On the heels of a Tea Party-fueled midterm election, House Republicans have pledged to use their new majority to rein in federal spending and decrease the size of the bureaucracy–a tough environment for any government agency seeking greater resources.  Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA), a fiscal conservative who will chair the subcommittee that oversees FDA’s budget, recently raised serious questions about the justification for the new food safety bill’s price tag.  The Congressional Budget Office estimates the new provisions will cost $1.4 billion over five years.

“I would not identify it as something that will necessarily be zeroed out, but it is quite possible it will be scaled back if it is significant overreach,” Kingston told the Washington Post in late December.  ”We still have a food supply that’s 99.99 percent safe. No one wants anybody to get sick, and we should always strive to make sure food is safe. But the case for a $1.4 billion expenditure isn’t there.”

FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg told reporters on a White House media call Monday that she remains “optimistic” that the agency will be able to move forward and implement the bill, but declined to say whether the entire CBO estimate would be critical to carrying out all of the new responsibilities.  Those tasks include mandatory recall authority, increased inspection frequencies of high-risk facilities, and enforcing new requirements that growers and food facilities have food safety plans and that foreign facilities importing food to the U.S. must meet the same standards.

Shifting the federal food safety system, which haphazardly oversees a now global food system, from a reactive to a preventive system that enforces food safety regulations and inspects food facilities more than once a decade is no small feat.

“This is a major, historic piece of legislation … and it’s really Congress asking us to build a whole new system for food safety with all of the elements that you’ve been hearing about, some of those elements we’ve already been working on and will be able to put in place fairly quickly with existing resources.  Other components will require additional resources, dollar and human resources,” said Hamburg.   “We will be working closely with Congress and key stakeholders to try to really specify some of those needs.”

“Obviously the money that we have available in the annual budget cycle … ultimately impacts the way we are able to implement the bill,” said Hamburg, adding that FDA has been “very fortunate” to receive recent budget increases in recent years despite tough budgetary conditions.

When asked about Kingston’s comments about justifying the cost of implementing the bill,  Hamburg said that shifting the food safety system toward being preventive was “the appropriate way to go” and that the cost of not implementing the reforms would be “simply unacceptable.”

“We are very fortunate that we do have one of the safest food supplies in the world, however, every day we see preventable illness.   We see unnecessary hospitalization and too many people have died from foodborne disease that could have been prevented,” said Hamburg. “We are committed to taking on these new responsibilities and mandates given to us by Congress and we will work closely with Congress to implement this as efficiently and effectively as possible.”

Secretary of Health Kathleen Sebelius, also on the media briefing, called on Congress to fund the bill.

“The change won’t happen overnight and it’s still essential that Congress provide sufficient funding for these improvements to take shape,” she said.  ”Thanks to the legislation, we can seriously begin building the 21st century food safety system that we desperately need.”

Advocates for the new law, including consumer lobbyists and the leading food industry groups, are gearing up to fight for the funding.

“FDA is going to need the resources to enable this landmark new law to fulfill its promise.  The costs of not implementing this new law are staggering,” said Erik Olson, director of food initiatives for the Pew Health Group, citing a study last year that estimates the total health care costs for foodborne illness at $152 billion annually.

“Those costs dwarf any costs of implementing costs for this legislation,” added Olson. “That doesn’t even consider the costs to industry of these recalls.  A single company announced, back in 2009, that the peanut recall alone cost them $60-70 million.  This will save a great deal of money for consumers and industry.”

Olson said consumer, industry, public health, and foodborne illness victim lobbying groups are all set to “vigorously” make the case for funding the new provisions.  ”This is money that is extremely well spent.  It’s wise to spend money in order to save money in the long run.  We will be seeking to make the case to Congress that it is important to public health.”

Pam Bailey, president and CEO of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, a strong supporter of the bill, said the food industry “has long recognized that strong government oversight is a critical and necessary part of our nation’s food safety net” and pledged GMA’s continued support for successfully implementing the new law.

Bailey said that the food sector expects the reforms will prevent contamination and “raise the bar for the entire industry.”

President Obama signed the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act into law today after returning from a family vacation in Hawaii.

Originally published on Food Safety News

The food safety bill, which stalled in the Senate after the House approved a similar bill in July 2009 and ultimately passed the upper chamber earlier this month, will most likely be considered attached to an omnibus spending bill that funds the federal government through September 2011.

The bill passed the House 212-206, with 35 Democrats joining Republicans to vote “no,” but must be re-approved by the Senate.  Though the upper chamber approved virtually the same measure, the bill was voided because it inadvertently contained a fee provision that is technically unconstitutional–Article 1 says revenue-raising provisions must originate in the House.

The constitutional snafu nearly derailed the legislation–which has struggled to gain attention amidst a busy legislative agenda–but now that the provision is attached to an all-or-nothing government spending bill, there’s a real chance that food safety reform will be approved before the end of the year.

The current continuing resolution to fund the government (the fiscal year ended in October with no new budget) is set to expire at midnight Friday.

“One thing we’ll need to do before we leave this year is fund the government because Democrats didn’t pass a single appropriations bill this year,” Senate Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said in a speech on the Senate floor in mid-November.  ”Now they’ll try to mop up in the 11th hour with an omnibus spending bill that covers all of it. This is one more sign they aren’t learning many lessons from the election.”

Though McConnell and other Republicans have been highly critical of any Democratic attempt to increase government spending, the omnibus bill is expected to garner enough support to pass the upper chamber.  Unlike the continuing resolution in the House, which largely freezes discretionary spending at $1.09 trillion, the Senate’s budget extension will likely be more ambitious.

Senate Democrats are hoping to substitute a “more detailed” $1.1 trillion discretionary budget that includes about $18 billion dollars in additional funding and earmarks.

Exactly how the Senate will handle this budget crisis, and how food safety will ride the wave, is not clear.

As Politico’s David Rogers put it last week, the normal appropriations process has failed more than usual this year:  ”Year-end budget crises have become almost routine in Washington, but the collapse of the process this year has reached a scale not seen before.”

Originally published on Food Safety News

Though the bill’s passage–lauded by the major food industry, consumer, and public health groups–follows a similar measure that passed the House with bipartisan support in July 2009, the road ahead for comprehensive food safety reform is uncertain.  With the clock running on the lame duck session, most advocates for the bill want to see the House take up the Senate version as soon as possible to get the legislation to President Obama’s desk.

In a statement yesterday, Obama called on the House to act quickly on the legislation.  ”I urge the House–which has previously passed legislation demonstrating its strong commitment to making our food supply safer–to act quickly on this critical bill, and I applaud the work that was done to ensure its broad bipartisan passage in the Senate.”

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), a key proponent of the measure in the Senate, indicated before Thanksgiving that key leaders in the House agreed to take up the Senate version, but it is not clear that is the game plan for House leadership.  The House version of the bill requires far more frequent inspections, augments the cost of the bill with a flat $500 fee for each food facility, and does not contain a hard-fought amendment to exempt small farms and food producers from certain new regulations.

House lawmakers who worked tirelessly to get bipartisan support for their version in 2009 have been noncommittal about adopting the Senate version.

“The Senate bill makes improvements to FDA’s existing authorities to ensure the safety of the American food supply just as the House bill does,” Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), who has been working on food safety legislation for years, said yesterday.  ”I commend my colleagues for their hard work over the past year and four months.  However, there are some remaining concerns with the final Senate legislation, but the Senate bill is a still a giant leap forward toward ensuring the safety of the American food supply.”

“I look forward to discussing the Senate bill with my House colleagues and determining what the appropriate next steps should be to ensure that we provide the greatest protections for American’s consumers,” added Dingell.

To add to the uncertainty in the House, large produce industry groups, including the United Fresh Produce Association and the Produce Marking Association, are working feverishly to convince lawmakers that the final legislation should not include the small farm exemptions, which were recently adopted into the Senate bill at the urging of Sens. Jon Tester (D-MT and Kay Hagan (D-NC).

The Tester-Hagan amendment intends to protect small farmers and the burgeoning local food movement from cumbersome regulation.  The larger produce industry, which is in favor of broad safety requirements to help prevent dangerous and economically damaging foodborne illness outbreaks, has remained squarely against any blanket exemptions based solely on farm size or geography.

“We’re pushing for a conference and for the removal of the Tester amendment.  We think there is time to do conference,” Robert Guenther, executive vice president of public policy at United Fresh, said yesterday.  ”[The amendment] fundamentally undermines the entire legislation, the rest of the bill is science- and risk-based.”

Guenther said the industry would continue to push against the amendment, which he called “arbitrary” and “politically expedient.”

Though disagreements remain, the prospect of a conference committee to iron out key differences is seriously in question with so many competing items on the Congressional agenda–including the Bush-era tax cuts and the defense reauthorization bill, which includes a provision to repeal the controversial “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

Casting further doubt on the bill’s chances at becoming law before the new year, Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call reported late last night that the food safety bill will likely be sent back to the Senate because Democrats violated Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution, which clearly states that revenue-raising provisions originate in the House.

According to Roll Call, Section 107 of S. 510, which allows for the collection of fees, has “ruffled the features of Ways and Means Democrats” who are expected to use a procedure known inside the beltway as “blue slipping” to block the legislation.

“We understand there is a blue slip problem, and we expect the House to assert its rights under the Constitution to be the place where revenue bills begin,” a GOP aide told the paper.

If the House blue slips the bill, Senate Democrats would have to use precious floor time to go back through procedural votes to re-introduce an amended version of the bill because Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) would, as he did earlier this year, object to a unanimous consent agreement to limit debate on the bill.

Sen. Coburn remains the most outspoken opponent of the legislation, arguing that it does not address systemic problems with federal food safety oversight and is too costly. Coburn introduced a substitute bill on Tuesday that failed in a 36-62 vote.

Originally published on Food Safety News

The upper chamber voted 69 to 26 to limit debate on the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (S.510), which now includes a measure to exempt small farms and producers sponsored by Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT). The amendment, cosponsored by Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC), has complicated the debate over the sweeping food safety legislation. The compromise to include a scaled-back version of the Tester-Hagan amendment got key sustainable agriculture groups on board, kept consumer groups in the fold, but isolated the biggest players in the fresh produce industry who have been working on the legislation for several months. (See: Politics, Small Farm Deal Stall Food Safety Bill, Nov 19, 2010)

The inclusion of Tester-Hagan also cost the bill one of its original cosponsors: Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA). Chambliss took the floor of the Senate yesterday and said he regretted that he could no longer support S.510, because it had become so different from the legislation he originally backed.

After a few hours of debate that was largely focused on amendments to fix a burdensome paperwork glitch in the health care bill, the Senate began a heated discussion on an amendment by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) to end legislative earmarks through 2013.

According to sources on Capitol Hill, the Senate is planning to consider the controversial earmark moratorium and severely scaled back substitute amendment by Sen. Coburn. Coburn has become S.510′s fiercest opponent, citing the bill’s five-year, $1.4 billion price tag–which the Congressional Budget Office has deemed deficit neutral. Coburn also argues that the bill fails to address systemic problems with federal food safety oversight and will increase the cost of food as well as leave the states with unfunded mandates.

“It doesn’t [fix food safety].  What it does is it raises costs.  We’re going to increase the cost of food,” said Coburn, adding that his proposal would force the agencies to better coordinate.

Coburn argued that his amendment would fix the real food safety problem: ineffective government.

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), chairman of the that unanimously approved the bill in November 2009, took the floor with a very different perspective.  Harkin argued that Coburn’s measure “kills the bill entirely.”

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce also weighed in Monday, issuing a statement of support for final passage for the manager’s amendment for S.510.  ”This legislation would improve food safety by requiring all food manufacturers to develop a food safety plan, providing the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with new tools to ensure the safety of imported food, and employing a rational, risk-based approach to inspection,” said Bruce Josten, the group’s executive vice president for government affairs.

Though it appears Democrats still have the coalition needed to get the legislation through the Senate, it remains to be seen whether the House will agree to take up and pass the Senate version of the bill.

Votes on the food safety bill and amendments began at 9:15 a.m. EST. The debate can be viewed online here.  If you’re on twitter, follow the debate at @foodsafetynews.

Originally published on Food Safety News

The Senate made substantial progress on the pending Food Safety Bill Wednesday. To move the sweeping food bill forward, the upper chamber voted 74-25 to limit debate, circumventing Sen. Tom Coburn’s (R-OK) objection.  And key stakeholders resolved the two controversial issues that have plagued the bill: bisphenol A and small farm exemptions.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-CA) amendment–which originally aimed to ban the chemical bisphenol A, or BPA, in all food containers, but had since been scaled back to only containers meant for infants and small children–was officially defeated.

“Unfortunately, the compromise agreement on a BPA amendment to the food safety bill has been blocked,” announced Feinstein on the floor of the Senate. Feinstein said she and Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) had, after months of negotiation, finally reached a compromise that would have banned the use of BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups and required the FDA to issue a revised safety assessment on BPA by Dec. 1, 2012.

That compromise was shut down by the leading chemical industry group, according to Feinstein.  ”Unfortunately it has become clear that the American Chemistry Council (ACC) has blocked and obstructed the agreement from being added to the Food Safety Bill currently on the floor.”

“I regret that the ACC puts the sale of chemicals above the safety of infants and children,” she added. “The chemical lobby came in at the 11th hour opposing this ban.”

The ACC has maintained it should be up to the Food and Drug Administration, not Congress, to rule on BPA safety.

The Tester-Hagan Amendment, on the other hand, remains a real possibility. The amendment, introduced by Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) and supported by Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC), would exempt farms and food producers that either fit the FDA’s definition of “very small business,” sell most of their products directly to consumers, restaurants, or retailers within state lines or within 400 miles that have annual sales of less than half a million dollars.

Late last night, consumer groups and sustainable agriculture advocates, who have been at odds over the amendment’s language for months, reached a compromise that could be adopted into the manager’s package. Though the details are not yet public, the agreement is rumored to reduce the distance threshold and allow the FDA the ability to withdraw an exemption if a farm or facility is linked to a foodborne illness outbreak.

“We are happy with the outline of the final deal on the Tester-Hagan amendment,” Ferd Hoefner policy director of the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition said, adding that specifics of the deal were embargoed.

Monday a group of 30 meat, pet food, and fresh produce industry groups sent a letter to the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee chairman and ranking members, Senators Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Michael Enzi (R-WY), respectively, urging key staff and lawmakers working on the bill to oppose a measure to exempt small farms and producers from the crux of the legislation.

“We believe an operation’s size, the growing practices used, or its proximity to customers does not determine whether the food offered is safe,” read the letter, which was signed by the American Meat Institute, the United Fresh Produce Association, and the United Egg Producers.

“What matters is that the operation implements prudent product safety practices, whether the product is purchased at a roadside stand, a farmers’ market, or a large supermarket,” continues the letter. “We support FDA food safety programs developed through a scientific, risk-based approach and that benefit public health.”

As the food safety bill, which would increase the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s authority and mandate over the food supply, has languished, an amendment by Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT), now also backed by Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC), has gained widespread support. The measure would ease the regulatory burden on small farmers and producers.

The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) and several other sustainable ag groups have been issuing a last round of action alerts to rally support for the Tester amendment.

“The bill takes important steps to improve corporate food safety rules but it is not appropriate for small farms and processors that sell to restaurants, food coops, groceries, schools, wholesalers and at farm stands and farmers markets,” said NSAC in its alert late last week.

NSAC asked its supporters to call Senators in support of the Tester provision to prevent “one-size-fits-all” regulations from being created.

Though the details are still being worked out, insiders expect the Tester amendment to garner enough support to be added to the bill. The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, also known as S. 510, is also expected to pass, with bipartisan support, this week.

Originally published on Food Safety News

“It’s just a shame we’re not going to be able to get this done before we go home…before the elections. What a sad thing for our country,” said Reid.

The comments set off a wave of doubt among consumer, industry, and public health advocacy groups who have been working diligently on the legislation, which would boost authority and funding for the beleaguered U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The House passed its version of the bill in July 2009.

Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, which unanimously approved the legislation in mid-November, told reporters yesterday he was frustrated with the hold up, especially in light of the momentum that had been building for the bill.

“I really thought with this whole egg recall hitting everything all over the country right before [the Senate] came back, I thought that would give us the impetus we need,” said Harkin. “And I think it did. I think that’s why everybody’s ready to move on it, except for Mr. Coburn.”

“If I could get it on the floor I bet I could get 90–more than 90 votes–maybe 92, 93 votes,” he said, adding that he hadn’t received a “definitive no” from Coburn and meant to discuss the matter with him.

“He did not object to our bill coming out of committee,” said Harkin, noting that Coburn serves alongside him on the HELP committee. Coburn insists Democrats must find a way to offset the cost of the bill, released a detailed memo yesterday outlining a number of his concerns.

John Hart, a spokesman for Sen. Coburn, said yesterday that Coburn did raise objections with the bill sponsors in committee and had been ‘hopeful that they’d be resolved.”

“He was unable to attend markup that morning and it passed by voice vote,” explained Hart in an email yesterday. “He would not have voted for it, and he let them know that he had concerns about the bill moving forward. No objections we’ve mentioned in past 48 hours were not suggested to the bill’s sponsors months ago.”

Coburn takes issue with the bill’s cost, $1.4 billion over five years, and with several major elements of the bill including: performance standards granting “extremely broad” authority to the agency, traceability requirements, mandatory recall authority, and fees. The senator also expressed concerns with commodity-specific produce safety standards.

Hart said yesterday that striking a deal to resolve the hold up would be “difficult because Reid is in blame mode and refuses to even discuss paying for the bill.”

“Reid is also in a hurry to go home to campaign and doesn’t want to be bothered with a floor debate,” added Hart. “He could bring this bill up whenever he wanted and would have a good chance of winning a cloture vote. This is about his political safety, not the safety of the American people.”

A Reid spokesperson told Meatingplace that the senator is working on a unanimous consent agreement so that the bill can be brought to a vote. Democrats would need to file cloture, a process that can take several days. “We will still try to get an agreement to do this before we leave [for elections],” Regan Lachapelle, Reid’s communications director, told Meatingplace yesterday afternoon.

Harkin spokeswoman Justine Sessions couldn’t confirm whether Harkin had discussed the disagreement with Coburn yesterday, but said the unilateral delay was “denying American families the protections they deserve.” “Chairman Harkin will continue to work with his colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass this bill before the end of the year,” she said.

Groups backing the bill, meanwhile, sent a letter to both Reid and Senate and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) asking that the bill be scheduled for a floor vote “at the soonest possible date.”

“Strong food-safety legislation will reduce the risk of contamination and thereby better protect public health and safety, raise the bar for the food industry, and deter bad actors,” read the letter, which was signed by two dozen groups, including Consumers Union, the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Grocery Manufacturers Association.

“I am deeply troubled that any Senator would use archaic Senate rules to stand in the way of safer food,” said Caroline Smith DeWaal, food safety director at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, on of the key advocacy groups backing the bill. “The legislation has strong support both inside Congress, and among the stakeholders and the general public.”

David Acheson, former associate commissioner for foods at FDA, who now works as an industry consultant, told Food Safety News he think there is a slim chance that Reid will pass it through before the election.

“Coburn has really thrown a wrench in this,” he says.

Overall, Acheson believes there’s about a fifty-fifty chance that Congress will produce a bill before the end of the year.

Originally published on Food Safety News

After months of uncertainty, the Senate is expected to bring pending food safety legislation to the floor within the next week.

The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (S. 510), has been stalled behind health care reform and other priorities since it was unanimously voted out of committee in mid-November. The coalition of interests supporting the bill, which includes the major food industry groups, public health organizations, and consumer advocates, and Senate staff working on the bill have been waiting for a break in a busy legislative schedule to bring the bill to the floor where it is expected to pass easily with broad bipartisan support.

Though S. 510 has the coalition needed to clear the Senate–which some would consider a miracle in this political climate–the small, sustainable agriculture community is still voicing serious concerns about certain provisions in the bill which, they contend, will stifle small-scale, local food production.

Eighty-seven groups, including the Center for Food Safety, Food Democracy Now!, R-CALF USA and dozens of food co-ops, recently signed a letter in support of an amendment proposed by Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) that would exempt small, local processing facilities from the bill’s hazard analysis and risk-based preventative controls and traceability requirements.

“Farmers and processors who sell directly to consumers and end users have a direct relationship with their customers that ensures quality, safety, transparency and accountability,” said the letter.  “In addition, small-scale food producers are already regulated by local and state authorities, and the potential risk their products pose is inherently limited by their size. For these farmers and processors, new federal requirements are unnecessary and would simply harm both the food producers and their consumers.”

In anticipation of the Senate vote, there have been a flurry of action alerts from dozens of ag groups to garner support for several amendments to lessen the impact of federal regulation on small farmers and producers. “There’s no doubt that industrial agriculture needs better oversight. But family-scale local and organic farms are probably the safest in the nation–they are part of the solution, not part of the problem–and need to be protected,” said The Cornucopia Institute in an action alert last week.

The notion that small farmers and producers are not the source of the nation’s food safety problems is a common theme in the dozens of alerts circulating via Twitter, email, and Facebook.  But the coordinated campaign for federal food safety reform, driven by the Make Our Food Safe Coalition, of which the Pew Charitable Trusts, Consumers Union, the Center for Science of Public Interest, and the Grocery Manufacturers of America are all members, does not support federal exemptions.

“We do have issues with anything that provides any blanket exemptions,” Sandra Eskin, director of the food safety campaign with The Pew Charitable Trusts, said in an interview. “Food should be safe regardless of its source–big processor, small farm, conventional operation or organic grower. We can talk about scale-appropriate regulation, but not exemptions.”

The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC), is also working with Senate staff to get specific provisions in the manager’s amendment (a group of amendments both sides of the aisle agree upon before debate). NSAC wants the FDA to focus “only on those on-farm processing and co-mingling activities that present significant risk for causing for foodborne pathogen contamination” and ensure food safety performance standards are based on scientific risk assessments. They would also like to see traceability requirements relaxed and a shift to a progressive fee structure–the House version, which passed in July, calls for a $500 flat registration fee per food facility.

Aimee Witteman, a spokeswoman for NSAC, said last week that, though the situation remains uncertain, she is optimistic that some of NSAC’s concerns will be addressed in the manager’s amendment.

If all goes as planned in the Senate, a final bill could be on the President’s desk within a few weeks. Both House and Senate versions give the agency mandatory recall authority, require more frequent inspections, and ask food facilities to implement food safety plans. The legislation incorporates key recommendations from the President’s Food Safety Working Group, which was launched shortly after the massive, multi-state Salmonella peanut outbreak in early 2009.

Originally published on Food Safety News

“But FDA will not be the only cop on the beat,” said the committee chair, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), who introduced the bill. “One of the most important changes that will occur under this bill is a new focus on prevention, and a shared responsibility between FDA and food manufacturers to keep the food supply safe.”

The food safety bill contains several provisions that will benefit consumers, including:
· Inspections of high-risk food facilities at least every 6-12 months as well as inspection of lower-risk facilities at least once every 3 years (FDA currently averages inspections once every ten years). The schedule for high-risk facility inspection is an improvement over previous versions of the bill.
· A requirement that says, after a period of information gathering and study, FDA will be able to require high-risk food facilities to submit the results of testing their finished food products for safety.
· A requirement that all registered domestic and foreign food facilities identify hazards and implement steps to prevent or reduce contaminants that may appear in food.
· A requirement that businesses keep basic safety records in a standard format so they are easier for FDA to review.
· Authority for FDA to order a recall if a company fails to do so when requested.
· A requirement that food facilities selling to American consumers register with the FDA and pay annual fees.
· A requirement that FDA gather information and run a pilot project to set up a method to trace food back to its source in the case of contamination. Such a “traceback” system will have to allow FDA to trace food back to its source within two business days, a power which was clearly lacking at the agency during last year’s salmonella outbreak with peppers.

The bill also includes a requirement that FDA take another look at the scientific data on the safety of bisphenol A (BPA), a plastic additive that appears in many food and beverage containers. Many believe there is sufficient scientific justification for an immediate ban on BPA in baby bottles, sippy cups and other baby food containers. (We’ve reported about BPA here.)

As the legislation moves forward, Consumers Union is urging Congress to return to the legislation two strong provisions in previous versions of the bill: meaningful civil penalties to deter wrongdoers, and language protecting strong state food safety laws—like that passed in Georgia regarding safety inspections and testing—that provide even higher protections to consumers.

The meat industry, including pork, beef, and other agricultural interests, are claiming victory: according to the Wall Street Journal, they enlisted lawmakers on the House Agriculture Committee to help make the case that they should be exempt from FDA food-safety rules since they are already regulated by the USDA.

The Grocery Manufacturers Association said it was largely pleased with the bill after Democrats agreed to a number of changes, including halving the registration fee to $500 from $1,000 and adding a charge limit of $175,000. The legislation also would give companies flexibility in developing anti-contamination programs in lieu of strictly following FDA directives. Though produce industry associations have not endorsed the bill, leading industry lobbyists said the Committee listened to their concerns and made changes to the legislation before passing it out of committee.

Ami Gadhia, policy counsel for Consumers Union, said, “We hope that the legislation moves to the House floor quickly and the Senate passes a strong bill so a final package can be sent to the President soon. Congress needs to act before we discover another food contamination that takes consumers’ lives.”

Meanwhile, the Senate has yet to take up food safety legislation. The Senate could take up the House bill or start with the framework of a Senate bill offered by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill). The timetable for the Senate could also depend on how quickly health care reform legislation clears committee.

And, as Elanor Starmer over at Ethicurean rightly noted, there are also a lot of questions still to be answered, particularly around what the bill will mean for small food processors. (And, according to her, before you even ask, no – the bill would not regulate your backyard tomatoes.) See more background on produce standards, namely what Congress should avoid, in this post.) Elanor points us to Russell Libby of the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association (MOFGA), who does an eloquent roundup of the small farm wins and still-to-be-wons in the bill here.