Kids Helping Kids Fundraising Form (Pdf) - American Family: Fill & Download for Free

The short answer is that these laws do not 'make it illegal to grow food.' Primarily, it's targeted against Chinese pet food killing little Fluffy the cat. It is the first comprehensive update to the nation's food safety laws since 1938, in the tail end of the New Deal. Significant exemptions are carved out for small, local, and organic food-growing operations, as well as those that primarily sell directly to consumers.Also, thanks User-9479191553426700399 for getting me to do an hour and change of research on the bill and related topics :)Long answer:For the 111th Congress, here is the THOMAS info for the House Bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:h.r.00875:And the Senate equivalent: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:s.00510:It appears that the bill was passed in the House 21 December 2010, as part of an amendment to this bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR02751:Following which, it became Public Law no: 111-353 after being signed by the President on 4 January 2011, so during the lame duck session.One major change to the bill before it was passed was the inclusion of the Tester-Hagan amendment, the text of which can be found here:http://farmandranchfreedom.org/sff/Tester-Hagan-amendment-Sept-2010.pdfand a summary here, via the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance, whichrepresents small and independent farmers and ranchers:http://farmandranchfreedom.org/sff/Tester-Hagan-amendment-Sept-2010.pdfHere is some extensive discussion about the bill as of 15 November 2010: http://www.grist.org/article/food-2010-11-15-food-fight-safety-modernization-act-harm-small-farms/PALLPart of the summary:As you will read in the following pages (yes, that's plural; please note that there are three pages for this epic discussion), they disagree, sometimes violently, about whether S. 510 will do more harm than good. Sens. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) and Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) were concerned enough about the answer to propose the Tester-Hagan amendment to S. 510, which exempts certain small farms and food-processing businesses from the requirements. (PDFs available http://tester.senate.gov/Legislation/upload/tester_small_facilities_amendment.pdf and http://tester.senate.gov/Legislation/upload/tester_direct_market_amendment.pdf from Tester's office.) Problem solved, right? Well no. Some think that the Tester amendment dilutes the bill or would let risky farms slip through thesafety nets.As a counter-argument re: the Tester-Hagan small farm exemption, this author believes that the regulations will provide a "chilling effect" on family farmers due to the complexity of provided necessary documentation to secure the exemption:Source: http://www.activistpost.com/2010/12/why-tester-amendment-does-not-help.htmlThis is a constituent response letter from Senator McCaskill with an FAQ on the subject:Recently, the Senate passed and the President signed into law the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (P.L. 111-353). This bipartisan legislation, which I supported, provides important new protections for American consumers while also ensuring that family farmers, small producers, farmers' markets, and local gardeners are not subject to new federal requirements.I know that many Missourians have concerns about this legislation. For instance, many have raised questions about how this legislation will affect local organic farmers, their neighborhood farmer's market, or the garden in their back yard. As a lifelong Missourian whose family worked at a feed mill, I understand that agriculture is more than a primary driver of Missouri's economy; it is a part of our state's cultural fabric. I would not have supported any legislation that jeopardized this culture and this legislation does not.Finally, from the FAQ:Will P.L. 111-353 outlaw home gardens and family farms? NO.P.L. 111-353 does not outlaw home gardens or family farms. In fact, the bill explicitly states that the produce standards “shall not apply to produce that is produced by an individual for personal consumption.” In addition, the bill also contains an exemption from regulations for small facilities and small farms, which was purposefully included to protect America’s family farms. This includes food sold through farmers‟ markets, bake sales, road side stands, public events, community supported agriculture, and organizational fundraisers.Source: http://kevinforcongress.blogspot.com/2011/01/fda-food-safety-modernization-act.htmlMy take on this legislation is that is it primarily targeted against international food--read: China--that does not meet American standards. It gives the right to the FDA to initiate mandatory recalls if and only if a corporation fails to do so voluntarily, which was previously limited to infant formula.For the most part, this question is appropriately tagged with "Conspiracy Theories," as far as I can tell. It specifically exempts small farms and personal food growing by Americans from any additional laws or regulations.Another site argues that the impetus for the bill was the tainted pet food incident several months back:Also in December, Congress passed a major food safety bill(P.L. 111-353), led by Sens. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, Judd Gregg, R-N.H., Richard Burr, R-N.C., and Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., and Reps. John Dingell, D-Mich., Henry Waxman, D-Calif., Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., Bart Stupak, D-Mich., Frank Pallone, D-N.J., Janice Schakowsky, D-Ill., and Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., which should provide much-needed additional safeguards for pet food and could strengthen the Food and Drug Administration’s oversight of the egg industry. Among its many provisions, the new law sets safety standards for imported foods, requires importers to verify compliance, and gives the FDA better access to records and authority to impose mandatory recalls of contaminated products. This could help prevent problems such as occurred in 2007 when massive amounts of imported pet food tainted with melamine killed or sickened many pets. P.L. 111-353 passed the Senate in the wake of numerous recent outbreaks of food poisoning, including scandals involving egg contamination and filthy, inhumane conditions on factory farms, revealed in investigations conducted by the FDA and The HSUSSource: http://hslf.typepad.com/political_animal/Still to come is three years of implementation, according to United Fresh, the fresh produce association. Quoted:Implementing this law will require over a dozen separate rulemakings and at least 10 guidance documents. The implementation of the legislation will take more than three years.Source: http://www2.unitedfresh.org/forms/store/ProductFormPublic/ (FDA Food Safety Modernization Act White Paper)Apparently, this is the first major overhaul of the food safety regulations since 1938, in the middle of the New Deal.According to Ruell Chappell, the founder of the Well Fed Neighbor Alliance, which supports local food growing at scale--aka somewhere between Big Ag and local gardens--this legislation makes family-based farming more difficult. Ruell states:To be totally honest, they fear this will prove to be yet another example of Big AG supported legislation resulting in further elimination of Small Producers. My good friend and my General Counsel, Joe Maxwell, and my friend Russ Kremer, are working with me to try to make our local food system example a template for duplication . It is our goal to re-establish local food security ( there are only three days of food in Springfield at any given time), give birth to a sustainable local economy with jobs, improve the health of the community and reduce the amount of fuel needed to transport food ( currently our food comes a minimum of 1500 miles).Source: http://wellfedneighbor.ning.com/profiles/blogs/my-response-to-senatorAs far as the law itself goes, it is comprised of four different titles and honestly, I'm not really feeling jazzed about reading the 89-page bill. Real quick, though,. the titles are as follows:Improving capacity to prevent food safety problemsImproving capacity to detect and respond to food safety problemsImproving the safety of imported foodMiscellaneous provisionsLegalese, naturally, but still useful for figuring out the broad focus of the bill. Of course, big government watchdogs should totally fear the "Requirement for guidance relating to post harvest processing of raw oysters." DUN DUN DUNNNN!! /grinI'll rely on the CRS summary found here: http://opencrs.com/document/R40443/2010-10-07/ Naturally, this paper is 90 pages, one more than the law itself *sigh* well, 39 pages of text and the rest of tables and supporting data.Also, OpenCRS is an amazing site, if you're interested in doing legislative research. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is responsive to congressional staff and members, and it is unfortunately opaque to constituents, except through their congressional office, who respond to constituent requests to provide reports. Luckily, OpenCRS works to gather CRS reports and post them online. However, most constituents are unaware of CRS, which is a shame.In the CRS summary, it states the follow:The bills seek to increase frequency of inspections, tighten record-keeping requirements, extend more oversight to certain farms, and mandate product recalls if a firm fails to do so voluntarily. Major portions of the bills are devoted to more scrutiny of food imports, which account for an increasing share of U.S. consumption; food import shipments would have to be accompanied by documentation that they can meet safety standards that are at least equivalent to U.S. standards. Such certifications might be provided by foreign governments or other so-called third parties accredited in advance. The House-passed bill and Senate amendment differ in how to accomplish these objectives. The bills have provisions for certifying or accrediting laboratories, including private laboratories, to conduct sampling and testing of food.This agrees with my earlier statement that at least one major focus of the bill is to provide oversight over food imports. In 1938, refrigeration was just coming into play, so shipment of quickly-spoiling food like fresh produce was much less common than it is today.Additionally:Food safety legislation is a response to a number of perceived problems with the current food safety system. For example, a growing consensus is that the FDA’s current programs are not proactively designed to emphasize prevention, evaluate hazards, and focus inspection resources on areas of greatest risk to public health.This talks about another major focus on current perceptions to limitations of the FDA, which is something the bill probably addresses.Now, none of this is directly relevant to the question about "making it illegal to grow food."The relevant section seems to be titled, "Mitigating Effects on Small Business and Farming Operations," pg. 22-26 in the PDF or as labeled pg. 17-22. As follows:Concerns among farm and rural groups about the potential effects of new food safety requirements on farms and food processors surfaced early in the debate over how to reform U.S. food safety laws. Most vocal were small farms and processors; organizations representing small, organic, direct-to-market, and sustainable farming operations; and small livestock operations.Atissue is whether numerous proposed requirements would be more costly and burdensome to small farms and other small businesses than could be justified by the potential public health protections such requirements are intended to provide.Several provisions in the House-passed bill and Senate amendment could potentially affect agricultural producers, including smaller farms and food processors, as well as organic, direct-to-market, and sustainable farming operations. The provisions that could have the most direct effect on on-farm activity, especially produce growers, would be the establishment of new standards for produce safety (§ 104 and § 105, respectively). In addition, both bills would require the issuance of updated good agricultural practices, among other bill provisions that could potentially affect small businesses and farming operations. These include facility registration requirements (§ 101 of the House-passed bill; § 102 of the Senate amendment); records access and/or inspection requirements (§ 106 of H.R. 2749; § 101 and § 204 of the Senate amendment); food traceability requirements (§ 107 of H.R. 2749; § 204 of the Senate amendment); hazard analysis and risk-based preventive controls (§ 103 of the Senate amendment); targeting of inspection resources (Section 201 of the Senate amendment); and changes in the reportable food registry (§ 112 of H.R. 2749). For more information, see CRS Report RL34612, Food Safety on the Farm: Federal Programs and Legislative Action.The extent to which these other provisions might actually affect small business and farming operations remains unclear, since the specific business requirements under these provisions would be subject to agency rulemaking, as well as the discretion of the HHS Secretary.Considerations for small business could take many forms, including waiving certain requirements, providing additional time for compliance, providing grants and/or technical assistance to aid in compliance, and exempting certain types of businesses from meeting the requirements. Currently the FFDCA exempts some types of businesses from certain food safety requirements. For example, farms, restaurants, other retail food establishments, and certain nonprofit food establishments and fishing vessels are exempt from facility registration requirements under FFDCA § 415.Various approaches might be used to define whether a farm or food processor is a “small” business. Often, a definition may be based on a particular threshold value for a financial or business measure, such as gross cash income (or sales receipts), adjusted gross income (AGI), numbers of employees, or other measures. Gross cash income refers to the sum of all receipts from the sale of crops, livestock, and farm-related goods and services, including any direct payments from the government. For purposes of classifying farms, USDA defines a “small commercial farm” as an operation with gross cash income of $10,000 to less than $250,000 annually; “large farms” are defined as farms with gross cash income of $250,000 to less than $1 million. Under these definitions, USDA data indicate that 22% of all crop and livestock producers were considered to be small commercial farms. The share of small farms will vary depending on commodity. For example, among fruit and vegetable producers who might be affected by requirements under the House and Senate food safety measures, the share of small farms is roughly 10% of all growers in this category. Small business definitions for farms, established by the Small Business Administration (SBA), also are based on annual sales receipts but vary considerably from USDA’s definitions: among most crop producers, SBA defines as a small business those who make no more than $750,000 in sales per year.47 By these standards, more farms would be considered small businesses, with up to one-half of all crop and livestock producers defined as small.Elsewhere in farm legislation, adjusted gross income (AGI) is used to differentiate farm size. AGI is a common measure of income for tax purposes, combining income from all sources. Business income contributes to AGI on a net basis, that is, after business expenses. Thus, it is comparable to profit: sales minus expenses and also taxable deductions. In the periodic omnibus farm bill, an AGI limit is used to differentiate wealthier farm households as a means test for the maximum amount of income that an individual can earn and still remain eligible for commodity program benefits, including any direct payments from the government. The 2008 farm bill tightened these limits by reducing the AGI limit to $500,000 of non-farm AGI and $750,000 of farm AGI. Given that most business information is proprietary, data are limited on the share of commodity producers (farms and food processors) that have an annual AGI of less than $500,000. Information for U.S. farms indicate that farms with less than $500,000 AGI account for the vast majority (more than 95%) of farm numbers.For food processors, often different business measures are used to define small businesses. SBA definitions of small food processors are based on the number of employees at a business. Among most food processors, a small business is defined by the SBA as a business with no more than 500 employees. By this definition, nearly all (97%) of all food manufacturers would be considered small businesses based on U.S. Census Bureau data.FDA regulations also define certain small food processing businesses, but they are case by case and not inclusive. For example, FDA’s current HACCP regulations exempt small juice processors “employing fewer than 500 persons." Accordingly, available data indicate that as many as 84% of businesses that make juice would be not be covered by the HAACP requirements. Very small businesses would also be exempt, and so defined if they meet one of the following three criteria: “annual sales of less than $500,000, total annual sales greater than $500,000 but total food sales less than $50,000, or operations that employ fewer than an average of 100 full-time equivalent employees and sell fewer than 100,000 units of juice in the United States.” Producers of “raw agricultural ingredients of juice,” such as fruit and vegetable growers, would not be covered by the HAACP requirements.This section is talking about the definitions of small farms that would be exempted from most of the regulations, seemingly addressing the concerns raised by the Well Fed Neighbor Alliance. I'm not an expert of the subject, though. It primarily addresses the current state of things, while the next section covers proposed legislative action, subtitled "Legislative Proposals":Although both the House-passed bill and the Senate amendment contain requirements that might affect small business and farming operations, both bills also seek to take into account the needs of small businesses and provide for coordination of enforcement and education activities with others such as USDA and state authorities.The House-passed bill contains additional provisions that are intended to address potential effects of the food safety requirements on small, organic, direct-to-market, and sustainable farming operations, among other related provisions. In particular, it would exempt from the facility registration requirements most commodity producers that sell directly to consumers, including an “operation that sells food directly to consumers if the annual monetary value of sales of the food products from the farm or by an agent of the farm to consumers exceeds the annual monetary value of sales of the food products to all other buyers” (§ 101(b)(1)). The House-passed bill also would require that any regulations governing performance standards “take into consideration, consistent with ensuring enforceable public health protection, the impact on small-scale and diversified farms, and on wildlife habitat, conservation practices, watershed-protection efforts, and organic production methods” (§ 104(b)).Initially, S. 510 was modified by the Senate HELP Committee to require that the HHS Secretary “provide sufficient flexibility to be applicable to various types of entities engaged in the production and harvesting of raw agricultural commodities, including small businesses and entities that sell directly to consumers, and be appropriate to the scale and diversity of the production and harvesting of such commodities” (§ 103 and § 105, among other sections). Other committee modifications require consideration of federal conservation and environmental standards and policies including wildlife conservation, and assurances that these provisions will not conflict with or duplicate those of the national Organic Foods Production Act (also § 105).The Senate amendment includes additional provisions intended to address the potential effects of the food safety requirements on small business and other farming operations. These include allowances for HHS to exempt or limit compliance requirements for certain types of farming operations and food processors, along with provisions that would allow the HHS Secretary the discretion to exclude certain operations, if it is determined that these are low risk and/or do not present a risk of “serious adverse health consequences or death”; and assurances that any new regulations do not conflict with or duplicate other federal policies and standards, and that they minimize regulatory burden and unnecessary paperwork and the number of separate standards imposed on the facility (for example, the registration, HACCP, produce standards, and traceability requirements in §§ 101, 103, 105, and 204). In addition, HHS would be required to publish “small entity compliance policy guides” to assist small entities in complying with some proposed requirements, such as those regarding registration, HACCP, produce standards, and traceability. Implementation would be delayed for small and very small businesses (as defined by the Secretary) for the HACCP and produce standards requirements, and there would be assurances of “sufficient flexibility” for producers, including small businesses and entities that sell directly to consumers, for the HACCP, produce standards, and traceability provisions.Despite these additional considerations in the Senate amendment, Senator Jon Tester has stated that he intends to offer further amendments to address small farm interests if the Senate food safety measure reaches the Senate floor in the 111th Congress. Senator Tester first announced in spring 2010 that he planned to introduce two amendments to the Senate committee-reported bill, S. 510. Under one amendment, certain commodity producers would face limited trace-back and record-keeping requirements if the “average annual adjusted gross income [AGI] of such facility for the previous 3-year period is less than $500,000”; another amendment would exempt producers who sell directly to market if “the annual value of sales of food directly to consumers, hotels, restaurants, or institutions exceeds the annual value of sales of food to all other buyers.” These amendments were not ultimately included in the Senate manager’s amendment.In September 2010, Senator Tester, along with Senator Kay Hagan, announced an updated version of this amendment. The modified Tester-Hagan amendment would establish “modified requirements for qualified facilities” for so-called “very small” businesses, among other provisions for both small and very small businesses (to be defined in regulation). Under this proposed amendment, qualified facilities would not be subject to the facility registration requirements under FFDCA § 415; instead they would be required to submit to HHS relevant documentation showing that they have implemented preventative food safety controls and evidence that they are in compliance with state, local, county, or other applicable non-federal food safety laws, among other documentation. Such modified requirements would apply to producers considered “very small” and would include operations that have annual sales of less than $500,000 (defined not as AGI, but as the three-year average “annual monetary value of sales,” adjusted for inflation) and whose value of sales directly to “qualified end-users” exceeds all other sales. Qualified end-users would include consumers or a restaurant or retail food establishment that is located in the same state or less than 400 miles from the qualified facility, or that is buying food for sale directly to consumers. Implementation deadlines would also be delayed for small and very small businesses, following promulgation of any applicable regulations under the newly enacted law. The Tester-Hagan amendment also includes other clarifying language with respect to the exemption for direct farm marketing and sales. The provision further would require that HHS conduct a study of the food processing sector, in conjunction with USDA.Many farm groups have expressed support for these proposed amendments. However, one of the leading produce industry groups, United Fresh Produce Association (UFPA), is urging the Senate not to add “exemptions based on the size of the operation, production practices, or geographic location for food being sold in the commercial market” to its food safety proposal. In addition to broader industry concerns about the need to preserve consumer confidence in the safety of all marketed produce, another industry concern is whether small foreign producers might also be exempt, if small U.S. producers were to be exempt (given prevailing U.S. equivalency standards). Some consumer groups, including the Consumers Union, have expressed concern that the proposed amendments would create “too great a loophole” in the food safety requirements, among other concerns.The key paragraph seems to be the second one, specifically talking about "small, organic, direct-to-market, and sustainable farming operations, among other related provisions." These food-growing operations would be exempt if they sell directly to consumers, meaning your kids' road-side stands or the farm stands in Gilroy, CA would both be excluded from any of these regulations, as long as a majority of their sales came from direct-to-consumer sales. Additionally, I believe the Tester-Hagan amendment referenced in the final two paragraphs did eventually pass. EDIT: Re: Bill McDonald in the comments and inflation-adjusting AGI:Adds a new exemption for businesses that gross less than half a milliondollars (adjusted for inflation) and that sell more than half of their products directly to consumers or to local restaurants and retail establishments. These businesses must submit paperwork showing that they qualify for the exemption and that they comply with state and local laws in order to be exempt from the new HACCP-type requirements.Source: http://farmandranchfreedom.org/Tester-Hagan-explanationConclusionTo reiterate, it seems extremely unlikely that the scenario described by the question will come to pass through the passage of these bills into law. The primary focus is to prevent Chinese pet food from killing Fluffy, not stopping little Johnny from growing some fruits and veggies in the backyard and becoming little entrepreneurial Johnny by selling them on the roadside in home sweet neighborhood.