The Two Plans

The White House features this Web page to reveal what is contained in the Import Safety Action Plan, That report, plus the FDA's Food Protection Plan covered in another blog post, compete for headlines today. Here is the response of Rep. Rosa DeLauro to both reports:

With Plan in Hand the Question Becomes Admin’s Willingness to Implement the Report

Washington, D.C. – Congresswoman Rosa L. DeLauro (Conn.-3) issued the following statement on the two reports issued by the Administration – the Import Safety Action Plan created by the Interagency Working Group on Import Safety and the Food and Drug Administration’s Food Protection Plan.

“After over a decade of advocating for mandatory recall authority, I welcome the Administration’s acknowledgement that these powers are needed to better protect the American people. But the devil is in the details – I look forward to specific legislative language to ensure that these proposed additional authorities are adequate.

“However, based on this Administration’s track record and philosophy, I have low expectations for their willingness to exercise these new authorities and ultimately, their willingness to implement this report. I am even skeptical of their willingness to enact the changes for which they claim they need no new authority. This Administration has created a bureaucratic culture indifferent to consumer protection and public health, so it has a significant barrier to overcome to establish any credibility on these issues.

“There have been numerous examples under this Administration of food and product safety plans being drafted only to languish within the agencies and ultimately ignored. It will be up to those of us in Congress to act immediately to ensure that the agencies possess the adequate authorities to protect American families from unsafe foods and unsafe toys."

FDA Web pages up on Food Protection Plan

Teleconferences are seldom free of glitches, and today's teleconference announcing the new FDA's new Food Protection Plan was particularly painful. Between reporters doggedly trying and failing to get bottom line answers from FDA officials on what the plan means for the budget and workforce and agency officials speaking in generalities and platitudes, the event was fog-shrouded from the start. That was made worse when the line to the press event fell silent and I was left waiting for the event to resume. No matter, the FDA now has its Web site updated with some helpful details about the plan. Here is the link:
Speaking to new authority needed with the plan:

ADDITIONAL LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY NEEDED
Empower FDA to Issue a Mandatory Recall of Food Products When Voluntary Recalls Are Not Effective
Although FDA has the authority to seize adulterated or misbranded food, this is not a practical option when contaminated product has already been distributed to hundreds or thousands of locations. And while the FDA has been able to accomplish most recalls through voluntary actions by product manufacturers or distributors, there are situations in which firms are unwilling to conduct a recall. In such situations FDA needs the ability to require a firm to conduct a recall to ensure the prompt and complete removal of food from distribution channels. This authority would be limited to foods that the Secretary has reason to believe are adulterated and present a threat of serious adverse health consequences or death. It would be imposed only if a firm refuses or unduly delays conducting a voluntary recall. An order to recall food could only be issued by the HHS Secretary, Deputy Secretary, or Commissioner of Food and Drugs, and would be accompanied by appropriate due process rights.
Provide FDA Enhanced Access to Food Records During Emergencies
During food-related emergencies, the FDA needs more complete and streamlined access to records necessary to identify the source of foodborne illness and take needed action. Improved access to information, including records related to an article of food or related articles of food that may present a threat, will enhance FDA's ability to identify problems, respond quickly and appropriately, and protect public health.
Currently, emergency access to records is limited to instances where, for an article of food, FDA has a reasonable belief that the food is adulterated and presents a threat of serious adverse health consequences or death. FDA proposes to expand access to records of related articles of food, such as food produced on the same manufacturing line. FDA also proposes, in food-related emergencies, to remove the adulteration requirement to allow its inspectors access to records in emergency situations where FDA has a reasonable belief that an article of food presents a threat of serious adverse health consequences or death. The recent melamine situation in which FDA had early clinical evidence that a specific food was causing illness in pets but did not have clear evidence of a specific adulteration is an example of such a scenario.
The records access would relate only to safety or security of the food and would not apply to records pertaining to recipes, financial data, pricing data, personnel data, research data, and sales data. The requirement would not impose any new recordkeeping burdens, and would maintain the current statutory exclusions for the records of farms and restaurants.

Harkin on SAP

From the office of Sen. Tom Harkin:


Washington, D.C. – Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, issued the following statement in response to the Statement of Administration Policy on the Senate farm bill delivered to Capitol Hill today. The farm bill is pending before the Senate this week.

“It is disappointing that the Administration is already threatening a veto of this bill while the Senate is still considering this measure. The Administration takes issue with virtually every part of this bill – even the distribution of fresh fruits and vegetables to school children. And with all of the debate about problems with Freedom to Farm payments this year, how can the Administration suggest that these payments are above questioning?

“Farm families, rural communities and the nation are counting on the investments we make in this farm bill toward farm income protection, nutrition, conservation, renewable energy and rural development. A veto of this measure will only delay those critical investments, which are needed now more than ever.”

Statement of Administration Policy

Here is the link to the White House statement of Administration Policy on farm bill programs. It's a triple whammy: the f/v planting restriction, f/v program and the transfer of border inspectors back to USDA all get a thumbs down from the White House. Here are some highlights ( or low lights), but note the difference between "oppose" and "strongly oppose.":


At a time when net farm income is projected to increase by over $28 billion in one year, it is irresponsible to further increase commodity price supports that make payment programs more market-distorting. In addition, it is alarming that the Senate farm bill shifts the timing of farm payments in a fashion that does not allow for the proper accounting of $9.8 billion in actual government outlays. The Administration hopes these concerns can be addressed by continuing to work with Congress. However, if the bill were presented to the President in its current form, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

The final farm bill must:

• better reflect the program reforms, and not exceed the spending levels, as proposed in Administration’s farm bill legislative proposal in connection with the President’s fiscal year 2008 budget submission;
• include reforms in marketing loan benefits for all years of the farm bill to address the "pick your price" issue;
• remove the provisions that make it more difficult to defend farm programs against trade challenges and distort our ability to advance the goal of free trade in international markets;
• eliminate timing shifts and unrealistic program sunsets that mask $22 billion in hidden costs to the taxpayer; and
• eliminate tax increases.

On items of interest to f/v interests:

The Administration also supports fully lifting the fruit, vegetable, and wild rice planting restrictions to eliminate any question that direct payments are "green box" in light of the WTO rulings in the Cotton dispute with Brazil.

The Administration opposes the Committee’s expansion of the Fruit and Vegetable Program to all States, which would increase direct spending by nearly $1 billion over five years. The Administration’s farm bill proposal increases the availability of fresh fruits and vegetables through the school meal programs, which make better use of existing purchase authorities and existing programs.

Potential Floor Amendments
The Administration understands that amendments may be offered to facilitate trade with the Cuban regime, raise the wage cost of agriculture-related construction, such as ethanol facilities, and disrupt Federal organizations that conduct agricultural inspections. The President’s senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill if it contains any such amendments. Therefore the Administration strongly opposes any amendment that:
• would loosen current sanctions and restrictions against Cuba. The Administration believes that it is critical to maintain sanctions and restrictions to deny economic resources to the Castro regime. Lifting the sanctions now, or limiting our ability to enforce them, would provide assistance to a repressive regime at the expense of the Cuban people.
• attempts to include an expansion of the Davis-Bacon provisions. An expansion is contrary to the Administration’s long-standing policy of opposing any statutory attempt to expand or contract the applicability of Davis-Bacon Act prevailing wage requirements.
• would transfer the Agricultural Inspection Function from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to USDA. Such a transfer of thousands of employees would divert attention from the real mission to prevent the entry of harmful plant and animal pests, disease, and threats to our agricultural resources and food supply. Furthermore, a transfer would degrade enforcement and seriously undermine the integrated border enforcement capabilities created with the formation of DHS. A transfer would also delay efforts to identify needed improvements in agricultural inspection, and set the program back for several years while another readjustment occurs for both USDA and DHS.
In addition, the Administration would strongly oppose any amendment that would appear to alter the roles and responsibilities of USDA, DHS and other departments defined in Homeland Security Presidential Directives (HSPD) 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10, and the Homeland Security Act of 2002.

Retail roundup 11/7 to 11/13

Consumers are greeted with turkeys, roses, baked potatoes, apples and oranges on the front pages of food ads in suburban Kansas City. Here is a roundup of what produce items made the cut in the food ads this week:

Price Chopper: Nov. 7 to Nov. 13
Premium red delicious apples: 47 cents/lb
California navel oranges: $1.87/4-lb bag
T. Marzetti salad dressings: Buy one, get one free
Green Giant baby carrots: $1.29/1 lb bag
Green cabbage: 39 cents/lb
Suntree walnuts: $5.99/16 ounces
Dole Taco Toss or Fall Harvest: 2 for 5
Jumbo yellow onions: 3 lbs for 99 cents
New York McIntosh apples; 99 cents/lb
Zucchini or yellow squash: 79 cents/lb
Dole celery: 99 cents each
Mann's Steam Veggies: 2 for $5

Price Chopper 4-day sale: Nov. 8-11
Russet Potatoes: 5-lb bag


Hen House: Nov. 7-Nov. 13
Fresh asparagus: $2.49/lb
Sonya, Pinata, Jazz or Honeycrisp apples: $1.99/lb
Yellow or zucchini squash: 99 cents/lb
Calif. large navel oranges: 4 for $1
Dole fall harvest salad kit: 2 fore $5
Tomatoes on the vine: $1.69/lb
Calavo large hass avocados: 99 cents each
Mann's on the go steam tray: 2 for $5
Stemilt Apple Sweets: 2 for $5/ 15-16 ounce packages
Dulcinea pure hear watermelons: $3.99 each
Calif. satsuma mandarins: $6.99/5-lb box
Green Giant Romaine hearts: 2 for $4
Slicing cucumbers or green or red bell peppers: 2 for 88 cents

Hen House: Nov. 10 one day sale
Dole bananas: 22 cents/lb


Dillons: Nov. 7-14
Red or golden delicious apples: 99 cents/lb
New crop California navel oranges: 2 for $1
Red seedless grapes; $1.99/lb
Baby peeled carrots: (Kroger) 1 lb 2 for $3
Calif. sweet yellow onions: 88 cents/lb
Honeycrisp or Ambrosia apples: $2.49/lb
Organic gala, granny smith, red or golden delicious apples: 3-lb bags: $3.69
Tomatoes on the vine: $2.99/lb
Private Selection organic salads: 2 for $6
Fresh Express salads: 2 for $5


HyVee: Nov. 7-Nov. 13
Del Monte Gold pineapple: $2.77 each

In bacon we trust

Did anybody notice the slew of stories quick to note the backlash against the scientific study showing a link between red meat and cancer? The message: to heck with science, we like our bacon. With its goody-two-shoes reputation, fresh produce will never join the ranks of outlaw foods populated with such maligned characters as spam, bacon and bologna. Note this diatribe:

“Whatever happened to 'All things in moderation'?” asked Center for Consumer Freedom Director of Research David Martosko. “The science on food and cancer is inconclusive. For every study suggesting steak will be the death of us, there's another one indicating it doesn't make any difference. Last month Harvard researchers, writing in the journal of the National Cancer Institute, concluded they couldn't even say for sure whether eating more fruits and vegetables would help prevent colon cancer. Giving lean meat the skull-and-crossbones treatment is counterproductive and sends the wrong message to consumers. Unfortunately, this will play right into the hands of animal rights groups and other single-issue extremists.”


And this story from the UK:

Consumers ignore cancer risks of eating red meat There's nothing like a bacon sarnie with brown sauce," says 36-year-old Nicola Doran as she waits in the queue at JBS butchers in east London.
Ms Doran's sentiments have been echoed across the country by meat enthusiasts who are turning a blind eye to the latest announcement from the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF), which states that bacon is such a cancer risk it should be avoided entirely.
The mother-of-two said: "It wouldn't put me off eating pork or bacon. I'm Irish, and people in Ireland were born and bred on pork; it's their number one meat and it never did them any harm."


And another....

Bacon ban backlash begins It’s a snack regarded as both a top hangover cure and the ideal start to a busy day, but health chiefs this week threatened the future of one of the nation’s favourite meals when they warned that people should cut out processed meats like bacon because of the associated risk of developing cancer.
But no sooner had the message emerged than the backlash against the bacon ban began.
Everyone from pig farmers to chefs yesterday urged people to keep eating the pig product – provided it was in safe quantities.
Farmer Helen Tongue said she was disappointed by the tough line taken on meat in the research by the World Cancer Research Fund

AgJobs out

AgJobs is out as an amendment to the farm bill. So says Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who said in this report she did not want to jeopardize its broad support with a "non representative vote" as an amendment to the farm bill. She told the Central Valley Business Times:

"I had every intention of offering legislation to create a stable reliable agricultural worker program – known as AgJobs – as an amendment on the farm bill,” says Ms. Feinstein in a written statement. Unfortunately, you need more than broad support – you need the right time and opportunity to line up as well,” the senator says. “We have decided not to endanger the broad support for AgJobs by taking a non-representative vote on the farm bill.”

FDA to unveil new food protection plan

There is press notice issued of a new "comprehensive initiative" designed to bolster efforts to better protect the food supply. HHS Deputy Secretary Tevi Troy and Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Andrew C. von Eschenbach, M.D., will host a media round table about the plan this afternoon. Developing...

Harry Reid

From the Senate floor yesterday (via the Nov. 5 Congressional Record) Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, while acknowledging there could be more reform in the farm bill, suggests a super majority of support for the bill as it stands. He also says there will be no "open amendment process" for fear of bogging down the bill. That makes the future cloudy on AgJobs and transfer of AQI back to USDA, I would say.


THE FARM BILL
The farm bill. Chairman HARKIN, Senator BAUCUS, and Ranking Members CHAMBLISS and GRASSLEY deserve a lot of credit for working among their caucuses to write the bill we are debating this week. In the 24 years I have been in the Congress, first in the House and now in the Senate—actually, 25 years—no farm bill has embodied as much reform as this one. There are some who say this bill doesn’t go far enough in the direction of reform. To those critics, it should be clear there will be an opportunity for Senators to offer amendments during debate. Would I personally like more reform? Of course I would. But I would like to focus on the positive and forward-looking elements that lie at the heart of this bill. This bill saves billions of dollars by reforming existing programs, which allows new investment to expand food and nutrition pograms for families, the elderly, and the disabled, as well as an expansion of the fresh fruits and vegetables programs to all 50 States to improve the health and wellness of America’s children. It invests more than $4 billion in conservation programs to protect wetlands, grasslands, and working farms. More than 60 percent of this bill is simply nutrition programs. This bill takes us a step closer to the vital goal of energy independence, with more than $1 billion for programs that are environmentally responsible whilegrowing the farming economy. We import about 70 percent of our oil. We don’t import 70 percent of our food. One reason we don’t is because we have farm programs that work. Could they be made better? Of course they could be. But this bill does do some extremely important things. It responds to the urgent need for permanent disaster assistance, which will help farmers respond and recover from future unavoidable disasters. It invests about $2 billion in specialtycrops. What are specialty crops? Strawberries,apples, and those programs that are so important to our country, so that it stops us from having to import as much as we would have to if we didn’t have these programs. But with weather changes, some of these farmers have had tremendous losses from which they have not been able to recover. It offers a reasonable compromise on country-of-origin labeling, and it improves competition in the livestock industry. There will be a number of amendments offered during the floor debate. Senators DORGAN and GRASSLEY will offer an amendment on payment limits. Senators LAUTENBERG and LUGAR will offer an alternative farm bill amendment. Senator MCCONNELL and I understand these amendments are important to Members on both sides of the aisle, and we will work together to ensure ample time is given for consideration. I am confident and hopeful that this process will result in a truly bipartisan bill which will support our agricultural communities, promote a cleaner environment, and grow our economy. But I do say and alert everybody to this fact: We have had a really good legislative session. Once we get to a bill, we have basically offered amendments on most every bill. I think this bill is going to have trouble with that. We have to complete our work by next Friday, so we will make sure the amendments correctly relate to this bill and everybody will have an opportunity to offer those. We will do our very best to see that is the case. But this bill is a tax bill, and there could be a lot of mischievous amendments offered if it were an open amendment process. I think, with it being late in this year’s session of Congress, everyone understands we can’t do that. We have work we must complete. The farm bill is a very bipartisan bill. I think we could seek cloture on the bill right now and probably do a pretty good job because it is really a bipartisan bill. I don’t want to have to do it now, but I do want everyone to know we are not going to have an open amendment process, and I have explained that to the Republican leader.

Farm bill rolling coverage

Here is farm bill coverage from The San Francisco Chronicle that describes the votes of Sens. Boxer and Feinstein as crucial to the outcome of the farm bill debate, which is expected to extend until next week.


Here is NPR coverage that talks about reform efforts on the Senate floor.

About the remarks of Acting Agriculture Secretary Chuck Conner yesterday, one reporter questioned if the White House waited too long to issue its "veto threat" but Conner objected to the notion that the White House was late in showing up to the party. It will be interesting to see what the White House includes in its position statements on farm bill programs, and specifically whether the Administration finds fault with any f/v related priorities.

This should be a wild ride over the next week or so.

Conner transcript

Here is the transcript from yesterday's teleconference with Acting Agriculture Secretary Chuck Conner. Here is his opening statement:
.
SEC. CHUCK CONNER: Thank you, Larry, and I thank all of you for joining us this afternoon. I am pleased to have this opportunity to outline the Administration's very significant concerns about the Senate farm bill being debated on the floor of the Senate this week. The Statement of Administration Policy, or SAP as we refer to it, will be delivered to the Congress soon. In it we outline very serious concerns about the content of the bill put forward by the Senate Agriculture Committee.
This bill increases trade-distorting support instead of lowering it, continues a defective safety net, contains little real reform, and uses tax increases and budget gimmicks to pay for priorities that deserve to be funded in an honest fashion.
Let me begin with the funding issues. We believe this bill simply makes a mockery of the budget process. It contains nearly $22 billion in budget gimmicks, and nearly $15 billion in new taxes. This is simply unacceptable. $37 billion in budget gimmicks and increased taxes is simply unacceptable. This bill might appear to meet the pay-go rule on paper, but it certainly does not meet the spirit of this rule. Instead, it makes a mockery of the process.
The bill contains $7 billion in shifted commodity payments and another $3 billion in shifts in crop insurance payments. None of these shifts reduce the number of taxpayer dollars being spent. Shifting payments from one fiscal year to the next so those payments are outside the 10 years that the dollars are counted for budget purposes is simply and frankly dishonest.
Forcing farmers to wait for their direct payments by ending advanced direct payments after 2012 is another gimmick to push the payments out of the timeframe considered by those calculating the costs.
This bill contains nearly $12 billion in unfunded commitments. This includes $7 billion associated with the Food Stamp program and $5 billion associated with disaster assistance. This bill promises farmers that if there is drought-assistance, it is provided, unless the drought hits them in 2013 when this funding is zeroed out. They promise some of the most vulnerable people in our society additional help buying food which they can count on for five years, but those additional benefits would be taken away in 2013 under the bill as drafted because the funding is also taken away.
Congress is simply not being honest about the true cost of these initiatives. It is fair to ask whether they really intend to take away the extra benefits to farmers and the less fortunate in the year 2013. I don't think anyone believes that. Funding is removed after 2012 to make the budget books appear to be in balance.
If they were to continue the funding for these programs, since the expectation is clearly that the programs will continue, the cost of the farm bill increases by $12 billion. I do not accept that this is just the way business is done in Washington. Business as usual is unacceptable if it means being dishonest with the American people about the tax dollars we are spending. Simple, honest accounting is all we are asking for.
Regarding the increase in taxes, the Finance Committee bill which will be married with the farm bill raises nearly $15 billion in new taxes to pay for new programs. We don't believe other sectors should be asked to pay additional taxes for farm programs, especially when the current bill continues providing farm subsidies to millionaires living on Park Avenue.
And $37 billion of new taxes and budget gimmicks do not constitute wise fiscal policy and serve only to erode public support for agriculture. I believe farmers deserve a strong safety net, but Congress risks losing all support for it by refusing to focus government support where there is a true need and asking other sectors to bear the cost.
Beyond the budget issues, I must say that I am disappointed that the Senate did not do more to respond to the calls for reform that echoed across the country when we conducted our Farm Bill Forums.
For these reasons and others, the President's senior advisors will recommend a veto of the combined Senate Finance Committee and Senate Ag Committee Farm Bill. A formal Statement of Administration Policy will be delivered to Congress soon. When that happens, it will also be available on the website of the Office of Management and Budget.
Let me be very clear. I believe this bill can be changed to reflect good farm and good fiscal policy. I urge Senators to consider these concerns as they debate this bill on the Senate floor. I welcome the opportunity to continue our dialog about the bill, and I look forward to discussing these matters with United States Senators going forward. Thank you all very much. .