California AB 224 - First Death Knell for CSA's

Supposedly this legislation is being proposed because the California Department of Environmental Health has threatened to regulate CSAs (Community Supported Agriculture) as Retail Food Establishments.  Reading their own regulations - California Retail Food Code - I seriously doubt they would be successful but they could try and cause a lot of people a lot of headaches and legal costs.  The regulations have a clear exemption for farmers making direct sales.  However the threat was enough that some local food activists got together with a few elected officials and started drafting legislation to regulate CSAs.

On the surface the initial regulations are not onerous - the dangerous part is that they grant the authority for Environmental Health to regulate CSAs at all.  Once that power is granted the actual regulations can be changed without elected official involvement.  And regulations - as we all know - always get more strict, not less.

The summary of AB 224 in it's current form (it is still changing as the legislation is going through the Capital) is as follows:

• CSAs will need to register with Environmental Health (EH) and pay an annual $100 fee. 
• Classify themselves as either single farm or multiple farm with EH.
• Every CSA will be required to use the agricultural practices defined and published by the Environmental Health Department. 
• A CSA that brings together produce from multiple farms must declare to EH which farms will be included in the next year and they are not allowed to deliver produce from farms excluded from that list. 
• CSAs will be required to charge their customers on a pre-payment basis.
• CSAs will need to comply with the labeling and container standards developed by EH including putting the name and address of the farm on the delivery box, maintaining the boxes in a clean condition, providing a printed list in the box or electronically of the farm of origin of each item in the box, and maintain records as to the contents and origins of each box.

Paperwork, fees, and useless regulation.  How many of you enrolled in a CSA don't know which farm it is coming from?

It is just a bad idea to let EH regulate CSAs.  But even beyond that I think there could be further unintended consequences.

• AB 224 will require a producer to use the agricultural practices defined and published by the Environmental Health Department.  Yet we have not seen these published practices so as to ascertain whether they would add substantial costs to a small farm operation.  I am sure some, if not all, of the Food Safety Modernization Act's regulations are going to be incorporated by EH in their "published agricultural practices".  Without exclusion for small farms this effectively could place small farms back under the Food Safety Modernization Act's regulations.
• There are many different agricultural practices in use in California - some as new and innovative (and environmentally beneficial) as "organic" was 40 years ago.  The Environmental Health Department is not an agriculturally savvy department and I find it chilling to think their sterile approach to food safety time get applied to agriculture.
• EH should not be dictating how CSA financial transactions are conducted.  Pre-payment is a ridiculous requirement that has nothing to do with food safety.

Personally I think food distributors are behind this push to regulation.  The CSAs are cutting into their market and they don't like it.  But I don't think these large corporations should dictate how a family gets it's vegetables!

I encourage those of you who enjoy the CSA model to write your elected officials and tell them to just kill AB 224 and leave CSAs, and other farm direct models, alone!

Update:  This post was written as the Community Alliance of Family Farmers and other farm organizations were providing comments to the draft regulations.  While the final regulations changed the registration and interaction to be with the CA Dept of Food and Ag instead of EH there are still requirements to meet EH standards for Ag.  I have not seen those published yet (although I have not looked either).  

I believe strongly it was a bad idea for CSAs to accept this level of regulation merely on the threat of being regulated as a Retail Food Establishment.  Particularly when EH legislation expressly forbids EH to regulate direct farm sales.  I think the CSAs were tricked into accepting this based on a non-existent threat.

Hormones for Hogs to Prevent Boar Taint

There is a new “treatment” called Improvest being offered to hog producers that claims to prevent boar taint in meat without having to castrate male piglets.  Boar taint is an off/gamey smell and taste in the meat of un-castrated pigs.  Improvest claims to eliminate the boar taint without castration and it is comprised of Gonadotropin Releasing Factor Analog-Diphtheria Toxoid Conjugate.  I had to look up what that meant. 

Gonadotropins are hormones so this appears to be a treatment that causes the male hogs to produce and/or release hormones they would not otherwise have in their bodies.  There are no approve growth hormones for pigs yet somehow the FDA has approved Improvest.  The article claims that the only reason it is not more broadly used right now is that meat packers don't trust that it will eliminate boar taint and thus still won't accept un-castrated hogs.

The FDA claims to be protecting consumers yet approves something like this without much research.  I just read where estrogen in full fat cow milk was being attributed to an increase in mortality in breast cancer survivors...what happens when Gonadotropins are present in pig meat?

You can read more at:  The Pig Site

You have a right to own a goat!

As an American you have a right to own a goat - or sheep or cow - as long as you keep it in good health and in a facility zoned for such an animal. But in California recent regulatory actions seek to prohibit you from that right. For some reason the CDFA is acting as though it was illegal to own a goat and pay some one else to milk it for you. Neither of these activities are illegal under California or Federal law.

At issue are the private contracts between groups of people called "herd shares". In these contracts a group of people buy a herd of dairy animals and pay a farmer to milk them. They then share in the dairy products produced by their animals. These are not simple contracts and the people who enter into them know the implications and long-term commitments they are making. They are not guaranteed specific production - what they get is dependent on what their animals produce based on feed, time of year, and health of the animals. The only difference between this arrangement and owning one animal youself is that the group of investors is paying someone to board and milk the animals.

Boarding animals is not illegal - you can board dogs, cats, and horses rather readily in any city. Is it so strange that someone might board a goat or cow?

Paying someone to milk your animal is not illegal. I would venture to guess that EVERY large dairy has at least one employee that helps with milking. This is exactly the same type of relationship herd share owners have and its not illegal.

The CDFA says that participating in a herdshare is just a way of getting around dairy laws. But having your own animals and getting their milk for your own purpose is very different than providing milk into the commercial milk supply chain. If you were to accept the CDFA argument it would mean you could not milk your own goat without a Class A dairy license.

Read more about the issues being faced in California at: http://hartkeisonline.com/food-politics/mark-mcafee-writes-letter-of-support-for-california-herdshare-programs/ and
http://hartkeisonline.com/animal-husbandry/the-last-farm-in-san-jose-california/

Backdoor attempt to shut down small farmers

Sometimes I feel like I am in the Twilight Zone. Or that government officials have given up all logical thought and reason. It seems the Michigan Dept of Natural Resources is poised to declare feral hogs an "invasive species" with dire consequences to farmers who pasture their hogs!

Read the full article here: http://hartkeisonline.com/animal-husbandry/michigan-cafos-conspire-with-government-to-ban-outdoor-pig-farming/

Another Government Agency Gone Crazy

Many of my liberal friends like regulations. And in their intended form and with practical implementation I would agree that some regulations are important. But most regulations have gone way too far and have become a way for government to remind us that they run things. A way to impose their will even if it is not for the general good.

There is a conservation group trying to save the whooping crane by raising chicks and teaching them their traditional (but now extinct) migration routes. Thousands of volunteer hours go into this effort. They hope to re-establish a wild population. Who could be against this goal and the ethical way they go about trying to reach it? Apparently the FAA is.

The pilots who "teach" the young cranes the ancient migration routes by leading them in small aircraft have been grounded by the FAA because they are paid by the conservation group. These are pilots who fly over 1000 miles in an ultra light leading birds. The FAA objects to them being PAID for this effort as apparently it is against the regulations of their pilot's license.

If they did the job for free there would be no violation. That leads me to believe there is no safety issue because whether they are paid or not makes no difference on the type of aircraft they fly, their route, their credentials, etc. Its just a technicality - they are being paid. The FAA does not like that.

From the article:

"Now the birds and the plane are grounded in Alabama while the Federal Aviation Administration investigates whether the journey violates regulations because the pilot was being paid by a conservation group to lead the cranes on their first migration instead of working for free."

Aside from being totally absurd this is a waste of my tax dollars by the FAA. Do they have such a surplus that they can regulate ultralight pilots leading birds around? Wouldn't their time be better spent investigating the abuses of offshore maintenance facilities utilized by the major commercial air carriers? Where are their priorities?

When talking abour regulations some people say "but they would never enforce the regulation in THAT way". Unfortunately yes, they would.

Read the whole article here.

More unnecessary government regulation

It seems like everyday I hear about some new regulation that will affect our life here on the farm. Different agencies dictating what we grow, what we don't grow, how we grow it, and where we can sell it. It is mind boggling. Those who don't farm cannot possibly comprehend the scale of these regulations. When I lived in the city I had no idea!

The latest shocking affront comes from the Department of Transportation (DOT) which has proposed new standards that would require all people operating farm equipment to obtain a Commercial Drivers License (CDL) - you know, the kind long-haul truckers must have - in order to operate any farming equipment EVEN ON THE FARM PROPERTY. The agency is going to accomplish this by reclassifying all farm vehicles and implements as Commercial Motor Vehicles (CMVs).

What does this mean to farmers? Anyone operating motorized farming equipment would need to pass the CDL test and keep the same logs and paperwork as long-haul truckers. This means things like hours worked and how far the vehicle traveled. Of course the DOT with their "we know better than you" wisdom fails to realize that most tractors don't have an odometer - they measure engine hours.

Not only is this ridiculous but its an invasion of privacy - they want this type of compliance for using farm equipment on your own private property. To what end? There is no purpose or benefit to all this extra paperwork and reporting. There is no public safety issue related to tired or unsafe drivers. I just cannot see the justification for it. But the outcome will be more burden and cost to farmers. And to some it may be the last straw.

To read more go to: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/agenda-21-update-family-farms-are-under-attack/

Shortage of Slaughterhouses

The young "local, natural, and humane" meat movement is already being stifled by the lack of local, small, humane slaughter facilities. Farmers have been aware of this issue for some time and now awareness seems to be rising amongst people who enjoy local meats. Here is a NY Times Article that focuses on the situation in California. I have also recently heard that the few remaining slaughter facilities in Northern California are raising their minimum animal limit - meaning a farmer has to bring in at least 20 pigs at a time or 600 chickens. That is pretty tough to do for a small farm. I am constantly getting calls from farmers who used to use these facilities and now are shut out. It really puts a damper on the availability of local meats.

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

Uncomfortable but important issue

Those wanting local food options including locally raised meat should be aware that one of the biggest impediments is the lack of local slaughterhouses. This insightful article To Eat Local, Kill Local by Heather Smith is one of the best overviews of the issue and history that I have read.

Challenges to Small Farms

One of the challenges farmers face when trying to provide naturally raised, local beef, pork, and lamb is the scarcity of local slaughterhouses. Many farmers raising animals in a natural setting are also very concerned about humane animal handling and slaughter practices and thus do not like to ship their animals long distances to industrial factory run slaughterhouses.

Please read this report from Food & Water Watch about the need for small slaughterhouses and how it would provide consumers and small farmers more options in healthy meat products.

Food Inc Released in Theatres

The movie Food Inc which exposes the questionable practices of our industrial food industry has been released in theatres. Its not in my area yet but I plan to see it just as soon as it is. I encourage everyone to do the same to learn how our government regulatory agencies are not only failing us but misleading us. And how our food is controlled by profit driven corporations.

Industrial Hemp Farming Act

The ban on the production of industrial hemp - not the "specialty crop" you are thinking of! - is one of the biggest political mis-steps ever forced on us by government. Hemp is not the potent "specialty crop" people are familiar with. Its an amazing fiber and food crop that is used for oil, seends, paper, cloths, cosmetics, and even alternative wood fibre. It was grown here in the US with the blessing of our government until the 1970's.

Currently we have to import hemp - and its used in a variety of products. Most telling, its approved for use in food here in the US - thus debunking all the hype about its relation to its high THC cousin.

As a farmer I would like to grow hemp to make paper, hemp oil, and high protein feed for my animals. There is very little THC in it - a person cannot get "high" on it. You can press it for oil and still have a very high protein meal left to feed animals - a meal that is an excellent substitute for soybean.

I am very thankful to Congressman Ron Paul for introducing HR 1866 the Industrial Hemp Farming Act. And I urge like minded folks to write their Congressmen and Congresswomen urging them to support this legislation. Let's not import hemp - let's let our US farmers grow it to make fibre, paper, and food.

Assault on our Right to Farm and Right to Eat

There are several bills being quietly pushed through the legislative process under the guise of "food safety". But in reality these actions would create a new government administration and impose unnecessary regulations and burdens on small farmers, CSAs, and other individual producers. In some instances affecting people who just grow food for themselves.

This is not what natural food advocates, small farmers, and concerned consumers expected from the new administration. You need to read up on these bills and let your representatives know how you feel before.

HR 875: Creates the Food Safety Administration to police our food including small organic farmers and even the backyard gardner. We don't need to put CSAs and true organic farmers out of business! We need to have the agencies we already have do their job and make sure imported food is safe and factory farms provide healthier and more humanely raised food.

HR814: Supports implementation of the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) that would affect all people who have even one animal (excluding dogs and cats) on their property. This includes horses, 4H chickens, llamas, sheep, and rabbits even if they are not used for food.

S425: Tracking all food from seeds to fork imposing regulatory and paperwork requirements even on CSAs and farms that grow and sell directly to consumers.

HR1105: The Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 which is providing funding for NAIS and food traceabilty.


HR875 also cites executive order 12988, and so claims to pre-empt local and state laws to the contrary.

See the bills at: thomas.loc.gov then write your representatives!