The cost, though, is prohibitive. Regulations regard every operation as if they are selling into the mainstream, national exposure of industrial agriculture.

Consider the hamburger, a chunk of meat taken from the ground up parts of perhaps 1,000 different cows, or maybe just one. The point is that the meat industry takes all the pieces and blends them together, so that meat from grass-fed young animals won’t taste one way, and retired (old) dairy cows and bulls (tasting of their stronger hormones) won’t taste another. Blend them all, and the taste stays consistent, hiding the healthier taste and quality into the mix.

Or milk. Milk is gathered from the cow, mixed into the daily gathering’s tank, gathered into the bulk transport, gathered into the processing plant vats. Each gathering from transport, from farm, from cow, must be clean and safe, in order for the bulk tank to be safe, and then for each container filled from that tank to be safe.

When Joe down the road milks his cow, and pours it into a quart jar with his name and date, you need the cow to be healthy, and Joe to work cleanly. And that is it. If Joe makes a mistake, maybe 20 people will be affected; if Joe were selling to a big dairy association (they won’t take Joe’s milk if he has less than a hundred cows), his mistake could affect thousands of households. It economically affordable to be extra sure the big, bulk processing inputs are all regulated and mistake-free (or almost).

Joe and his cow, and the folk that prefer the taste of non-watered milk from Joe’s cow, should be allowed to buy what they want. Even if it doesn’t have enough water added to make it USDA-compliant so-called “whole” milk.

My thought has been to limit regulations to those selling 10,000 servings per year. That would place a fairly reasonable definition of “small producer” on the books.

A local supplier selling their own products, under their label, means that tracking problems back to the source gets quite simple. Different regulations should apply when your products aren’t mixed in with someone else’s products. The tomatoes in a bin labeled “Brad’s Tomatoes” should have different regulations than the bin labeled “Product of Chile”. (I have nothing against Chile or other places, and I am happy to have their fruits when they are available.)

If I sell Sharon a bushel of, say, loofa (if I can get the dang fruit to grow nearly as well as the vine), and it keeps that “Brad’s Garden” identifier right to the sale to the customer, so the customer can call and complain to me or identify me to the county health or doctor or whoever needs problems reported to – that satisfies, and should set that bushel aside from, public health concerns. Because at that point, the exposure isn’t “the public” to “the product” – it is “my community” exposed to “Brad’s Garden”. And that is a personal, entirely different kind of relationship.

Just one for-instance. Try suing Brad’s Garden for $10. I go out of business. And anything I might have been growing is lost to the community. If I should be shut down, then everyone (but me) wins. Should someone think twice about cost to the community, before suing? I think so. Especially if any problem could be corrected in person.

This kind of approach would pose a problem for a roadside stand or grocer that wants to lump the last of apples from Brad’s Garden with the apples from two neighbors into a remnants bin. Maybe.

Agriculture Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan today launched a new USDA website for the ‘Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food’ initiative to continue the national conversation about developing local and regional food systems and finding ways to support small and mid-sized farms.

. . .

The ‘Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food’ initiative includes such major agricultural topics as supporting local farmers and community food groups; strengthening rural communities; enhancing direct marketing and farmers’ promotion programs; promoting healthy eating; protecting natural resources; and helping schools connect with locally grown foods. USDA also began a pilot program aimed at improving the health and wellness of federal employees by serving local, nutritious food at USDA cafeterias.

Of course, localization and encouraging small and medium sized farms seems to contradict the effort captured by the house-passed H.R. 2749 Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009. According to the Congressional Research Service (part of the Library of Congress), as reported on GovTrac.us:

6/8/2009–Introduced.
Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009 – Amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to set forth provisions governing food safety. Requires each food facility to: (1) conduct a hazard analysis; (2) implement preventive controls; and (3) implement a food safety plan. Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to: (1) issue science-based performance standards to minimize the hazards from foodborne contaminants; (2) establish science-based standards for raw agricultural commodities; (3) inspect facilities at a frequency determined pursuant to a risk-based schedule; (4) establish a food tracing system; (5) assess fees relating to food facility reinspection and food recall; and (6) establish a program for accreditation of laboratories that perform analytical testing of food for import or export. Authorizes the Secretary to: (1) order an immediate cessation of distribution, or a recall, of food; (2) establish an importer verification program; and (3) quarantine food in any geographic area within the United States. Defines the term “color additive” to include carbon monoxide that may affect the color of fresh meat, poultry products, or seafood. Requires country of origin labeling on food and annual registration of importers. Provides for unique identifiers for food facilities and food importers. Deems a food to be adulterated if an inspection is delayed or refused. Requires the Secretary to establish a corps of inspectors dedicated to inspections of foreign food facilities. Sets forth provisions governing the reorganization of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) field laboratories and district offices. Gives the Commissioner of Food and Drugs subpoena authority with respect to a food proceeding. Establishes whistleblower protections.

The scary part of this is the immense penalties – suitable for someone contaminating food for hundreds of millions of people – on someone with a backyard garden, selling at a roadside stand or farmers market, or a retailer that sells food or something that might go into food – animal or people food – that isn’t regulated as a restaurant. Or that hauls food. Note the required and surprise warrantless inspections, required certifications (and associated testing), record keeping. All things that seem intended to run everyone but Monsanto’s ten biggest customers out of food production. And surprise, Monsanto had a hand in drafting the bill.

Not that I am bitter.

The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions has been considering this bill since August 3, 2009, after the House passed it July 30, 2009.

And, yes, I did email Senator Harkins (D-IA), committee chair, about exempting local producers and local produce distributors.

Wired.com reports that many forests are suffering, in the Western US. The extended droughts have stressed trees, and the warm, dry temps (and decline of beetle predators) have encouraged proliveration of dark beetles and other pests and threats to trees.

Proposal: Create micro-forest homesteads. Stipulate that tree population must be maintained, average tree maturity must be maintained, homesteader must reside on the homestead for 10 years to take legal possession – and may *never* allow the tree population nor tree average maturity to decline, or the property reverts to public lands, and the homesteader is guilty of trespass and malicious mischief, and defrauding the US Government.

Sustainable forest as a means of making a living is achievable. One example in Oregon is now in the third generation of the same family, with no decline in the health of the forest. People needing a dependable livelihood can use a low-maintenance, minimum impact pair of oxen or horses for micro-logging efforts – retrieving specific hardwoods that threaten overcrowding, infested trees, and maintaining and replanting the property. Focus on minimum forest impact instead of “efficient” dozer roads and truck roads.

Suggestion 2: Urban gardening and cropping.
Goal: Improve agricultural utilization and food production with reduced transportation cost.
Problem: Increases in food prices, increasing threats to national production of food.

Urban gardens, similar to the WWII “Victory Gardens”, can utilize vacant lots, some of the building roofs that are starting to appear in various cities as ways to reduce heat concentrations, window boxes and patios are all potential garden spots. From raising a few herbs for garnish, to complete food sources for vegetarian diets and low cost protein and vegetable supplements, most people can be encouraged to learn about and practice gardening and small scale crops.

The USDA, rather than it’s historical support for chemical and machinery companies, can best serve America by focusing on increasing the amount of food available to consumers, rather than managing grain markets.

Suggestion 3: Local food sources
Goal: Reduce cost of transportation of foodstuffs
Problem: Relying on single regions of the nation for producing a Nation’s worth of food imposes an enormous burden on food prices, for transportation.

1) Create a shelf-label system for selling food products, to show the distance from producer to the shelf for each brand and type of canned and prepared and fresh food. Make consumers aware that their hamburger was produced 450 miles away, that this broccoli was sent from 1500 miles away, and that pumpkin was grown 4 miles from the store.

2) Establish a voluntary Farmers Market label, for “local” being within 15 miles, “regional” within 50 miles, and “national” greater than 50 miles from the market. Encourage consumers to look for these labels, and Farmers Market operators and vendors to use them for each batch of produce.

3) Encourage restaurants to label “local” and “Regional” preparations.

Suggestion 4) Drop NAIS
Goal: Save money, increase food production.
Problem: NAIS imposes costs, invades provacy, and appears likely to provoke black markets and scofflaws, abuse of office and scapegoat prosecutions. All without benefiting livestock industries or public health.

The National Animal Identification System appears to be a warm, fuzzy, “let’s keep everyone safe” kind of program. The reality is that permanently marking livestock is nearly impossible – just check the Racing industry to find how often a mature identification system can break down. Now imagine tracking wildlife that mingles from one group of livestock to another.

A greater threat to the nation’s health is unregulated people, entering and leaving the US without review of vaccination and health history.

The burden of NAIS regulations will force many small owners out of the business – or force them to conceal their activities. Black market food and reduced production both will raise food prices and diminish supplies.

Surely there are better uses for the people and money and effort NAIS would cost.