The PRIME Act: Giving the Power Back to the People, At Least When It Comes to Meat

Posted in Daily

http://news.mikecallicrate.com/the-prime-act-giving-the-power-back-to-the-people-at-least-when-it-comes-to-meat/

By Christine on January 25, 2016 in Local Economy
There aren’t enough federally regulated slaughterhouses anymore. For many farmers, the closest facility with an inspector onsite is a couple hours away, even if they’re only planning to sell the meat at a farmers market. This costs more for the farmer, which raises prices for the consumer, and goes against the idea of local food.
What if, instead of hauling their livestock to a USDA certified facility, a farmer could just take the animals to the local custom slaughterhouse, like she would if she were consuming the meat herself, and like she can when she sells shares of the animal? Is this any less safe for the end consumer?
House Bill 3187, the Processing Revival and Intrastate Meat Exemption (PRIME) Act, aims to answer these questions, with a rousing no: it’s not any different, or any less safe. Currently in the House Agriculture subcommittee on Livestock and Foreign Agriculture, the bill would allow intra-state distribution of custom-slaughtered meat to individual consumers and to restaurants, hotels, boarding houses, and grocery stores that directly serve consumers. (In USDA terms, “meat” refers to four-legged livestock, not poultry, which is an entirely different conversation.)
Introduced by U.S. Representatives Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Chellie Pingree (D-ME) in July, the bill has gained 19 bipartisan cosponsors from 12 states, including Coffman (R-Boulder) and Polis (D-Aurora) from Colorado. It is supported by Joel Salatin as well as the Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund, and would be a boon to the local food movement.
So what is a custom slaughterhouse, anyway? Custom means that there isn’t a federal inspector present during the slaughter, there isn’t the same red tape and paperwork, and there aren’t silly nit picky details necessary in the facility, such as a private bathroom and office exclusively for the inspector (yes, those are actually required at USDA inspected facilities). Custom facilities are inspected for general cleanliness and procedures and are granted licenses just like their “under inspection” counterparts; the main difference is that a physical government agent is not visually looking at every animal slaughtered and processed. Custom slaughterhouses have lower overhead costs, which transfers to lower costs for the farmer and lower prices for the consumer.
Under current regulations, only owners of an animal can have it slaughtered at a custom facility, and the meat cannot be sold. All of the meat Ben and I eat comes to us in this fashion (picture above). We buy live animals from local farmers, have the animal slaughtered in a custom slaughter house, and enjoy a fantastic, local product all year long – a product we cannot produce on our urban farm. But, this option is quite expensive for a once or twice a year purchase (we save all year for these purchases), and the upfront amount can be cost prohibitive for many families.
A less expensive option is for farmers to sell shares of no less than a quarter of an animal prior to slaughter, and still have that animal slaughtered in a custom facility and then distributed to those four consumers who had shares. This is a legal work-around to the issue of USDA versus custom slaughterhouses that has been safely in affect for a number of years, but the reach is limited. Again, most consumers can’t afford even a quarter share of meat at one time. So if this method is safe, then why isn’t it also safe to have this same meat sold in grocery stores, farmers markets, and restaurants where consumers could buy single packages at a time?
Joel Salatin, food freedom advocate and owner of Polyface Farm said of the bill, “This is directly freeing for both farmers and non-farmers—it emancipates meat from the stranglehold of paranoid consumer advocacy groups, tyrannical bureaucrats, and corporate protectionism.”
The pros are obvious: more freedom for consumers, reduced costs, and increased accessibility of local food to more people. The bill grants freedom to consumers and producers alike, but allows states to implement on their level. If a consumer didn’t want to eat non-inspected meat, then he could still purchase USDA meat.
Opponents will say that we will see an increase of food-born illnesses if we roll back requirements on inspection during slaughter. But as far as I’m concerned, if I can trust the person slaughtering my animal to do it so that it’s safe for me and my family to consume, shouldn’t it be safe enough for everyone? Shouldn’t everyone have access to safe, local meat if that’s what they want for their family? Supporters of the PRIME act think so, and I tend to agree. Honestly, I think USDA slaughterhouses are a racket, and Big-Ag stands to lose if custom slaughtered meat can be sold directly to the public. Keep an eye on this issue – I’m predicting some oh-so predictable push-back from the big packing plants here in the States.

Women in Agriculture: Number of Female Farmers Triples

Farmer Beth Hoinacki owns and operates Goodfoot Farm in Corvallis, Ore.

Photo by Beth Hoinacki

Over the past 30 years, the number of female farmers in the United States has grown significantly, and there are now more resources for women interested in agricultural jobs.

Read more: http://www.motherearthnews.com/organic-gardening/female-farmers-zmgz14amzsto.aspx#ixzz2x4jozk5I

Want to know more about the food at your farmers market? Here's some advice from the farmers themsel...

Grant Wood’s iconic American Gothic painting portrays an austere farming couple, the man with pitchfork in hand as the woman gazes on. But as current trends in farm ownership reveal, we need a revised painting wherein the wife wields a wheel hoe. A 2013 report by the U.S. Department of Agriculture shows the percentage of farms and ranches where a woman fulfills the role of “principal operator” has nearly tripled over the past three decades — from 5 percent up to nearly 14 percent of all U.S. farms. In 1982, women-operated farms totaled 121,600; by 2007, that number had climbed to 306,200 farms. (Read the full report at the United States Department of Agriculture.)
If you add in the women who are “secondary operators,” the sum of female farmers reaches beyond 1 million. This growth has occurred as the tally of men leading agricultural operations declined by about 220,000.
For women interested in farming, an abundance of new resources are cropping up. Annie’s Project is a series of classes available in 34 U.S. states that teaches women about farm management and product marketing, as well as provides a friendly, open space for questions (many women in agriculture tend to feel ostracized). Sustainable-farming advocate Temra Costa published a collection of stories profiling women in ranching and horticulture in her 2010 book Farmer Jane. The accompanying website, Farmer Jane, has additional resources for female farmers.

---

Jennifer Kongs is the Managing Editor at MOTHER EARTH NEWS magazine. When she’s not working at the magazine, she’s likely working in her garden, on the local running trails or in her kitchen instead. You can find Jennifer on Twitter or Google+.

Read more: http://www.motherearthnews.com/organic-gardening/female-farmers-zmgz14amzsto.aspx#ixzz2x4jioROE

FDA Starts to Take Control of American Organic Farms

Under new FDA rules, draft animals used to plow and work farms may become illegal.
“Now, farmers are discovering that the FDA’s proposed rules would curtail many techniques that are common among organic growers, including spreading house-made fertilizers, tilling cropland with grazing animals, and irrigating from open creeks.” Source.

FDA “Visits” Celebrated Organic Produce Farmer

By Alliance for Natural Health
This is not good news.
Jim Crawford started New Morning Farm in Maryland many decades ago. He was young and idealistic. He had little or no money and had to start small. He believed in sustainable agriculture and wanted to produce fresh and healthy produce to sell in farmers’ markets to the urban public. He succeeded and became increasingly well known both for his ideals and his produce.
This may be why the FDA picked him out for a site visit. An inspector appeared without warning and told him that his operation would have to change, according to the Los Angeles Times: “This is my badge. These are the fines. This is what is hanging over your head, and we want you to know that.” It didn’t matter that no health problem had ever been associated with Crawford’s impeccably run operation.
The Food Safety Modernization Act for the first time gave the FDA direct authority over our farms. We thought this was a very bad idea. We weren’t able to stop it, although we were able to eliminate crippling fees for small farms that were in the original bill and also to exempt some of the smallest farmers. Unfortunately this didn’t help Jim Crawford since he is no longer operating on a tiny scale as he was when he started.
It should have been obvious to everyone that putting the FDA in direct charge of farms was a terrible idea.
Much of the FDA’s budget is paid for by Big Pharma instead of the taxpayers, which creates a serious conflict of interest. Despite this funding from industry, the FDA publicly stated that it lacked both the funds and the expertise to do its job, even before farming was piled on. It continues to state that because of lack of funds it cannot do what it is required by statute to do—therefore it is operating lawlessly.
Most importantly, the FDA knows little or nothing about farming. This is already painfully obvious in some of the voluminous and detailed farm regulations it is writing.
The agency also has a well-established track record of issuing regulations that favor big business over small producers, regulations that overwhelm small producers with compliance costs and can put them out of business.
The FDA itself estimates that new produce regulations will cost $4,700 for very small farms, $13,000 for small farms, and $30,500 for large farms. If accurate, these estimates would drive many growers out of business and prevent new ones from starting up. But they are not likely to be accurate.
It appears that, among many other requirements, repeated outside audits will be required, and each one will cost $5,000. Bessemer Farms, located in Ohio, which is closing its produce production and switching to soybeans, estimates that complying with the new rules would cost $130,000, including the required outside inspections.
Produce operations selling less than $25,000 a year will be exempt, as will farms that sell directly to the public via a roadside stand or the like. This exemption will discourage small produce operations  from growing bigger, and will thus make the US even more reliant not only on giant farms, but also on imported foreign produce whose safety is even more uncertain.
This pattern of driving smaller operations out of business or keeping them small isn’t unique to the FDA. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA), which has previously been on the farm but not quite in charge of it, does the same. Why is it necessary for many farmers to drive four or more hours to find a plant where they can process their livestock? Because the USDA has forced many small plants out of business with all their requirements, which include having a government inspector present.
In this case, the interests of big business and big government coincide. The big businesses get a government enforced monopoly for their area. The big government bureaucracies get a more manageable regulatory situation. It is hard enough for them to supervise the big businesses. They feel it’s too hard to regulate thousands of small businesses. And when they leave the government, they expect their next employer will be one of the big businesses.
Unfortunately, the result is that it is harder and harder for small, artisanal, and organic food producers to survive. We get more and more industrial agriculture, and as an unintended but direct consequence, less and less food safety. After all, the record could not be more clear: it is not the small food producers who are causing the contaminated food problem. It is the large, industrial farms that are doing so.
We don’t know yet how the new FDA regulations on produce and on farms in general will end up. There are plenty of worries, but the process will take years.
With your help, we will monitor and try to make the new regulations more reasonable, but with FDA inspectors already sending an intimidating inspector out to New Morning Farm, despite repeated pleas that they lack the staff and funding to do their real work, at the moment it doesn’t look good.
Read the full article here: http://www.anh-usa.org/fda-visits-celebrated-organic-produce-farmer/

USDA chief: Climate change already hurting farmers - AP

USDA chief: Climate change already hurting farmers

JOSH LEDERMAN | February 5, 2014

WASHINGTON (AP) — Climate change is already hurting American farmers and rural residents, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said Wednesday, warning that the U.S. would regret any failure to adapt and prepare for shifting weather realities.
Unveiling a new effort to coordinate the government's response, Vilsack said extreme weather events have already taken the U.S. by surprise, putting ranchers and others out of business. He pointed to the intensity and frequency of recent storms, long droughts, snowstorms and subzero weather as evidence that climate change is no longer hypothetical or in the future.
"The combination of all those factors convinces me that the climate is changing, and it's going to have its impact, and will have its impact, and is having its impact on agriculture and forestry," Vilsack said.
Pine bark beetle that in years past were killed off during harsh winters have now infected about 45 million trees in western states, leading to more severe forest fires, posing flood risks and threatening the timber industry, Vilsack said. In the absence of adequate forecasting and disaster assistance, he said, an October snowstorm wiped out entire cattle operations in the Dakotas.
"When that snowstorm hit, it didn't wipe out just a few animals. It wiped out the entire operation," Vilsack said. "Nobody anticipated and expected that severe a storm, that early."
To that end, the Obama administration said seven new "climate hubs" will open in regions across the U.S., acting as clearinghouses for data and research about effects of climate change. Based out of existing Agriculture Department facilities, the hubs will assess local climate risks, such as drought and wildfire, then develop plans for dealing with them, such as improved irrigation techniques.
The goal is to synchronize the federal government's preparation and resources with what other entities, such as universities, tribal communities and state governments, are doing to prepare for shifting temperatures.
"It's taking existing avenues, research service or forest service, and charging them with a new responsibility to basically take a look at precisely what risks are currently being recognized and what's the vulnerability to agriculture and to forestry in each region of the country," Vilsack said.
Vilsack disclosed the locations for the new hubs, which were announced last year and included in Obama's broader climate change plan. The seven regional hubs will be housed in forest service stations or government research labs in Ames, Iowa; Durham, N.H.; Raleigh, N.C.; Fort Collins, Colo.; El Reno, Okla.; Corvallis, Ore.; and Las Cruces, N.M. Three smaller "sub-hubs" will be created in Houghton, Mich.; Davis, Calif.; and Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico.