But they will never enforce the laws against small farmers!

Small farmers and local food advocates are against S.510 the supposed "Food Safety Act" because it contains provisions that could be used against small farmers and even against people growing vegetables in their own backyard. We argue that small farmers and backyard enthusiasts don't need to follow all the regulations, create a paper trail, submit reports, and (most importantly) follow the "growing guidelines" that the FDA (underwritten by Monsanto) will establish to tell us how to grow our food.

Advocates of the bill call us "alarmist". Tell us that the FDA will never enforce the provisions of the bill against small farmers and backyard gardeners. That just because a law is in place does not mean it will be enforced everywhere (they sorta forget that little "equal protection" clause of our legal system but hey, let's ignore that for now).

Well guess what - if there is a law you can bet at some point the government is going to enforce it no matter how stupid that enforcement may seem. Case in point - a landscaper in DeKalb County, Georgia is being fined $5,200 by the DeKalb County Code Enforcement office for growing too many vegetables in his 2 acre backyard. It seems that it is illegal to grow more than a certain number of veggies in land zoned for residential use. You can read about it here: County Sues For Growing Veggies

Why do we need a law to stop people from growing too many vegetables? And why would it ever be enforced?

Ask the same questions about S.510 - why do we need a law telling small farmers exactly how to grow food and to report the names of people they sold it to? And why would it ever be enforced - that could put them out of business. Something to think about.

Forgotten Figs

My friend who has a small CSA was at the local Farmer's Market today with her tree ripened, absolutely gorgeous and sugary sweet figs. The type of fig that when you see it on the tree you cannot resist the urge to devour it immediately. To my surprise she did not sell out of her figs immediately even though she brings just a limited amount to the market. In fact, one young lady approached her booth, pointed to the figs and said "what are those?" Like a lot of Americans this young lady had never seen nor eaten a fig. What is wrong with this picture?

Figs are prolific, tasty, and versatile. Different varieties grow well in all our North American climates and they can often produce two crops a year. Their fruit is one of the most sweet - to me only dates are sweeter. And you can use figs in many ways - eaten as fresh fruit, coupled with cheese, dried, as a jam, as a chutney, stewed with meat....the list goes on and on. It pairs well with meats, cheese, and wine. The one thing figs don't seem to do well, however, is travel long distances in bulk containers. And herein lies the reason I think figs are almost unknown to American consumers. They don't work well within the commercial food system.

Its a shame that our exposure to food delights and options are limited by what can travel 1,500 miles from farm to fork. How many regional delights have we missed out on? I just "discovered" Kohlrabi. You don't see it in stores and no one talks about it. My small CSA friend grows it and gave me some along with ideas on how to cook it. Wow! It was amazing. I now eat it whenever I can get my hands on one of those turnip shaped bulbs. It makes a great "steak" for my vegetarian friends when they visit and we BBQ. And it works very well in Chinese recipes as it really absorbs the sauce flavors and provides structure and crunch. How is it that I have lived *ahem* years on this planet and have only just "discovered" such a great food? A centralized and commoditized food system that can only manage a limited number of "long shelf life products" to bring to market.

We have to fight back. Long live the fig!

Small Farmers React to Pending Legislation

There was a good article today on the Health Freedom Alliance blog regarding the pending food safety regulations and the response from small farmers. You can read the whole post here.

People understand that small farmers are not creating the food safety problems and don't lack for traceability! When you buy lettuce from a small farm you don't need a paper trail to tell you where it camee from. And if you get sick you know exactly who to go back to - and the authorities know exactly which people (the farmer's other dozens of customers) may be at risk. Contrast that with commercial Ag where produce from dozens and even hundreds of locations are co-mingled and one contaminated source can ruin all the produce and sicken hundreds of people.

It is also really a shame that this legislation is going to outlaw one of the most environmentally important farm management practices - namely the use of animals in conjunction with crops to provide weed control, clean up, pest control, and natural manure. One hundred years ago this was the norm then big Ag got away from it due to specialization, mechanization, and chemical controls. We have been seeing the affect of those changes in our soil quality, water pollution, disease, and super-pests. Small Farmers are leading the way back to this practical, natural solution yet now it seems like that trend will be nixed. Anyone else see an odd co-incidence here?

FDA Invades Amish Farm

A common argument for regulation is "if you are not doing anything wrong you don't have anything to worry about". Well, that is only partly true because regulatory authority can be used to harass you into submission. This blog from the Health Freedom Alliance reports on an Amish dairy farmer who is getting harassed from the FDA.

At a whim our regulatory agencies can decide to harass small farmers out of business and in some areas of the country they are doing so for no apparent reason. This is why its so important we don't give them further authority and further powers.

Food Regulation in Congress - They are at it again!

Senate Bill 510 is coming out of committee and making small farmers like me nervous. I don't grow fruits and vegetables but was hoping to provide some specialty items like grains, flours, figs, and rare beans in the near future. We were also hoping to participate in California's new laws that allow a certain amount of "on-farm" processing for things like olives and jams. But none of that will happen if this type of legislation is passed.

Part of the concern for small farmers relates to the definition of a "facility" that would fall under this new regulation and require registration and inspection. Its important to note that under current FDA regulations a "farm" is not a "facility". S510 uses current FDA regulations to define a "facility" - so farmers should not worry - right? Well, there are details. According to the regulations:

A farm can pack or hold food as long as all that food is grown, raised, or consumed on that farm. If a farmer lets a neighbor store lettace in his walk-in cooler then his farm is no longer a farm and becomes a "facility".

A farm can process food provided that food is consumed on that farm. So a farm can mix, mill, grind, cook, or package food as long as that food is consumed on the farm. If I want to provide value added products for sale like ground flour or jam the farm becomes a "facility".

At a very high level (and leaving out things like the creation of grants, provisions for Homeland Security, and registration of inspection agents) the bill does the following:

• Directs the FDA to create science based minimum standards for the safe production and harvesting of fruits and vegetables that are raw agricultural commodities. It does not spell out the standards - the FDA gets to define those in the future. Also describes inspection and enforcement of these standards. Note: If "farms" are not "facilities" and "facilities" are the only places subject to this regulation then why is the FDA creating standards for production and harvesting which are clearly spelled out as "farm activities"?
• Directs the FDA to create minimum standards related to soil amendments, animal encroachment, and water. Again these are not spelled out - the FDA gets to define them in the future. These are clearly "farm" activities so again one must ask why its mentioned in regulations regarding "facilities"? What happens when the FDA creates a standard for soil amendment that a farmer does not want to perform - like applying an additive or sterilization technique they don't agree with? What if the FDA requires strict separation of vegetable farms and animal farms? Many farmers believe, as I do, that diverse farms that raise both veggies and animals are more sustainable, environmentally friendly, and produce healthier food. The FDA could make that illegal in one bureaucratic swoop.
• Directs the FDA to provide for variances for producers, States, and foreign countries. A single farm must go through the process and expense of getting a variance. Yet China can get a variance for their whole country!
• Establishes the right of the FDA to collect fees but does not establish the types of fees nor the amounts of the fees. All of that is left to the FDA. There is, however, a limit on the total amount of fees they can collect in a year (measured in the millions of dollars).
• Requires the FDA to provide a search engine on its internet site. Where did that come from??? I guess its a payoff to Google.

I object to regulation when I feel its unnecessary and especially when I feel it will cause more harm than good. These regulations do nothing to solve the real problems surrounding food safety. But there is another reason I object to this bill - the practices and processes that will most likely be defined as "minimum standards" by the FDA will be those of commercial agriculture. This is not just big bros looking over my shoulder. He will be forcing us to follow practices I find harmful to animals, damaging to the environment, and unhealthy to the people who consume our farm products.

Tainted Beef - They Claim They Did Not Know

It really amazes me when our government agencies throw the "dumb card" and think they can get away with it. The latest card trick is playing out after an audit report reveals that beef with high levels of antibiotics, pesticides, and heavy metals is commonly sold to the public. Geez - they act as if they did not know that commercial farming practices involved high antibiotic and pesticide use. And they also would lead us to believe that no one in the commercial food industry had put two and two together - that our regulating authorities could brag about testing for some of these substances and attest to the "safety" of our food....but that assurance was extremely misleading because there are no established limits for these chemicals that would identify them as "unsafe".

Mark my words - USDA is going to use this revelation (and some delusional logic) to try and re-enact their crazy NAIS program. NAIS will not get rid of the practice of using these chemicals nor will it require the establishment of limits nor will it increase the testing of meat in packing houses. NAIS just monitors who owns what animals. How about we get them to dedicate some of the millions of dollars they want to spend on NAIS and provide more meat testing and more options for people to get certified meat from local (and humane) sources.

You can read more at the USA Today - Growing Concern over Beef

Patented Genes - Hopefully the Begining of the End

A recent ruling by a US District judge rejected the patent claims of Myriad Genetics. Myriad holds the patents on two genes they "discovered" that linked women to predisposition to breast and ovarian cancer. They developed a test, that only Myriad could administer because of their patents, to determine the presence of those genes. In the court ruling, however, the judge ruled that as a product of nature our genes could not be patented.

It is one of those strange intersections between the High Tech Industry and Down to Earth Farming you can read about the recent ruling at the Good Morning Silicon Valley blog.

While its sure to be appealed I hope the ruling stands. And I hope this ruling is used to invalidate other similarly ridiculous claims like Monsanto's claim on a gene that has been related to faster weight gain on a pig. That gene exists in nature - Monsanto just found the correlation. They did not create it. Yet as of today they own a "patent" on it and in theory could come into my farm and prosecute me or request a license fee for having pigs that have those genes. Just because nature gave them those genes.

Ideas and Actions on Local Slaughterhouses

"You certainly don't have the allure of the country life in a slaughterhouse, the kind of thing sought out by the weekend farmer," said Salatin. "But processing plants and distribution are the two biggest hurdles in the local food movement."

Interesting article in the Washington Post - Local slaughterhouses come back to life