we have no need to make our food safer).  Back in those golden days before our food safety laws were passed, before we had a need for food safety laws, Americans probably faced a situation somewhat similar to what I faced in Latin America. They did not have to worry about food additives, pesticides, genetically engineered foods, nanotechnology, irradiation, clones, or mad cow disease, but they did have to worry about good old-fashioned bacteria, viruses, parasites, and any other biological cause of foodborne illness.  The difference between then and now was that people typically produced their own food, or purchased their food from someone who did.  Want to make sure that your milk isn’t contaminated with manure?  Well, then, clean the udder of your cow before you milk her!

Back when people produced their own food, stupidity or carelessness could certainly lead to food safety problems (just as it does today, and will continue to forever).  However, those problems were never widespread on the scale we see today (i.e. the recall of half a billion eggs), nor were they usually the result of greedy businesspeople who were guilty of criminal negligence (or worse).  (Greed and criminal behavior have always existed, but it would take a real schmuck to knowingly sell unsafe food to his or her neighbor!)  What people had to protect them was common sense, tradition, attention to detail, and–to whatever extent it existed–outreach by schools, government, or community groups that disseminated advice on food safety.  (In one village in Mexico I visited, the local hospital had a mural on one wall with such sage health advice as “Don’t poop outside,” “Don’t allow pigs in the house,” and “Wear shoes.”)  The one major role government can and should play even in a food system where people produce their own food is providing potable water for both drinking and irrigation.  So many of the current food safety difficulties I experienced
abroad could have been elim
inated simply by the availability of potable water.

So where does that leave us here, in the United States, in 2010?  We’ve got ourselves a new food safety law, and while I believe and hope it will do some good, I don’t believe for a second that it will solve our problems.  Food safety is still split between a number of federal departments and agencies, and the USDA, which overseas meat and poultry, has somewhat conflicting goals (promote agriculture and regulate agriculture).  Step one, I believe, is to move all of the federal food safety responsibilities under a food safety agency, which would be under the Department of Health and Human Services.  Finally, we would have all of our food safety responsibilities in one place, in a department that has a clear mandate to protect the health of the American people, and we could sort out the duplications and gaps in responsibility that now exist under the current system.

Step two is to eliminate additives that simply should not be in our food.  Often, such ingredients are determined to be “GRAS” or generally recognized as safe.  But are they?  A great example of food additives to eliminate from our food is artificial food dyes.  They don’t cause foodborne illness like E. coli, but they are scientifically linked to behavioral problems in children and they are banned in some other countries.  In this country, chemicals tend to be innocent until proven guilty.  We legalize them before all of the science is in, use our own population as guinea pigs, and then only ban chemicals if, and only if, they cause widespread, provable harm.  Let’s adopt the Precautionary Principle, and wait until a substance is proven safe before we allow it in our food.

Step three, clean up the pollution that finds its way into our food supply.  Specifically, I am thinking of instances like the mercury and PCBs found in seafood.  Surely, cleaning up every last trace of every toxic substance is an impossible task, but as a start, we could stop releasing it into the environment!  A bill from last Congress would have helped by getting mercury out of chlor-alkali plants, and an even bigger win would be to clean up or shut down mercury emitting coal-fired power plants.  It’s a horrible shame that pregnant mothers must avoid seafood due to mercury contamination when seafood is one of the top sources of omega-3 fatty acids, nutrients needed to help the growth and development of the unborn baby’s brain. 

But these changes, in the context of our food system and our food safety problems, are just tweaking around the edges.  To truly bring about the changes I think we need, I wouldn’t need a magic wand … but I would need a magic wand (a very powerful magic wand!) to get those changes passed by Congress.  Simply put, I don’t believe we can keep our current food system intact and then regulate it or legislate it until it becomes safe.  Despite all of the talk of “farm to fork traceability,” you cannot pass laws that ban stupidity and carelessness, and right now we don’t even seem able to prevent criminal negligence with our legal system. (Just take a look at the history of Austin “Jack” DeCoster!)  Our food system should be decentralized, more localized, and more ecologically based.

Why decentralized and more localized? First of all, when everyone does not get their food from the same source, then one act of carelessness cannot result in everyone getting sick all at once.  If one farmer supplies a few local groceries, then some tainted spinach results in a small, local recall and perhaps a few illnesses, but nothing like the horrible, national outbreak we saw in 2006.  Carelessness and stupidity are inevitable, but there’s no reason why one stupid person should be able to sicken an entire country all at once.  But second, when people are closer to their source of food, then they can use better judgment over whether or not it’s safe. 

In addition to simply decentralizing our food system, to the extent possible, eaters should be closer to the production of their food.  In the peanut butter Salmonella outbreak, Nestle actually inspected the Peanut Corporation of America facility and decided to go with a different supplier.  But the customers of Nestle, Kellogg, and countless other brands never got to make the same judgment call themselves.  In the end, some Kellogg customers got sick but Nestle customers did not.  Now, is this evidence that Kellogg is a bad company and Nestle is good?  Not at all.  Only a little while later, Nestle sold Tollhouse cookie dough tainted with E. coli and sickened its customers too.  But in neither case did the customers actually get to view the food growing and processing conditions before purchasing their food. 

When food is purchased more locally, it’s a different story.  It’s not perfect.  Not every customer visits every farmer’s farm (probably a minority of customers actually visit the farm). But, when buying directly from farmers, the customers know who produced their food, and they have the opportunity to ask the farmer questions face to face.  And often they can visit the farm if they wish to.  Jan Douwe van der Ploeg, in his book “The New Peasantries,” also argues that farmers who engage in the peasant mode of farming (which often characterizes small farms that sell directly at farmers’ markets, even in modern day America) take pride in craftsmanship.  In other words, unlike a businessperson who is guided solely by the bottom line, the small farmer takes pride in the quality (and hopefully safety) of his or her products. And, of course, if that farmer makes his or her customers sick, it will be awfully awkward showing up at the market the next week…

And last, our food should be produced more ecologically.  By this I mean that food production should mimic nature as closely as possible.  Nature does not create “factory farm” conditions; instead, plants, animals, and microorganisms feed one another in the natural web of life, with manure serving as a valuable source of nutrients instead of a pollutant.  Arguably, animal factories (and the slaughterhouses that process the animals en masse, and at a dizzying rate) are the number one food safety problems in America, and I find it hard to believe that we will ever reach a solution to our food safety problems without addressing them.  Raising large numbers of animals in crowded conditions creates breeding grounds for pathogens.  Add the antibiotics used to promote growth and suppress disease and you’re giving the pathogens just what they need to help them evolve resistance to antibiotics.  Then consider the lagoons of manure produced, which are ultimately leached, leaked, or purposely spread into the environment, and you’ve got an excellent way to spread those pathogens to more unwitting victims (even, in some cases, wild animals, who can then transmit the pathogens back into the human food chain through their manure).  Even food safety outbreaks in non-animal products often involve manure, like the spinach E. coli disaster of 2006. 

A shift to locally produced foods, decentralized production, and ecological food production would require a major shift in our laws and in our society.  We would need perhaps a fivefold increase in the percent of Americans who farm, and a massive increase in urban agriculture. We would also need to loosen up laws restricting small-scale food production.  Is it really necessary for a farmer who raises 15 beef cattle per year to have them slaughtered at a USDA-inspected slaughterhouse, considering that farmers have been slaughtering their own animals since the dawn of animal domestication in human history?  Perhaps simply requiring the farmer to take a food safety course would do the trick.  And why shouldn’t a city d

weller with a small yard be allowed to raise a small flock of chickens for meat and eggs, or grow vegetables in his or her front yard, as some cities now forbid?

I am not calling for a return to a romanticized past, to an era in which all food was safe.  I am sure that never existed (as my recent travels have shown!).  But the past century or so has been more or less an experiment unprecedented in human history that has led us to environmental degradation, human rights abuses, diet-related chronic illness, and massive food safety outbreaks.  I don’t see how we continue on this track and come out ahead.  Let’s call off the experiment but move forward instead of backward, marching into the 21st century with modern day science and technology while putting food production, and safety, back into the hands of eaters (or at least much closer to them).  I’ve spoken to a few victims of the recent food safety outbreaks and this is precisely what they have done.  They’ve started gardening, and they now make sure they know where their food is coming.  I don’t know about you, but I’ve had enough of playing “peanut butter roulette,” where every time I unwrap a seemingly sterile package of food, I don’t know whether the factory that produced it was covered in rodent and bird excrement or not.

Nanofoods fall into four categories. First, and most obviously, there’s the use of nanotechnology directly in a food that you eat. Second, there are supplements that use nanotechnology. And the last two categories, which are similar, are comprised of things you don’t eat that use nanotechnology: food packaging and cookware.

In those cases, are nanoparticles ingested or not?  And in all cases, is it safe?

By and large, nanofoods are an area of mystery to all.  We don’t know if it’s safe, we don’t know when and where we might be eating them, and we don’t know when the FDA will decide it’s time to regulate them.

Perhaps the best source of information on nanotechnology, the Woodrow Wilson Center’s Project on Emerging Technologies, maintains a database of consumer products around the world that use nanotechnology.  For food, they list mostly supplements, plus several applications in food packaging (such as in McDonald’s burger containers or plastic beer bottles), a few uses in cookware, and hardly anything for food. 

However, other sources, such as a recent AOL News piece by Andrew Schneider, point to much more common uses of nanotechnology in food. 

According to Schneider’s account, an unnamed scientist at the USDA says that, “apples, pears, peppers, cucumbers and other fruit and vegetables are being coated with a thin, wax-like nanocoating to extend shelf-life.  The edible nanomaterial skin will also protect the color and flavor of the fruit longer.”

He goes on to tell of “engineered particles … already being sold in salad dressings; sauces; diet beverages; and boxed cake, muffin and pancakes mixes.”  And most major food manufacturers have or contract with nanotechnology labs.  If that’s the case, Americans are eating nanoparticles already.  But nanoparticles of what?

The name nanotechnology applies to nanoparticles of any chemical, but there is a world of difference between nanosilver, used for its antibacterial properties, and carbon nanotubes, which many fear resemble asbestos and cause similar harm. (Carbon nanotubes, thankfully, are not headed for our food; nanosilver might be, which is worrying.) 

What are the risks and benefits of each type of nanoparticle, and how do we know if each one is safe?

To get an idea of how a nanoparticle may differ from larger amounts of the same element, let’s look at silver. Silver, for the most part, is non-toxic to humans. If individuals ingest too much silver, they may suffer from argyria, a condition in which their skin has a blue tint. Aside from the aesthetic problems with argyria, it’s not believed to be harmful to one’s health. Additionally, silver is highly toxic to marine organisms.

Nanosilver is highly toxic to bacteria and fungi, making it a useful ingredient in, say; food containers that help food keep for longer (The Sharper Image sells some).

In studies, nanosilver shows the potential to wreak disastrous effects on the environment.  An antibacterial agent may be great for your socks or your food container, but it’s not something you want in any natural ecosystem – or even your garden!

And it comes as no surprise that nanosilver, like silver, is toxic to marine organisms. However, nanosilver is so small it can even penetrate minnow egg membranes and move into fish embryos.  In humans, recent studies found nanosilver to be a neurotoxicant and toxic to human stem cells. 

What does this mean for human safety if nanosilver is used in food packaging?  Nobody really knows.  And nanosilver is one of the most popular and most researched nanoparticles used to date.  What about the others?

There are two questions at the center of the nano debate: First, is it safe?  Second, does nanotechnology belong in organic foods?  The EU addressed the first question, opting to go with the Precautionary Principle.  In Europe, nanotech must stay out of food until it has been proven safe.

Canada merely took on the second question, saying that nanotech needs to stay out of organics. In the U.S. regulators are still looking at both questions, but–to date–have not taken action.

As a consumer, knowing that my food–even produce–might contain unlabeled nanotechnology is, in a word, terrifying.

Humans take risks every day but we like to know what those risks are, assess them, and then choose to take them.  How do I know what type of risk I am taking if I eat a nanofood, and how do I opt out of taking that risk? 

And for that matter, why should anyone be asked to take such a risk when no one is doing much safety testing of these new technologies?

Despite sludge’s relative obscurity, the newly formed Food Rights Network, founded by John Stauber, former Executive Director of the Center for Media and Democracy and author of the book “Toxic Sludge is Good For You,” is taking on sewage sludge as its flagship issue. Simply put, the group says that it is not safe to grow food in sewage sludge.

Why isn’t it safe?

Sewage sludge regularly tests positive for a host of heavy metals, flame retardants, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, pharmaceuticals, phthalates, dioxins, and a host of other chemicals and organisms.  Of the thousands of contaminants that have been found in sludge, the U.S. government regulates exactly 10 of them (nine heavy metals and fecal coliform) if you want to spread the sludge on farm fields growing food crops.

When industry, hospitals, and households send their waste to wastewater treatment plants, the plants remove as many contaminants as possible from the water and then discharge the water as effluent.  The leftover solids are sludge.

Sewage sludge is typically treated to remove some–but not all–of the contaminants.  In recent decades, the sludge lobby (yes, there is one) has rebranded the treated sludge as “biosolids.”

Sludge that is applied to farmland–or even golf courses, home gardens, and, in the past, the White House lawn–comes in two flavors: Class A Biosolids and Class B Biosolids.  The only regulatory difference between the two is the level of fecal coliform, which is lower in Class A.

Class B Biosolids may be applied only to land where crops fed to animals are grown.  No restrictions apply to Class A Biosolids.   You as a home gardener can even buy these at your local gardening store and grow your own food in them.  Various cities get very creative at “branding” their sludge, so that gardeners can choose between “Milorganite” from Milwaukee, “Hou-Actinite” from Houston, or “GroCo” from Seattle.

Often, but not always, the various contaminants are found in sewage sludge at low levels. What happens to them once the sludge is applied to the soil is anyone’s guess.  Some chemicals bind to the soil; others do not.  Some chemicals leach into groundwater; others are insoluble in water.

Some chemicals are taken up by plants–perhaps into the roots only, or into leaves, or all the way into fruits.  Some chemicals break down into harmless components, others break down into dangerous components, and others don’t break down at all.

Understanding the path that low levels of thousands of chemicals take in the environment is a daunting task.

Once a contaminant makes its way from sewage sludge to soil, and into the human food supply, what happens?

Again, it depends.

Some chemicals are stored in the human body, and others pass through it.  Some break down in our digestive system and others don’t.  And each person is different, with a different body size, stage of development, and metabolism.  The same chemical may wreak devastating effects if a pregnant woman eats it but go unnoticed if eaten by a man.

Consider also the interaction between the many contaminants individuals may be exposed to if they regularly eat food grown in sludge.  While the effects of individual chemicals are often studied, less is known about the interactions between low levels of large numbers of chemicals.

To provide a more concrete example, take the chemical triclosan.  It has been used for several decades in antibacterial products like soaps, deodorants and cosmetics.  It is also nearly universally found in sewage sludge.  A recently published study found that soybeans planted in soil containing triclosan took the triclosan up into their beans.

Triclosan is a suspected endocrine disruptor and recent CDC reports show more than a 40 percent increase in triclosan levels in the urine of Americans over a recent two-year period.  The amount in our bodies isn’t entirely due to sewage sludge; humans can absorb triclosan through their skin and those who use triclosan-containing toothpastes put the chemical directly into their mouths.

Scientists are also finding that triclosan breaks down into dioxins in the environment.

A more extreme example of sewage sludge posing health risks

Andy McElmurray was a Georgia dairy farmer who accepted sewage sludge to fertilize his fields where he grew food for his cows over many years.  As the years went by, he noticed that his land was becoming more and more acidic.  McElmurray applied lime to raise the pH of his soil.  Soon after he did so, his cows became sick.

After many tests, he traced the cows’ illnesses back to the sludge.  The sludge he had applied contained high levels of molybdenum, cadmium, and thallium.  Molybdenum and cadmium are regulated in sewage sludge, whereas thallium is not.  

When McElmurray applied the lime, the contaminants became more bioavailable to the plants, and the cows ate the plants.  His cows suffered from telltale signs of molybdenum poisoning, and their milk was contaminated with thallium (a rat poison toxic to humans in small doses).

By the time the cows’ illnesses were traced to the sludge, it was too late to save McElmurray’s farm.  Worse, both McElmurray and his father became sick themselves from breathing sewage sludge dusts blowing from their fields.  

In this case, the Augusta, GA wastewater treatment plant that provided the sludge fudged its numbers and broke the law, providing McElmurray with sludge that contained higher levels of heavy metals than allowed.  In the end, however, scientists also found that if the wastewater treatment plant had followed the law and limited molybdenum to the legal levels, McElmurray’s cows still would have gotten sick.

Sludge Regulation

Given the complexity of the many chemicals found in sewage sludge–and consider that each wastewater treatment plant’s sludge is different over time and different from another plant’s sludge–how could sewage sludge be regulated in such a way that it is safe to use?

Regulators must consider that humans will be exposed to any contaminant in sludge in several ways.  McElmurray and his father became ill after inhaling sewage sludge dusts.  Gardeners who use sewage sludge as fertilizer touch the soil directly, and small children may even eat soil.  If it could be done, regulating sewage sludge to guarantee safety and then following through with those regulations would be infinitely difficult and expensive.

Currently, sewage sludge is disposed of via landfills and incineration as well as land application. According to the EPA, about half of all sewage sludge is applied to land, but it is only applied to about one percent of the nation’s farmland.  The likely result is that, if dangers do lurk in the sludge applied to land, we rarely find out about them.

Most people’s chances of eating enough tainted food from farms that apply sewage sludge as fertilizer to cause an acute reaction are pretty slim.  The chance that anyone who got sick would be able to correctly trace his or her illness back to the farm and to sewage sludge is even smaller.  However, a lack of easily traceable acute illnesses does not prove that sewage sludge is safe.  Health harm due to exposure to low levels of toxins over a long period of time is no more acceptable than acute problems, even if they are less obvious.

As a consumer, the only sure way to avoid food grown in sewage sludge is to buy organic food (or grow your own).  If you are a gardener and you wish to avoid sewage sludge fertilizers or composts, avoid any product that says it contains “biosolids.”  Last, if you wish to keep sewage sludge from being spread on farm fields near where you live, you can take action locally to make it illegal in your city or county.

Editor’s Note:  Jill Richardson has written about sewage sludge for the Center for Media & Democracy.

Over the past year and a half, the rumors have made their rounds more than once. “The food safety bill will shut down farmers’ markets!” “The food safety bill will kill organics!” “You can be criminally charged for your own vegetable garden if the food safety bill passes!”

Everyone from elected officials to members of the media to even Robert F. Kennedy Jr. heard these rumors and wondered if they could be true. Some even believed them, despite a few obvious giveaways that the rumors were entirely bogus. (For example, at one point, while Congress was on a two-week recess, emails went around claiming that the bill would pass within the next two weeks–a claim that had already been circulating for six weeks or so at that point.)

So is it true or false? Is the food safety bill (S.510) the end of food as we know it, or is it a much-needed update to an old regulatory system based on outdated science and corporate lobbying? The answer, of course, lies in the middle.

On one hand, some people have legitimate concerns with the bill. On the other hand, it’s easy to agree that we should not continue with our current food safety system that gives us frequent nationwide recalls, sickness, and even deaths due to everyday foods like eggs, spinach, and peanut butter. And, while the bill does a lot, even those who support it know that it does not do everything. (In fact, the bill only affects the FDA, which regulates 80 percent of the U.S. food supply, but not the USDA or EPA, which also have food safety oversight duties.)

The rumors, as you may have guessed, were mostly baseless. They seemed to come from people who were not adept at reading the legalese in which bills are written, who had not watched the federal hearings that helped determine the content of the bill, and who were not even terribly familiar with how Congress operates.

When you get one of those emails, it’s easy to hit reply all and say, “This email is totally bogus!” But what about concerns raised by people who can read legalese and who are familiar with the inner workings of Congress? The crazy rumors managed to obscure a true debate, one that has been quietly taking place as the bill slowly worked its way through first the House, and then – partially – through the Senate. (The food safety bill, S. 510, was almost certain to pass the Senate and go to Obama’s desk this month, until Sen. Tom Coburn – a doctor – decided that he could not allow the bill to move forward, Hippocratic oath be damned. Now the bill seems unlikely to pass before November.)

The true debate takes place between two groups of people who are intelligent, well-informed, and looking to do the best thing for the country. All involved agree that the current situation is highly unacceptable, because nobody deserves to get sick or die from eating peanut butter.

And, generally speaking, most would point the finger at large corporations, because they are responsible for the vast majority of food poisoning outbreaks – particularly the ones that make national news and make hundreds or thousands of people sick. Most would also agree that the 10-acre farm selling produce or jam at a farmers’ market is not the big food safety problem in the U.S.

The disagreement comes over priorities and trust in government. On one side, consumer advocacy organizations like Consumers Union feel strongly that the bill should have no loopholes for unscrupulous individuals or corporations to duck through. If the bill exempts small farms, would a large farm be able to break itself up into many smaller entities to escape regulation?

The folks on this side of the debate tend to generally trust the FDA to do the right thing. Thus far, the bill has been amended to give the FDA discretion to exempt small farms from some of the bill’s provisions. Presumably, the FDA would have the sense to exempt truly small farms but not exempt a large farm trying to evade regulations by posing as many small farms.

Furthermore, they worry about imports. Would an exemption for small farms disproportionately apply in developing countries where food safety is not as advanced as it is in the United States? (Perhaps a better question is why we sign trade agreements that preclude us from imposing harsher food safety regulations on trading partners than we do on our own farmers, given that other countries may not have safe drinking water or strictly enforced laws on pesticides and antibiotics used in agriculture like we do in the U.S. However, changing that is outside the scope of this bill.)

The other side of the debate comes from a group that is less trustful of the government, many of whom are farmers or consumers who enjoy buying their food directly from farmers. The government has not always acted in a way that would earn it trust, and farmers are acutely aware of cases in which farmers have lost their farms due to government policies or even misconduct.

Humans – imperfect humans with egos, interpersonal conflicts, and career aspirations that can get in the way of their job performance, run government agencies like the FDA. Even if the FDA is mostly good, and even if its enforcement of this law is mostly good, farmers worry, “What if their one mistake is my farm?” (Remember the summer of 2008 when the government wrongly identified tomatoes as the source of a Salmonella outbreak, telling consumers to avoid eating raw tomatoes, only to find out that the Salmonella actually came from peppers?)

Clearly, both sides of this debate make valid points. No, we don’t want loopholes that would allow for more foodborne illness or even deaths. And yes, it’s distinctly possible that the government could screw up like they did with the tomatoes and peppers, sending the FDA with newly expanded powers to inspect innocent farms for tainted tomatoes.

The bill language, as it stands now, is intended as a compromise between these two sides. But these are two sides that cannot compromise terribly well. One side wants no absolute exemptions to the food safety bill, and the other side does not think it’s enough to give the FDA discretion about which farms or small processors to exempt.

What should be recognized is that much of the bill is not controversial. Many provisions in the bill do not involve farms at all, but instead focus on food manufacturing facilities and warehouses. However, a farm suddenly becomes subject to many of the provisions if it performs on-farm processing (like making maple syrup, sun-dried tomatoes, or jam).

For example, food facilities, including farms that engage in on-farm processing, must create food safety plans (subject to FDA inspection) that analyze risks, take preventive controls, monitor the effectiveness of the plan, take corrective actions, and provide verification that the plan is working. Facility owners must keep records and periodically re-analyze their plans.

The FDA must “provide sufficient flexibility to be practicable for all sizes and types of facilities,” including small businesses. However, Judith McGeary, of the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance, criticizes this provision, saying the bill language uses “undefined terms” that are “in practice, largely unenforceable.”  (Full disclosure: Judith McGeary and I are friends.)

Additionally, the FDA may choose to exempt or modify requirements for on-farm processing “as the Secretary [of Health and Human Services] deems appropriate” for small facilities and low risk activities.

While McGeary pushes for bill language that provides airtight exemptions for small farms, consumer advocate groups fear that any loophole that large would put the nation’s food safety at risk. They tend to think that making a food safety plan is not a big deal for a farm – a small sacrifice to make for a safer food system.

But some farmers – particularly those on small, diversified farms with a large number of products and processes that would each need food safety plans – feel that this is an undue burden.  It’s already very difficult to stay in business as a small farm and diverting labor from farm activities to write and follow food safety plans (when the food they produce isn’t the nation’s major food safety problem in the first place) would make it that much harder to stay profitable.

The bill directly regulates farms in a requirement for the FDA to create standards for growing and harvesting fruits and vegetables, including standards for “soil amendments, hygiene, packing, temperature controls, animals in the growing area, and water.” While the FDA cannot regulate meat, eggs, or dairy, farms with animals could face new rules about “animals in the growing area.”

To date, a few compromises have been included in the bill to minimize any harm it causes to small, sustainable farms. The produce standards must provide “sufficient flexibility” and be “appropriate to the scale of diversity” of the farms. (Again, McGeary criticizes these terms as undefined and largely unenforceable.) The FDA may exempt or modify its requirements for small or very small businesses that grow low risk crops, and the standards cannot conflict with organic regulations for certified organic producers.

However, many sustainable producers that grow organically choose to forego organic certification because of the cost associated with becoming certified, and those non-certified producers would not be included in the protections for certified organic producers.

Last, the FDA must “take into consideration, consistent with ensuring enforceable public health protection, conservation and environmental practice standards and policies established by Federal natural resource conservation, wildlife conservation, and environmental agencies.” Here, McGeary worries that the FDA is not legally obligated to protect natural resources or wildlife.

One more point of contention remains in the bill. The food safety bill requires a new traceability system so that when a food safety outbreak is traced to a particular plant, all of the affected foods can be identified and recalled quickly. Thus far, food sold directly from a farmer to a consumer is exempt from this portion of the bill. However, food sold from a farmer directly to an institution (school, hospital, prison) is not.

Here, the FDA is instructed to consider the impact on farm-to-institution programs and then modify the traceback requirements “as appropriate” to avoid “undue burdens.” Consumer advocates worry that a more complete exemption of all farm-to-institution direct sales could accidentally, for example, exempt an enormous factory farm supplying large amounts of food to, say, the entire Chipotle restaurant chain from any traceability requirements.

All in all, great care has been taken in the year and a half or so since the bill was first introduced to write in many protections for small, sustainable, ethical farmers and small businesses. And, assuming the FDA is trustworthy in following the bill as written, the bill looks pretty good for any small farmer or processor.

The question is which scenario would be more likely: for the FDA to abuse its power (despite bill language encouraging it to be mindful of small farms and processors and sustainable growing practices when enforcing the bill), or for large corporations or farms to sneak through any loophole that was intended for small, sustainable farms and businesses?

The various parties have come far in compromising on the protections provided for small, sustainable farms and processors, but because one side insists on absolute exemptions and the other side refuses to accept that, it seems a compromise that both sides are 100 percent happy with will not be forthcoming.

Jill Richardson has worked with Consumers’ Union in lobbying for Senate passage of food safety legislation.

If approved, AquAdvantage will be the first genetically engineered animal to directly enter the U.S. food supply — a fact that raises the stakes of the FDA’s approval process, as it sets a precedent for all future GE animals. Because of a regulatory decision in the 1980s that no new laws are needed to regulate genetically engineered foods, the FDA is actually regulating the GE salmon as a drug. The next step in the approval process will be a series of public meetings held Sept. 19-21. Already, a number of groups, including Food & Water Watch, the Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Earth, and Organic Consumers Association have written to President Obama, urging him to discontinue the approval process for the GE salmon. (Full disclosure: I serve on the Policy Advisory Board of the Organic Consumers Association, but I was not a part of the decision to sign onto this letter.)

The company that developed the GE salmon, AquaBounty Technologies, claims the fish grows to market weight in 16 to 18 months instead of the usual 30 required for farmed Atlantic salmon. The fish was created by inserting genetic material of both Chinook (the largest variety of Pacific salmon) and ocean pout (an eel-like fish) into the genome of Atlantic salmon. The commercialized fish will all be females, making them unable to breed. AquaBounty’s intellectual property will be further protected because the fish will be sterile, as they will all be triploids (fish with three complete sets of chromosomes instead of the usual two).

How to Make Frankenfish

To create the fish, AquaBounty begins with eggs of GE Atlantic salmon females and fertilizes them with irradiated sperm of another similar fish species, Arctic char. The eggs are then pressure-treated, causing them to produce diploid offspring (i.e. fish with two complete sets of chromosomes), with both sets of chromosomes originating from the GE female salmon. The all-female GE diploid salmon will then be treated with 17-methyltestosterone, a hormone that turns the fish into what AquaBounty calls “neomales” — genetically female fish that produce milt (sperm) instead of eggs. The milt from the GE neomales will fertilize the eggs of non-GE Atlantic salmon, and the resulting fertilized eggs will be treated with pressure to produce the final product, a line of all-female triploid GE Atlantic salmon.

According to AquaBounty’s plans, the GE salmon will begin their lives at a hatchery in Prince Edward Island, Canada and then transfer to a grow-out facility in Panama. Unlike most salmon, which begin their lives in freshwater before transferring to saltwater, the GE salmon will live their entire lives in freshwater. The good news is that currently there are no plans to raise the GE salmon in open net pens in the ocean, a method of salmon farming that has resulted in massive damage to wild salmon populations as well as frequent escapes of farmed salmon into the ocean.

Questionable Science

While farmed salmon have been an environmental catastrophe in countries like Canada and Norway, it seems that environmental concerns over AquAdvantage take a backseat to safety concerns. The science AquaBounty provided the FDA was sloppy in a number of ways, and yet the FDA accepted it and declared the fish safe. Because the approval of AquAdvantage salmon will set a precedent, it is important that the FDA set its bar for solid science high, signaling to any company that wishes to commercialize a genetically engineered animal that it must completely prove its safety if it hopes to put its product on the market. Instead, according to Hansen, “the FDA appears to have set its bar an inch from the ground.”

AquaBounty tested its GE salmon and controls for physical and behavioral problems, differences in blood test results and hormone levels, and allergenicity to humans. Although the commercialized fish will all be female triploids, they often tested both males and females and both diploids and triploids of non-GE and GE salmon to determine whether any problem that showed up was due to the genetic engineering or due to the extra set of chromosomes.

However, in many of the tests, AquaBounty used sample sizes as low as six fish, much less than the minimum of 30 needed for the results to have statistical significance. Hansen said a small sample size might make sense if the animals were elephants, but there is no reason why AquaBounty should not have tested more fish. Moreover, in one of the tests, the six fish in each study group were selected from larger groups of 100 to 200 fish, and the report did not specify that they were chosen randomly. Additionally, AquaBounty admitted to culling deformed fish prior to selecting fish for inclusion in its studies. The company justified this by saying that culling is standard practice in the industry. That may be so, but for the purpose of comparing deformities between GE and non-GE salmon, the culling and sampling practices reduce the reliability of the results.

Another alarming practice — one Hansen felt qualifies as misleading — was AquaBounty’s reliance on 2007 data (the best year for the GE fish and simultaneously the worst year for non-GE fish) and its characterization of 2005 data (the worst year for the GE fish) as an outlier to be ignored. By using 2007 data for many of its studies, AquaBounty was able to compare its best group of both diploid and triploid GE salmon against the group of non-GE salmon with the highest frequency of physical deformities (compared to each of the other years of testing, 2003-2006).

On the other hand, in 2005, the GE fish exhibited an unusually high frequency of physical deformities (only 7.9 percent of triploid GE salmon and 17.2 percent of diploid GE salmon were judged to be free of any malformations), and AquaBounty provided several justifications for ignoring this data, suggesting that perhaps the small sample size (38 fish) of GE triploids was to blame. Hansen says if that were true, we would not also see such poor results in the diploid GE fish, which had a sample size of over 1,500 salmon.

The problem could have been environmental, offered AquaBounty. Maybe the problems were caused by nutrient deficiencies, exposure to antibiotics, contaminants in feed, parasites, or water temperature. Yet, if that were the case, notes Hansen, we would also see a high rate of malformations in non-GE fish in 2005, and we do not. Both the diploid and triploid groups of non-GE fish performed well in 2005, with 98.7 percent and 89.0 percent showing no malformations, respectively. Hansen also dismissed AquaBounty’s assertion that the extra chromosomes in the triploid salmon were responsible for the 2005 data, as both the diploid and triploid GE salmon performed poorly, but the non-GE triploids performed quite well.

Despite the problems noted above, the FDA concludes from the data that, “Analyses of the behavior and gross external abnormalities of market size (1,000-1,500 g) AquAdvantage Salmon show no demonstrable differences from the comparator fish population.” One last flaw Hansen points out is the study’s examination only of adult fish, and not of fish in all life stages, beginning with the egg. The FDA, perhaps worried about this, and certainly worried about AquaBounty’s heavy culli
ng of fish in early life stages (not to mention their lack of data on fish that were culled), called for a Durability Plan that includes “monitoring, data collection, and reporting of abnormalities observed under commercial production and grow-out conditions at the Panama facility where AquAdvantage Salmon will be reared” after the fish are approved and commercialized. Hansen feels this is insufficient, comparing it to allowing the fox to guard the henhouse and report if any chickens are being eaten.

Another area where the science is flawed is in AquaBounty’s examination of hormone levels in the fish. Of 73 fish tested (30 GE and 43 control), every single fish had growth hormone levels that fell below the detection limit. Hansen criticizes AquaBounty’s conclusion that there was no detectable difference in levels of growth hormone between GE and non-GE fish, comparing it to a cop with a radar gun that cannot detect speeds below 120 mph concluding there is no evidence of exceeding the speed limit. Additionally, only six of the 73 fish had detectable levels of T4 (a thyroid hormone), and only 17 had detectable levels of insulin like growth factor 1 (IGF1), a hormone that is potentially harmful to humans. Even with the small amount of data, the GE salmon that had detectable levels of IGF1 tested nearly 40 percent higher on average than the non-GE salmon with detectable levels of IGF1.

One last area to consider is the allergenicity testing of the GE salmon, as fish allergies are one of the eight most common allergies in the United States. For this, AquaBounty used sample sizes of six, testing GE diploids and triploids against non-GE diploids. They began by sending 18 blinded salmon fillet samples to a lab that treated them with liquid nitrogen to produce “frozen salmon-fillet homogenate.” Then they unblinded the samples and tested each individual sample with sera from humans with salmon allergies and measured the magnitude of the allergic reaction to determine the “allergic potency” of the sample. AquaBounty then converted the data into an undefined estimated measure it called “relative potency,” a term the lab was unable to define when asked by the FDA.

The FDA obtained the actual data tables from the test and concluded that, “The allergic potency of triploid [AquAdvantage] salmon is not significantly different from that of [the control group of non-GE] diploid salmon.” Again, Hansen took issue with this conclusion in light of the small sample size in the study, the unblinding of the samples, and the fact that the allergic potency of all but two GE salmon were higher than the highest value of allergic potency for non-GE salmon.

Hansen felt that, while the use of actual human sera to test allergenicity was useful, it was insufficient given modern scientific techniques available to assess allergenicity. Scientists are aware of many proteins that cause salmon allergies and they could easily have analyzed the molecular structure of the fish to determine if those proteins were present. Although there was one attempt to do this for one protein, the testing technique was so crude and flawed (some of the data submitted was upside-down!) even the FDA did not accept it.

Why Consumers Should Be Concerned

Given the flawed science used to justify the safety of AquAdvantage salmon, what happens now? Currently, the FDA is preparing for its public meetings: The first meeting on Sept. 19 will review the science; the second meeting on Sept. 21 will cover labeling issues and offer an opportunity for public comment. FDA will also accept written comments until Nov. 22.

There are a few more issues for consumers to consider should the GE salmon come to market. Under current law, genetically engineered foods are not required to be labeled as such. In fact, the only labeling one can expect on a genetically engineered salmon fillet is country-of-origin labeling, which is required on most (but not all) seafood. Since all of the AquAdvantage will be produced in Panama, an uncommon location for farmed salmon, consumers can be on the lookout for — and avoid if they wish — salmon from Panama. The exceptions will be salmon sold in fish markets and processed salmon, such as smoked salmon, which do not require country-of-origin labeling.

Hansen noted two reasons why consumers may wish to avoid the GE salmon. First, he notes that reports of increased inflammation in the tissues of the GE salmon may result in increased antibiotic use. Second, consumers who care about animal welfare may wish to avoid the salmon because even in the flawed tests that were performed, the GE salmon exhibited higher rates of physical deformities than non-GE salmon.

The bigger picture, of course, is the standard AquAdvantage salmon will set for future genetically engineered animals. Even if the AquAdvantage salmon proves to be safe in the long run, if sloppy and dishonest science is all that’s required to pass a product through the U.S. regulatory system, what other disasters lie in our future?

Editor’s Note:  “The Creepy Science Behind Genetically Engineered ‘Frankenfish’ About to Enter Our Food Supply Unlabeled”  by Jill Richardson was originally published at AlterNet Sept. 13, 2010.  Republished with permission from the author.

As of now, the House passed a food safety bill (H.R. 2749 – The Food Safety Enhancement Act) and the Senate just passed a food safety bill out of committee (S. 510 – The Food Safety Modernization Act). The final Senate vote will be the next step towards badly needed food safety reform. Here’s what you need to know about food safety in America and about these bills specifically.

America’s Food Safety System


In short, America doesn’t really have a food safety system. Instead, we have a number of departments and agencies, each with various food safety regulatory responsibilities, leaving gaps large enough for E. coli and Salmonella to wiggle through far too often. The two agencies most responsible for food safety in the U.S. are the Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and the Department of Health and Human Services’ Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  FSIS takes care of meat and some eggs. The FDA takes care of everything else.

The bills going through Congress right now are not full food safety reforms that would give us a comprehensive food safety system. They wouldn’t even reform our entire existing food safety infrastructure. They would merely reform the FDA. It’s not enough, but it’s also not a bad thing. Many of the provisions in the bills are badly needed and long overdue reforms.

The reason the reforms only cover the FDA is purely political. The FDA falls under the jurisdiction of the relatively progressive Energy & Commerce committee in the House and the HELP (Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions) Committee in the Senate. In those committees, there is enough political will to make changes. Furthermore, a number of food manufacturers have come on board supporting certain food safety reforms. Following the peanut recall last winter, companies like Kellogg finally see some reforms as being in their financial interest.

The USDA and the meat industry (which it regulates) are an entirely different story. The House and Senate Ag Committees have jurisdiction over the USDA, and the meat industry could not have found a better fox to put in charge of the hen house. Or factory chicken farm, as the case may be. This is unfortunate as many of the pathogens that wind up in our food supply originate on factory farms that produce meat.  In some cases, the pathogens that contaminate FDA-regulated foods (like leafy greens) originate on factory farms or their manure lagoons. Any food safety reform that fails to address this is only a partial solution. Alas, a partial solution is the best we can get right now, and it’s certainly better than no solution at all.

The Problems the Bills Address


As mentioned before, the Senate bill is a different bill from the one passed by the House. The bills are similar, and ultimately they will come together in reconciliation. Here are a number of problems the bills address:

1. Mandatory Recall Authority


As it stands now, even when the FDA has solid proof that a specific food is tainted, it cannot mandate a recall. Recalls are all voluntary. In the case of a food safety outbreak, time is critical. For every extra day the company waits before recalling a food, more people are buying and eating that food. The bills will give the FDA mandatory recall authority.

2. Frequency of Inspections


Currently, food manufacturing plants are inspected by the FDA about once a decade. The schedule of inspections may change in the final bill, but the House passed a bill requiring annual inspections for high risk food facilities, inspections every 18 months to three years for low risk food facilities, and inspections every three to four years for warehouses. The Senate bill is slightly more lax but very similar. For the first 2 years following the enactment of the bill, high risk facilities must be inspected at least every 2 years. After that, high risk facilities must be inspected annually. All other facilities must be inspected at least every 4 years.

>>Controversy: The definition of a food facility is a little bit dicey. The definition excludes farms and restaurants. However, if a farm engages in processing, then it becomes a food facility. The major question is how literally the FDA will take this definition. If a farmer grows strawberries, makes jam with them, and sells the jam, does that make the farm a food facility? What if the farmer also uses some strawberries from the farm up the road? How about washed, bagged leafy greens? Does washing and bagging the lettuce constitute processing? The ultimate impact of the bill on farms depends on what the final bill says and how the FDA interprets it.

3. Inspection of Records

There are two times when viewing records would be very helpful to the FDA. First, during inspections, so that they can see how the plant operates over time and not just a snapshot of the day of the inspection. Second, during food safety outbreaks, so they can investigate what happened. I’m having a hard time interpreting the section of the U.S. code that governs this and understanding how the bills will change it, but the bills address records inspection, presumably making it easier for the FDA to get the information it needs via inspecting records.

4. Funding


A perennial problem of the FDA is money. It’s hardly an accident, as companies who do not like being inspected and regulated lobby Congress, which controls the budget of the FDA. There are two ways to raise funds for the FDA and it appears that under any bill that passes, both will be utilized. First, in order to pay for the increased inspection schedule, the FDA will need Congress to appropriate more money in the budget. This will have to be addressed in the budget, not in the food safety bill. Second, the House bill also assesses a $500 annual fee per food facility. The income from fees will not cover the full cost of increased inspections, but it will help. It does not appear to me that the Senate bill includes a similar provision.

>>Controversy: Many people criticize the regressive nature of a flat $500 fee, as Kraft Foods will have a much easier time paying compared to a Mom n Pop jam making operation. Initially, the House bill stipulated a $1000 fee but it was reduced to $500 (presumably due to complaints from Big Business, not due to the powerful Mom n Pop small business lobby). It remains to be seen whether fees will be included in the final bill, and whether or not there will be a sliding scale for small businesses.

To me, these are the most important provisions in the bills that will actually lead to increased food safety. The bills also include provisions about testing imported foods, record keeping by U.S. producers, traceability, an
d “Good Agricultural Practic
es.” Many sustainable food advocates have been worried since the introduction of these bills that the final bill would be harmful to small or sustainable producers. It seems that the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition has taken a lead in lobbying to get the needs of small and sustainable producers met, and they’ve made quite a bit of progress (although they still have some complaints about both the House and the Senate bills in their current forms). Here’s their latest update:

Senate HELP Approves Food Safety Act: On Wednesday, November 18, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee unanimously approved a revised version of S. 510, the Food Safety Modernization Act. Senate floor action is considered likely early next calendar year, though no one is entirely ruling out floor action yet in December. The House has already passed its companion bill, so once the full Senate takes action the House and Senate will conference to work out the wide ranging differences between the two bills.

A bipartisan, modified version of S. 510 was presented to the Committee early last week by Chairman Harkin (D-IA) and Ranking Member Enzi (R-WY), after having been negotiated under the auspices of Senators Dodd (D-CT) and Gregg (R-NH). The newly revised version includes several key planks from the NSAC position paper and legislative proposal:

• In the fruit and vegetable (produce) standards section of the bill, the new language requires coordination between FDA and USDA, rather than merely requiring FDA to consult with USDA. The coordination specifically includes the National Organic Program.

Also in the fresh produce section, FDA is instructed to create rules that:

• are flexible and appropriate to the scale and diversity of the farm,
• take into consideration conservation and environmental standards established federal conservation, wildlife, and environmental agencies,
• not include requirements that conflict or duplicate organic standards,
• prioritize for implementation rules for crops that have been associated with foodborne illness

In the traceability section, the bill was amended to restrict recordkeeping for produce farms (with the exception of produce farms that also have processing facilities) to information about the initial sale to the first purchaser of the crop.

Senators involved in obtaining one or more of these provisions included Harkin, Enzi, Bennet, Bingaman, Brown, Burr, Franken, Merkley, and Sanders.

Many other NSAC proposals were not included in the bill, including:

• A narrowing of the definition of farm “facility” to exempt farms doing value-added processing of low-risk foods and targeting small and mid-sized farms with value-adding enterprises for a training-based food safety apparatus rather than industrial-style regulation.
• A national training program for farms and small processors, previously introduced as a separate bill known as the Growing Safe Food Act…
• Instructions to FDA to make new “good agricultural practice” guidance scale appropriate, pro diversification, and consistent with conservation and organic standards.
• An instruction to FDA to do public notice and comment rulemaking on “animals of significant risk” with respect to pathogens of concern for food safety, rather than the bill’s current instruction that FDA rules should prevent “animal encroachment” with no reference to risk factors.
• An exemption from traceability requirements for direct farmer to consumer, store, or restaurant sales or farm identity-preserved labeling sales.

Only four amendments were accepted during markup, all without debate. Two were by Senator Burr (R-NC), including one co-sponsored by Senator Bennet (D-CO) to require FDA to do several outreach sessions to farmers and small businesses on the new set of “good agricultural practices” to be developed by FDA. The other two were by Senator Murkowski (R-AK) on fishery guidance and a food transportation study, who also co-sponsored a Burr amendment on alcohol wholesalers.

Among the amendments introduced but withdrawn were amendments on comprehensive traceability (Sen. Brown), antibiotic resistance (Sen. Reed), country of origin labeling for processed fish (Sen. Murkowski), country of origin labeling for processed food (Sen. Brown, Merkley), infant formula health claims (Sen. Merkley), restitution payments for farmers harmed economically by FDA mistakes (Sen. Hagan), and confidentiality of records provided to FDA (Sen. Roberts). Some of these amendments may be revisited during floor consideration of the bill.

To follow the progress of the food safety bill and other sustainable ag issues, you can sign up for NSAC’s weekly updates and action alerts.

Republished with permission from Jill Richardson and Firedoglake.