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!

Its not safe unless WE say its safe - so says the USDA

In one of the most ridiculous court cases ever the USDA has fought to prevent a a Kansas meat packing plant from testing 100% of the cows it processes for BSE (mad cow) at its own expense. The USDA currently tests less than 1% of cows processed and Creekstone Farms wanted to foot the cost to test the rest. Their customers want that level of testing and they were willing to provide that service. But the USDA took them to court and it appears they won.

A Federal appeals court ruled that the USDA could prohibit the meat packers from testing for BSE on the grounds that diagnosis can be considered part of treatment. The case went back to a lower court where it will continue to be argued.

What is wrong with this picture? Just about everyting!

If a meat packer wants to provide a higher level of testing why should the USDA prevent it? If consumers demand and seek out companies that provide that higher level of testing why should the USDA care? It can only be due to commercial interests - which run the USDA behind the scenes - being concerned that they might be held to that higher standard by market demand. Well, so be it. We are still a capitalist country - right?

Its time the USDA got out of the business of protecting corporate agriculture. Consumers need to demand expanded options - like increased testing. And they need to demand "truth in advertising" labels that give consumers a clear indication of what they are buying - so they can vote with their pocketbook. USDA needs to stop deceiving people with its labeling and tell it like it is.

California and Prop 2

Hurray for Californians that we want to do something about the treatment of farm animals. But too bad its coming in the form of Prop 2. While the intentions are good, it will just cause commercial producers to move out of state and will not offer Californians better choices in eggs, ham, and veal.

I am not saying it should be defeated - its passing will leave a great opportunity for farmers who want to do it right. All I am saying is that we need MORE to really give Californians a choice.

We need our state government to push for clear and accurate terms on our food labels so consumers really know what they are getting. The USDA terms are misleading and in some cases I think fraudulent. If we had labeling requirements that said a label like "Outdoor Free Range" HAD to really mean outdoor paddocks, shelters, grass, and at least 10 square feet per chicken then California consumers would be able to support with their wallets the farming practices they approve.

Moving our egg production out of state is only going to mean that we pay a little more for eggs and when we look at the "cage-free" label it still means little in the way of improvement for the life of hens.

So for me, prop 2 is a meaningless initiatve. As a farmer it will make my eggs seem more reasonable in the market. (My hens have hundreds of feet per chicken, grass, bugs, nuts - they live a happy chicken life.) But as a lover of all animals and in particular chickens its disheartening to me that millions of laying hens will still be miserable and providing California eggs despite the best intentions of the citizens.