H.R. 2749, the Food Safety Enhancement Act, addresses the programs and authority of
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). FDA currently has authority over processed
foods, fruits and vegetables, and fish, while USDA has authority over meat and poultry.
H.R. 2749 proposes to expand FDA’s role in agriculture, particularly through creating
new food safety standards, a new traceability program, and a mandatory processing
facility fee.

Some key concerns with HR 2749 include:

1. Fees: Within this bill there is a mandatory $500 per year fee for processing
facilities (with a $175,000 cap for companies with numerous plants – a cap that
benefits large processors). This fee will help pay for FDA inspections of
processing plants, but the bill’s requirement of inspections every 6-12 months for
high-risk food is not nearly frequent enough for the millions of pounds of food
being inspected. A sliding-scale fee would be more appropriate and more
affordable for the smaller operations.

2. Definition of a “food facility”: Another concern within the bill is the definition
used for a “food facility”. Several advocacy organizations are currently working
very hard to get a definition that will work for local/regional food system players.

3. The third major concern is the proposed traceability program. This new
traceability program is intended to allow the FDA to track back any food item to
its original source within two days. H.R. 2749 exempts farmers or fishermen who
sell their products directly to the consumer, a restaurant, or a grocery store from
the traceability program and places less burdensome recordkeeping on these
producers and buyers. It would be desirable to exempt all product that is “farm
and source verified” from small and medium-size farms, but in the very least to
exempt those farms involved in direct sales or marketing of on farm processed
foods.

Congressional Action on HR 2749:

• In
the
final
days
before
passage,
the
House
Ag
Committee
negotiated
some
changes
on
behalf
of
Sustainable
Ag
and
Family
Farmers
that
quieted
some
fears
of
FDA
encroachment
onto
the
farm.
o Further
clarification
was
provided
for
the
meaning
of
a
“Food
Facility”.
o Also
some
specific
exemptions
for
“direct
selling”
were
provided.
• However,
these
changes
do
not
do
enough
for
family
farmers
and
sustainable
agriculture.
• HR
2749
was
brought
to
the
floor
on
Wednesday,
7/29/09
under
suspension
of
the
rules,
which
prohibited
amendments
and
floor
debate,
but
required
a
two‐thirds
majority
vote
to
pass.
The
bill
failed
to
pass.
• As
a
result,
the
Rules
Committee
determined
the
bill
would
be
brought
to
the
floor
again
on
Thursday,
7/30/09,
requiring
only
a
simple
majority
to
pass.

Unfortunately
the
Rules
Committee
did
not
allow
any
amendments
to
be
introduced
on
the
floor,
but
Representative
Farr
and
Representative
Blumenauer
gave
a
colloquy,
so
their
objections
to
the
bill
were
added
to
the
formal
record.
These
objections
included
concerns
about:

– the
lack
of
a
scaled
fee
system
– the
lack
of
a
plan
for
coherence
with
the
USDA
National
Organic Program
– the
need
for
electronic
records
– the
lack
of
recognition
of
current
safe
food
practices
through
conservation
efforts the
lack
of
targeted
efforts
to
focus
on
high‐risk
problems.
– Additionally,
on
the
floor
of
the
House,
Rep.
Dingell
chided
Sustainable
– Agriculture
and
Family
Farm
Advocates
somewhat
for
our
concerns,
but
promised
that
these
concerns
would
be
worked
out
in
the
conference
and
management
process.

H.R.
2749
was
referred
to
the
Senate
on
8/3/09,
just
before
August
recess.
The
bill
was
read
twice
and
referred
to
the
Senate
Committee
on
Health,
Education,
Labor
and
Pensions.
It
is
currently
on
the
regular
calendar
in
the
Senate.

In
the
Senate,
the
regular
calendar
process
will
permit
amendments.
And,
it
is
likely
a
conference
committee
will
be
required
to
resolve
the
differences
between
the
two
versions
of
the
food
safety
bills.

The
Companion
Bill
to
H.R.
2749
is
S.
510,
The
FDA
Food
Safety
Modernization
Act.

• S.
510
was
introduced
by
Richard
Durbin
back
in
March,
and
has
since
been
waiting
on
the
Senate
Calendar.
There
seems
to
be
no
urgency
to
get
to
this
issue
on
the
Senate
side,
and
no
progress
is
likely
until
after
the
health
care
debate
ends
(as
the
HELP
committee
is
also
involved
in
Health
Reform).

• S.
510
has
not
been
fully
analyzed
yet
for
its
differences
with
H.R.
2749
and
for
other
potential
issues.

This
work
will
begin
among
advocate
groups,
such
as
NSAC
and
NOC,
in
September.
They
are
currently
working
on
a
strategy
for
getting
their
comments
into
the
bill
drafting
process
before
it
is
“marked‐up”
by
the
committee.

CFSC
is
continuing
to
track
Food
Safety
legislation,
and
is
in
close
contact
with
the
above‐mentioned
groups,
but
at
this
time
we
are
not
actively
advocating
for
the
issue.
We
will
send
out
action
alerts
as
necessary.