|
Tell the House Agriculture Committee Not to Allow Language Preempting State's Rights in Farm Bill
House Agriculture Committee to Consider Language in the Farm Bill that Would Deny State’s Rights to Protect Citizens from Risky Foods
UPDATE: The hearing has been postponed until after the July 4th recess, and will likely be held around the 9th of July.
The U.S. House subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy and Poultry passed new language added to the 2007 Farm Bill that would bar states or localities from prohibiting any food or agricultural product that the USDA has deregulated. The new language reads:
SEC. 123. EFFECT OF USDA INSPECTION AND DETERMINATION OF NON-REGULATED STATUS.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no State or locality shall make any law prohibiting the use in commerce of an article that the Secretary of Agriculture has—
(1) inspected and passed; or
(2) determined to be of non-regulated status.
The primary intent of this passage is to deny local or state rights to regulate genetically engineered crops or food. This would wipe out the restrictions passed by voters in four California counties and two cities, and could limit the powers of the California Rice Certification Act and its ability to prohibit the introduction of GE rice varieties, as well as threaten similar regulations on GE rice in Arkansas and Missouri. Local and state laws pertaining to GE crops have also been passed in Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oregon, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin. All of these democratically enacted laws are threatened by this language.
The sweeping language of Section 123 would also prevent states from prohibiting the sale of USDA-inspected products. This could prevent local health inspectors at a supermarket from condemning contaminated meat or spoiled poultry! Since 90% of food inspections are done at the state and local level, the impact could be severe.
After recent problems with Melamine in pet and livestock feed, Listeria in chicken, and E. coli contamination in spinach and ground beef, we need more food safety protection not less. More than 40 environmental, animal welfare, consumer and food safety organizations sent a letter to the Chairman of the Agriculture Committee opposing this dangerous language.
Tell the House Agriculture Committee to remove Section 123 from Title 1 of the 2007 Farm Bill (HR 2419), which would hinder state safety and animal welfare programs and preempt democratically enacted local and state regulations on GE crops.
| Sample Letter for Campaign |
Subject: No Preemption Language in the Farm Bill!
Dear [ Decision Maker ] ,
I am writing to strongly oppose the pre-emption language in Section 123 "Effect of USDA Inspection and Determination of Non-Regulated Status," in the House Farm Bill the subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy and Poultry passed May 24th.
This language in the Farm Bill would pre-empt the rights of states and localities to pass regulations regarding food or agriculture products or methods the USDA has granted "non-regulated status:"
SEC. 123. EFFECT OF USDA INSPECTION AND DETERMINATION OF NON-REGULATED STATUS.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no State or locality shall make any law prohibiting the use in commerce of an article that the Secretary of Agriculture has:
(1) inspected and passed; or
(2) determined to be of non-regulated status.
This is clearly a back-door means of wiping out state and local food safety laws, including laws on genetically engineered crops and organisms. Such a measure should not be hidden in the Farm Bill and passed without an open, democratic process. The state and local laws this language could do away with were put in place democratically, by voters.
I URGE YOU TO OPPOSE ANY FARM BILL LANGUAGE THAT WOULD PRE-EMPT STATES' RIGHTS TO MAKE DEMOCRATIC DECISIONS TO PROTECT THEIR OWN HEALTH, FOOD SAFETY AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION.
Sincerely,
|
Campaign Launched:
May 30, 2007
|
Consumer, Environmental, Farmer and Animal Welfare Groups Protest Clause that Wipes Out State and Local Authority on Meat, Poultry, Biotechnology
Washington, June 19, 2007 - Forty consumer, environmental, farmer and animal welfare groups today announced their opposition to a sweeping provision in the 2007 Farm Bill that wipes out critical state and local authority to protect food safety, the environment, and humane animal treatment. The provision, Section 123 of Title I, was quietly inserted in the House bill several weeks ago by the Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Subcommittee.
Consumers Union, the Sierra Club, the Humane Society of the United States, the Center for Food Safety, the Union of Concerned Scientists and three dozen other organizations today called for deletion of Section 123, in a letter sent today to the House Agriculture Committee. The full Committee will hold its mark up of the 2007 Farm Bill later this month.
"At a time when we have seen repeated food safety failures at FDA and USDA, we need more food safety protection, not less," states Jean Halloran, Director of Food Policy Initiatives at Consumers Union (publisher of Consumer Reports). "This clause would tie the hands of states on meat, poultry and genetically engineered food," she said.
Section 123 would prevent states and localities from passing any laws prohibiting commercial use of USDA-inspected products. "This could prevent a local health inspector at a supermarket from condemning rodent-contaminated meat or poultry that has begun to go bad," states Jean Halloran.
"Section 123 will subvert the principles of federalism and states' rights," states Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States. "If this appalling and outrageous measure is approved, agribusiness will accomplish what it could not achieve in state legislatures - the evisceration of state laws to protect horses from slaughter and a raft of other democratically approved animal welfare reforms."
Section 123 would also get in the way of state laws on biotechnology. No state could prohibit use in commerce of a product that USDA has determined is "non-regulated." Both supporters and opponents of the measure agree that this refers to genetically engineered crops, which USDA "deregulates" after considering whether they might be a plant pest. "California, Arkansas and Missouri have passed laws creating state committees that review whether genetically engineered rice should be grown in the state," notes Joe Mendelson, Legal Director of the Center for Food Safety. "These laws, which farmers support, would be preempted."
"This poorly conceived provision should be dropped immediately," states Mendelson. "Just in the last several months we have seen problems with melamine in animal feed and ground beef contaminated with E. coli. Section 123 takes us backwards by removing existing protections we have at the state and local level. We need increased, not decreased food safety efforts," he said.
The forty groups signing onto the letter include:
American Humane
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
California Certified Organic Farmers
Californians for GE-Free Agriculture
Campaign for Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food
Center for Environmental Health
Center for Foodborne Illness Research & Prevention
Center for Food Safety
Citizens Campaign for the Environment
Consumers Union
Consumer Federation of America
Edmonds Institute
Equal Exchange
Farm Sanctuary
Florida Certified Organic Growers and Consumers, Inc.
Food and Water Watch
Government Accountability Project
Health Care Without Harm
The Humane Society of the United States
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
Institute for a Sustainable Future
Minnesota COACT (Citizens Organized Acting Together)
Minnesota Food Association
National Catholic Rural Life Conference
National Consumers League
National Environmental Trust
National Organic Coalition
Organic Consumers Association
Physicians for Social Responsibility
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
Public Citizen
Safe Tables Our Priority (STOP)
Safe Alternatives for our Forest Environment
Say No To GMOs
Sierra Club
Society for Animal Protective Legislation
Southern Sustainable Agriculture Working Group
Union of Concerned Scientists
Washington Biotechnology Action Council
Western Sustainable Agriculture Working Group
Resources:
View the letter
Fact sheet on Section 123 preempting laws on GE crops
Fact sheet on section 123 endangering state and local actions on food safety
View state and local laws pertaining to GE crops in the US
