1. Monsanto nor any other company has anything to do with this bill. More regulations are the last thing a company wants.
2. It is a response to the the recent Salmonella scare and the earlier E, coli scares.
3. The major lobbyists are 8 food safety advocacy groups.
4. This is an activist congress, which is going to work hard to make us safe from ourselves. While government control of all aspects of lives has increased exponentially since 1832, expect much more.
5. The current target is interstate and international trade. Sort of an extension of place of origin label already going into effect.
6. Interstate and international trade of "Organic" foods are already regulated by the USDA which has been heavily criticized for not doing enough to guarantee the safety of food.
7. Local produce still falls under state regulation, which varies widely. Expect a greater effort by the feds to exert more control and for the states to tighten controls to keep the feds off their backs.

this bill has absolutely NOTHING to do with organic farming.

For what it's worth...this bill is being heavily politicized and many people are getting their research info from people they don't know are using them as mules for their mistruths or misconceptions.

Some info, like the above post starting it...is part of that.

It's all based on the thinking that it's vague enough wording in the legislation that will let the govt. bust up a multi-billion dollar home gardening industry or make us slaves to seed companies.

The bill is actually a pretty short and to the point read.

This bill is more harmful to small independent farmers who want to export their own goods across state lines independent of established distribution companies. This is a very small amount of people who will be effected by this additional regulation cost, though.

The sky isn't falling. I promise. Read the bill for yourself and you'll see. The word "organic" isn't even in the bill and the word "farm" and/or all it's forms (farming, farmer, etc.) only occurs five times.

This bill is a response to all the food recalls, sicknesses and even deaths caused by our convoluted food supply system. It has little to do with organic farming.

Here is a link that might be useful: Snopes page delineating all the minsinformation

I read the bill a few days ago. While nothing in it seems directly threatening toward gardening or seed-saving, and food-safety obviously is not a bad thing, I don't like additional governmental powers to come onto private property in pursuit of non-criminal activity.

In that regard especially, the wording of the bill is vague, and should be re-worded at a minimum (with a positive exclusion for any and all subsistence food-production) or entirely eliminated.

Doesnt the Food and Drug Administration already have authority over food safety? It appears so. HereÂs a manual for inspectors that appears to cover many aspects of the new bill. I find the first few paragraphs about being overwhelmed and challenges beyond their control amusing.

I hope this bill fails. The last thing we need is more bureaucracy. He who governs best, governs least.

I'm just tired of the government trying to get their hands in everything. They couldn't *actually* outlaw seed saving and OP seeds could they?

Abby

Given enough votes, they could outlaw breathing. Unlikely tho that they are going to mess with anything that does not involve food sales in the near future as pertains to this bill. At the moment, they are dealing only with national issues of food safety. Those of you who are dealing with value added products tho had better be on your toes. The first law suit over a death or sickness from eating Granny Jones tomato preserves bought from a farm stand and regulations and inspectors will be all over it.

Those making stuff for public consumption really should be "on their toes", shouldn't they? That's one reason I never eat out.

But I do buy jarred and canned products and tend to presume that it won't sicken me or my kids. I presume that peanut-butter or pistachios won't kill me. At least in part that presumption is generally safe because of some degree of governmental oversight. I have absolutely no problem with factories and wharehouses being invaded by inspectors without notice. But not people's homes simply because food produced on site is being eaten there, even if there is some chance that said food could migrate away from that site. That is where the bill is vague and could be a problem in the wrong hands.

In the wrong hands the US Govt. can use the Patriot Act to lock us all down on curfews of detain us for pretty much anything without actually explaining it.

That said...the chances of that happening because it kinda-sorta can are so slim it's not worth stressing, imo.

The most important part of this bill is the enhanced checks and certifications of imported foods, imo. We eat a LOT of fruits and veggies from mexico, china, brazil, chile, etc. and chemicals/soil-treatments long banned here are still in use and legal for sale in some of those countries.

I still can't believe we FINALLY have a country-of-orgin meat law even though it doesn't extend to the fast food (south american beef) industry.

I don't believe 875 addresses chemical usage in agriculture at all, does it? And certainly not outside the US. I think it's primarily about reduction of contamination by human pathogens, not looking at the possibility of low-grade toxins.

So if you are worried about those imports you'd better do what I do - don't eat them.

It sets certification standards for growers outside the country using (without quoting directly) the same standards US growers use.

There is a list of production plants/food on the lists with various years of a "grace period" for these suppliers to become certified.

phantom_white: What diseases are the altered seeds causing? This is the first I've heard of seed causing disease in humans.

Altered seeds don't cause diseases in humans as far as I know. But they have the *potential* to create super weeds if they've been genetically modified. I just copied and pasted the post from a different forum.

Abby

Personally, I think that most of the panic around HR-875 is unjustified. I was caught too, by a similar post on another forum. After waddling through the bill (with the help of lots of caffeine) I find most of the criticism from some of the scare sites has no foundation in fact. This is not to say that I think it is beneficial, or even harmless, because that is not the case.

What I think HR-875 will do is centralize all aspects of food safety under one political appointee, with unprecedented power. Given that current heads of the FDA, USDA, and EPA often come from the ranks of the corporations they regulate, I have little faith that this would change under HR-875... it would just be "one stop shopping" for Big Ag & the food industry.

The bill also gives broad power to interfere in what are now State functions, and will disproportionately increase the administrative burden to small farms.

The stated intent of the bill is designed to quell consumer concerns over food safety. In the right hands, it might even do so... but I doubt this Bill is intended for the "right" hands. IMO, this system is, more vulnerable to corruption than what we have now, and will allow the industry to smother any investigation that might result in liability or lost profits. The consumers still lose. This Bill should be defeated, or killed in committee.

I agree. We don't need more centralized or concentrated power. Now comes the age of dispersal and de-centralization.

"...will disproportionately increase the administrative burden to small farms" How so, Zeedman? I didn't get that from what I read, but since my eyes were crossing halfway through when I was only quickly reading through it for the important parts, I could have missed it of course.

IMHO, we do need more power in the form of regulations with teeth. Self-regulation doesn't work too well on big corps who's main goal is to make money (think the recent peanut recall, as well as the obvious AIG et al), and there are holes in the regs for food imports that we could drive a truck through. Small farmers do regulate themselves pretty well, so I do agree that they should be left out of much of any new regulations (again, if they aren't ~ I only saw mention of the word "farm" five times in that bill, so there's not much talk of them in it apparently). But the way things are now just isn't working too well. How many food recalls were there last year? I'm not talking just about the ones that made the news because they killed people, but all food recalls. There are tons more than you think.

The FDA is too big, having to regulate drugs and medical devices as well as food, so breaking out the food part into another agency just makes sense. Seeing's how many of the big drug companies are also involved in food production/food additive production (from what I understand), talk about one-stop shopping ~ it's that way now.

I have copied and pasted the sections from the bill that would affect small farms.

This first section states that in the document a farm in the United States would be called a "FOOD PRODUCTION FACILITY". There is another section that states that a "FOREIGN FOOD ESTABLISHMENT" is one outside the United States. The section below came from "SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS." in case you wish to read it yourself.

----------------------------------------------
(14) FOOD PRODUCTION FACILITY- The term food production facility means any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined animal-feeding operation.
----------------------------------------------

The below section copied and pasted from the bill explains the regulations for farms in the United States.

----------------------------------------------
SEC. 206. FOOD PRODUCTION FACILITIES.

(a) Authorities- In carrying out the duties of the Administrator and the purposes of this Act, the Administrator shall have the authority, with respect to food production facilities, to--

(1) visit and inspect food production facilities in the United States and in foreign countries to determine if they are operating in compliance with the requirements of the food safety law;

(2) review food safety records as required to be kept by the Administrator under section 210 and for other food safety purposes;

(3) set good practice standards to protect the public and animal health and promote food safety;

(4) conduct monitoring and surveillance of animals, plants, products, or the environment, as appropriate; and

(5) collect and maintain information relevant to public health and farm practices.

(b) Inspection of Records- A food production facility shall permit the Administrator upon presentation of appropriate credentials and at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner, to have access to and ability to copy all records maintained by or on behalf of such food production establishment in any format (including paper or electronic) and at any location, that are necessary to assist the Administrator--

(1) to determine whether the food is contaminated, adulterated, or otherwise not in compliance with the food safety law; or

(2) to track the food in commerce.

(c) Regulations- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture and representatives of State departments of agriculture, shall promulgate regulations to establish science-based minimum standards for the safe production of food by food production facilities. Such regulations shall--

(1) consider all relevant hazards, including those occurring naturally, and those that may be unintentionally or intentionally introduced;

(2) require each food production facility to have a written food safety plan that describes the likely hazards and preventive controls implemented to address those hazards;

(3) include, with respect to growing, harvesting, sorting, and storage operations, minimum standards related to fertilizer use, nutrients, hygiene, packaging, temperature controls, animal encroachment, and water;

(4) include, with respect to animals raised for food, minimum standards related to the animals health, feed, and environment which bear on the safety of food for human consumption;

(5) provide a reasonable period of time for compliance, taking into account the needs of small businesses for additional time to comply;

(6) provide for coordination of education and enforcement activities by State and local officials, as designated by the Governors of the respective States; and

(7) include a description of the variance process under subsection (d) and the types of permissible variances which the Administrator may grant under such process.
--------------------------------------------------

Tell me if you think I am wrong but this sounds to me like a big burden on small farms. There are a lot of small farms that use organic methods but do not wish become certified because it is way too much of a hassle. To me it sounds like they want to make it a big hassle for anyone who to sells produce.

If you ask me the problem is not with small farms, and instead of possibly discouraging people from growing and selling their own vegetables, they should encourage more people to do so. That is what we need now, more products coming from our own country and our own neighbors, not more regulations for something that is not even a problem. I will stop now because I can go on forever. Let me know if I am wrong about the bill because I sure hope I am.

Those growing and selling produce on a back-yard scale could use barter as a way around difficulties posed by enforcement of 875.

Bagardens, the vast majority of what you quoted isn't what small farms will have to do. All that is what "the Administrator" (a government official) will have to do. The only thing I see that a small farm will have to do is this:

(2) require each food production facility to have a written food safety plan that describes the likely hazards and preventive controls implemented to address those hazards;

I'm in the building stage of a small market garden ~ have an area tilled, just need to fence it and plant. I already know what food safety hazards are present (pathogens from uncomposted manure, animals being housed too close to and maybe uphill from the garden, chemical residue on produce, etc.) so it would take little time for me to write up a plan to give (don't use uncomposted manure, keep animals a reasonable distance from growing area, don't use chemical pesticides, etc.). And the bill even addresses the extra burden this will put on small farms:

(5) provide a reasonable period of time for compliance, taking into account the needs of small businesses for additional time to comply;

Yeah, this will be just one more pita thing for me to have to do, but I'd be willing to bet that if this passes, there will be all sorts of "form plans" available from market gardening organizations so a farmer would likely just have to download it and edit it to fit his situation. Even if I don't use any of that help, it won't take me longer than a half hour to write it out.

"The FDA is too big so breaking out the food part into another agency just makes sense." This bill would create a food safety administration under Health and Human Services. You think the FDA is too big but H&HS isnt? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I didnt read any language in this bill that dissolves or reduces the Food Safety branch of the FDA. So what well have are two Federal agencies with essentially the same task, stepping all over each others toes.

"Self-regulation doesn't work too well on big corps who's main goal is to make money" As if small farms dont have the goal to make money? The notion that big corporations are bad, but big government isnt bad makes me shake my head.

The FDA is already part of the Bureau of Health & Human Services, so comparing their sizes is apples and oranges. Furthermore, there is NO one official who "rules" full time over only food safety at the FDA, so that tells me that nobody's minding the store much as regards to food safety itself since their attention and effort are stretched across many responsibilities, not just food safety. Doesn't sound very effective to me. But does explain why our food supply is the way it is, with all the recalls, sicknesses and deaths. So I fail to see how breaking out part of the FDA into a separate agency who will focus solely on food safety would be a bad thing. Leaving it in the H&HS, where it is right now, would just make sense as well, since food safety certainly is a health and human service issue.

"Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I didnt read any language in this bill that dissolves or reduces the Food Safety branch of the FDA."
Section 2 (b)(2) states one of the purposes of this bill is:
to transfer to the Food Safety Administration the food safety, labeling, inspection, and enforcement functions that, as of the day before the date of the enactment of this Act, are performed by various components of the Food and Drug Administration and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration;
That looks like reducing the food safety branch of the FDA quite a bit ~ taking a lot of responsibilities away from the FDA and giving them to the new agency. Looks like NOAA will get smaller, too (that's weird ~ NOAA regulating food safety? Makes you go, "Hmmmm...").

"So what well have are two Federal agencies with essentially the same task, stepping all over each others toes" Nope. See explanation above. Nobody will be stepping on anyone else's toes since they'll each have different tasks.

"As if small farms dont have the goal to make money" I'm sure that's a goal since you wouldn't be able to farm long if you didn't make any money, but I doubt it's the goal. When you ask a small farmer why he farms, does he say "Because I want to make money."? Doubt it. There are a ton of things a person could do to make money that area helluva lot easier and more profitable than farming, so if making money's your goal in farming, you'd be wise to switch careers. Reminds m e of the old joke ~ How do you become a millionaire farming? Start with three million.

My goal in farming is to have a job that I feel good about and enjoy. Farmers at local farmers' markets say much the same thing. The goal is the lifestyle, not the money. Bet you won't get the same answer from a CEO of some big farming corp.

"The notion that big corporations are bad, but big government isnt bad makes me shake my head." Good thing I don't subscribe to that notion then, huh? The notions I do subscribe to are that, if left to their own devices (ie unregulated or unwatched), more than a few people whose main goal is making money will do it any way possible, damn the morality of it. And reorganizing an inefficient government to make it more efficient, and giving existing regulations some teeth, is a good thing.

knittlin, I completely agree with you about farming. If my main goal was to make money I definitely would not be a farmer. I love growing vegetables, working hard outside, and love the fact that I can provide something for somebody that is of the best quality possible. Something that you can be proud of. There is a pride in farming that you just do not get from some big company that does not care about what they are selling, as long as people buy it and they make money. Their goal is how to make as much money as possible. My goal is to provide the best quality produce possible.

You are right about the administrator part of it, I did not notice that. Never the less it still sounds like it will cause unnecessary trouble and hassle for small farms, and I do not like it at all.

Thanks for the Section 2 (b)(2) quote knittlin but I dont think shuffling existing responsibilities within two government agencies (that are apparently one in the same) is going to make us any safer. Its an expansion of government that can lead to abuse of power.

Im sick of big corporations getting bashed because of a handful that have caused problems. "The notions I do subscribe to are that, if left to their own devices (ie unregulated or unwatched), more than a few people whose main goal is making money will do it any way possible" I highly disagree. Liability and the need to produce quality product with a good reputation keeps many companies in line. For every one corporation that produced a hazardous product, there are thousands upon thousands that didnt.

Even if government regulations forced every small and large farm to follow regulations fully that wont completely eliminate food born illness. Pathogens happen. You have far, far more faith in the ability and role of government than I do. Of course, Im the type of person who consumed an entire jar of peanut butter purchased before the recall and lived to tell about it. I wish government would stay out of my life. And Im sure tomato producers who had their product recalled, then were told it was cilantro or spinach that was the problem, feel the same way.

Some people are getting their anger at the expansion of government mixed up with policy.

The bill as written puts a LOT more cost and responsibility on foreign exports and large agri-business which will help most small farmers not looking to take their business across state lines.

"Stuff happens" if you don't do anything about it. Apples, peaches, and greens from South America being sprayed and cultivated with cheap labor and US banned chemicals isn't exactly a fair, level, or safe playing ground for any US farmer...especially the small ones.

No one's a "man" or "tough" because they ignored a food safety warning that killed/sickened others and they made out just fine.

No one's food costs will soar and our "free trade" food we grow in other countries because our "free trade" prices our own labor out of the market should at least be held to the standards we ask of our local producers.

No one's a "man" or "tough" because they ignored a food safety warning that killed/sickened others and they made out just fine. That's very true. But some of these recalls weren't necessary (like tomatoes) and it caused the producer who was following the rules a lot of money. I know they want to error on the side of saftey, but a lot of what gets pulled from the shelves because of alarm bells is safe to consume.

This bill is meant to take the guesswork out of these food lines.

You'd probably be amazed how many countries it takes to make 1 jar of salsa...especially in the winter. We don't live in an era where things are canned and sold off season anymore...it's a constant in-and-out of product.

This bill is designed to set standards for production, movement, and tracking of these foodstuffs so there's less "where do we look to find out where this might have come from?"

Sorry for the length of this, y'all, but in the immortal words of Mark Twain ~ "I would have written you a shorter letter, but I didn't have time." *giggle~snort*

There is a pride in farming..." There sure is, Bagardens, isn't there?

"Never the less it still sounds like it will cause unnecessary trouble and hassle for small farms, and I do not like it at all." Oh, it may cause a little more trouble and hassle for small farms, but it'll more than pay for itself in the good things small farmers will get. If this bill passes, all imported food must meet the same standards as food made/grown in the US. Right now, imported food doesn't have to, so it can be sold cheaper. So think of the half hour writing out that food safety plan as a good trade for being able to charge higher prices for your produce while not having to answer this maddening question so often anymore: "Why is your zucchini so high? I saw some at XYZ store just the other day for less."

I dont think shuffling existing responsibilities within two government agencies (that are apparently one in the same) is going to make us any safer. " The FDA and the FSA will be two distinct agencies with different focuses, SproutsHonor. And it just makes sense that having an agency whose sole job is food safety will make us safer than the current system where many people and many agencies can pass the buck to each other all day long. So I have to disagree with you on that point.

"Its an expansion of government that can lead to abuse of power." Yeah, this can lead to abuse of power, but what change can't? And is it really likely? I don't think so. You say you're sick of all big companies getting bashed because of the actions of a few, but do you see that you're doing the same thing? You're bashing the entire government because of the actions of a few members of it who've royally screwed up. There are many parts of government that work and work well. If they didn't, our lives would be a lot more like those of people in a third world country who can't eat peanut butter without worry, if they even had it.

"Liability and the need to produce quality product with a good reputation keeps many companies in line." Yes, it keeps many of them in line. I've not said or implied otherwise. But there are more than a few where that doesn't work. The modern business model so prevalent today is "get a company started and making a profit, then sell it". Reputations aren't as important anymore since you only need to keep it good long enough for the check to clear. And insurance takes care of any liability, that and an attorney on retainer who can tie up any lawsuits and/or criminal proceedings in court for years. No, not all companies do this, but again, there are plenty who do nowadays. Don't think I need to say anything other than "Wall Street" to prove that point.

"Even if government regulations forced every small and large farm to follow regulations fully that wont completely eliminate food born illness." Of course it won't. But it'll sure cut down on melamine and rocket fuel in baby food.

"You have far, far more faith in the ability and role of government than I do. Of course, Im the type of person who consumed an entire jar of peanut butter purchased before the recall and lived to tell about it." It's the government that makes it so 99.9999999999999999999% of us can eat jars of peanut butter and salad and bologna and corn meal and live to tell about it. Have you ever read about what people would adulterate food with before any regulations were put in place? It was rampant. Check out food safety of a hundred years ago and read some stories ~ it'll make your hair stand on end. And might even give you a bit of faith in today's government.

"I wish government would stay out of my life. And Im sure tomato producers who had their product recalled, then were told it was cilantro or spinach that was the problem, feel the same way." And I'll bet if there had been a single agency whose job it was to oversee those imports, the true problem (jalapenos) would have been found a lot sooner, if not stopped at the border. If this bill passes, mistakes like the tomato recall will be less likely to happen.

"But some of these recalls weren't necessary (like tomatoes) and it caused the producer who was following the rules a lot of money." Yep. Completely agree with you there. And what caused that was an inept food safety system. There's honestly no snarkiness intended with this question ~ what would you propose we do instead of this bill, Sproutshonor? Leave things as they are so things like that keep happening? Or fix it? And if so, how?

Our outdated and bumbling food safety system and rules cost producers a lot more money than the tomato fiasco did. As Nc-crn put it, and with which I wholeheartedly agree: "Apples, peaches, and greens from South America being sprayed and cultivated with cheap labor and US banned chemicals isn't exactly a fair, level, or safe playing ground for any US farmer...especially the small ones." As he went on to say, currently imports can be sold cheap because they don't have to follow the same rules US producers have to. With this bill, imports will have to follow the same rules, so will have to be priced higher. That'll actually make money for the US food producers, including all those small farmers. I'll happily take my share of that deal!

I wanted to say again that no snarkiness or disrespect was intended in anything I said above, SproutsHonor. I tried very hard to make sure my post came across as nice and conversational with a few jokes honestly meant to lighten the mood, but man is that difficult when you can't see my facial expressions or tone of voice. Please know that I'm not raising my voice or scowling or anything at you or anything you've said ~ promise! :)

kittlin, thanks for your post. I read every word of it and am glad we agree on a few points. And thanks for your lack of snarkiness. I worked at a law firm for years so heated debate has given me thick skin.

And might even give you a bit of faith in today's government. I sincerely wish it would, but please understand, Im a resident of Cuyahoga County where Cleveland cronyism prevails. A few of my family members live in New Jersey where restaurant inspectors are given cash to go away and garbage men need cash to show up. So, my opinion of government is certainly tainted! I can easily envision a food safety inspector overlooking a lack of proper paperwork for a few bushels of sweet corn.

I would absolutely love to see the playing field leveled and bad foreign produce stopped at the border. But that task, as much as we want to see it happen, isnt realistic. We cant stop illegal immigrants from entering the country regardless of an expensive fence or other measures. Theres always a threat of a nuclear weapon entering in a cargo container. But, again, inspecting every container isnt realistic regardless of the threat. Trying to regulate the millions of food products is not realistic either.

Leave things as they are so things like that keep happening? Or fix it? And if so, how? This bill is criticized for being vague. If the bill stated how to determine what chemicals were used and the growing conditions of produce in a foreign country, Id have more faith in its effectiveness. But most of the time Congress members are rather clueless about many subjects including biology or botany. I remember someone taking the floor once and insisting, "There will be no pH in our water!"

Everyone here agrees that big, foreign agriculture and not small local farms is where food safety problems usually arise. If this bill stated exemptions for small farmers, I wouldnt be so opposed to it.

I'll bet I can find more that we agree on, such as that this bill will in no way solve everything. I can appreciate where you're coming from about your feelings towards government. I really can. A few years ago, our lovely state government deregulated and privatized everything, including electric cooperatives. So what happens? Greed and corruption. Look at the Google search results for my coop, Pedernales Electric Cooperative, and you'll see. It's disgusting. And they're talking about raising meter fees to $40 (Austin's coop charges $6) and rates as well ... again.

But we can't just sit back and be happy with the status quo. Change has to start somewhere, and this bill is a decent start imho.

No, it doesn't spell out everything, but if it attempted to, it would be miles longer than it's current 80+ pages. Many of the things it leaves out are covered in other bills already passed into law, so to spell it out in this one would be unnecessary duplication.

And it's actually not that vague. For instance, how to determine what chemicals are used ~ The bill states that if it can't be determined before entering the US (by an accredited agency/agent outside the US), the shipments will be routed through a port at a city with a food testing labso it can be tested here. This and other ways imported food safety will be determined is spelled out in Section 208, which includes certification means and standards for foreign food production facilities, requiring the FSA to perform regular audits of food shipped in and inspections of the facilities where it was produced, etc. They've even added sections that forbid a certifying agent from owning or having any financial ties to the food production company they're certifying. Pretty nice. And also added language that the FSA will set fees to pay for all this, fees that will be paid by the food importer. Doubley nice.

It sounds pretty good to me and quite frankly, I was shocked when I found out this wasn't already being done. The way things are now, I can't make dill pickles in my home kitchen and sell them in the US without getting my kitchen certified, but someone in Mexico surely can. They just make them, slap on a nutrient label, ship them across the border and they're done.

"If this bill stated exemptions for small farmers, I wouldnt be so opposed to it." Exemptions from what? Again, the only things I can find that are new rules on US farmers is that we'll have to write up that food safety plan mentioned earlier in this thread. Since there don't seem to be many if any new regs on small farmers, there's really nothing to exempt us from.

Yet something else we agree on: "But most of the time Congress members are rather clueless about many subjects including biology or botany. I remember someone taking the floor once and insisting, "There will be no pH in our water!"" HA!! YAHAHA! I believe it!

Congress passes broadly worded bills to guide federal agencies in their rule making. Without the bill, the federal agency has no authority to do anything if it cannot reasonably interpret past authority to cover new circumstances. The FDA will provide the specifics according to the principles in the bill.

The White House now has an organic garden next to the tennis courts, a first since the Depression IIRC. I truly doubt that Pres. Obama will sign anything that would significantly harm organic or home gardens.

I tried to read the bill. I read most of it. It seems to me that it try's to do too much. Food from outside of the US does need much more regulation. I feel that the foreign food regulations should be a separate bill in itself. As for domestic food production, this bill is way too big. It's like they are trying to kill a fly with an A-bomb. I would feel a lot better if this bill was broken up into several smaller bills. I do worry that it could all get out of control. It's too much like "Big Brother" is watching. The Feds are clearly taking over things that belong to State jurisdiction. It really goes against the 10th Amendment. It gives too much leeway for misuse of control.