California Food and Farming Policy Update

In This Issue:

• Food Safety
• Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)
• Farm to School
• Industrial Hemp

**************************************

Food Safety

Three food safety bills introduced by Senator Dean Florez (D-Shafter) were held in the Assembly Agriculture Committee without a hearing on June 27. Florez introduced SB 200, 201 and 202 in the wake of the e. coli discovery in leafy greens last fall. He chose to keep the bills in the Ag Committee when it became clear the bills would not pass. Because this is the first year of a two-year legislative session, the bills may be heard anytime next year by the committee.

CAFF opposed SB 201, which would have required growers to conduct extensive tests on their soil, water and leafy green vegetables and document a number of activities on their farms. CAFF took an "oppose unless amended" position on SB 200 and 202. SB 200 conferred very broad recall and quarantine authority on the Department of Public Health and required vegetable growers to be licensed by the state, while SB 202 required growers, processors and handlers of leafy greens to establish a traceback system.

CAFF’s concerns with the bills were numerous. The bills’ regulatory structure focused almost exclusively on growers of leafy green vegetables, even though farmers have little or no control over off-farm sources of e. coli. Like the voluntary Good Agricultural Practices (GAP), the bills tried to address all possible on-farm sources of bacteria contamination instead of focusing on the most likely sources. And the costs of compliance with the regulatory scheme would have placed disproportionate burdens on small family farmers.

With the Florez bills dead for the year, the voluntary GAP metric will be the main guidelines for leafy green growers, although there also are concerns about grocery retailers and distributors unilaterally imposing requirements on contracted growers that go beyond the GAP metric and can have significant economic and environmental impacts on farmers and their land. CAFF has hired a Family Farm Food Safety Coordinator to ensure it remains actively involved in all aspects of this important issue.

Back to top!

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)

The Assembly Agriculture Committee was a graveyard in 2007 for other bills as well, most notably AB 541 (Huffman). Last year, CAFF and numerous allies turned back the agricultural biotech industry’s attempt to pre-empt local citizens from regulating the use of GMOs in their counties (again a bill by Senator Florez). This year a coalition of environmental, faith and sustainable agriculture organizations, including CAFF, sponsored AB 541, which would have done several things:

• Shield innocent farmers from liability for unknowingly possessing a patented GMO that has contaminated his or her crop.
• Impose liability for crop contamination on the manufacturer of the GMO.
• Require users of GMOs to notify their county agricultural commissioner before planting.
• Limit the use of pharmaceutical GMOs in food and feed crops to indoor plantings.

Despite broad support, including one of the largest rice millers on the west coast, AB 541 faced vigorous opposition from the biotech industry, the California Farm Bureau and other conventional farm organizations. As a result the bill did not have the votes to move out of Assembly Agriculture Committee. CAFF and other sponsors will work with Assemblyman Huffman and the bill’s opponents in the fall to search for issues on which agreement can be reached. The bill must pass the committee and the full Assembly by the end of January 2008.

Back to top!

Farm to School

For the second year, the Assembly Appropriations Committee has refused to pass a bill to establish a statewide Farm to School program that would assist school districts and local farmers in establishing farm to school programs in local schools. Despite the popularity of Farm to School as a concept, the bill appears to be burdened with the misconception that it duplicates the Governor’s Fresh Start program.

Fresh Start increases the per meal reimbursement by ten cents for schools that increase their servings of fruits and vegetables. The program, however, is limited only to the federal school breakfast program and requires annual cash infusions to continue. A statewide Farm to School program, by contrast, would provide “seed funding” to schools to establish a program that would work with local farmers to increase the availability of fresh fruits and vegetables in school lunches as well as breakfasts. It depends on one- time grants to schools, not ongoing meal subsidies.

Farm to School supporters plan to brief the Appropriations Committee staff on the biblical parable of the difference between giving someone a fish and teaching them to fish.

Back to top!

Industrial Hemp

On a brighter note, Assemblyman Mark Leno has successfully steered his AB 684 through difficult committees in both houses and is poised to put an industrial hemp bill on the Governor’s desk again in 2007. Like last year’s bill, which the Governor vetoed, AB 684 clarifies the legal distinction between industrial hemp and marijuana, thereby allowing California farmers to grow the multi-purpose crop. The bill is supported by a large number of sustainable agriculture organizations and businesses that sell or manufacture hemp products, as well as the Imperial County Farm Bureau.

Back to top!

CAFF members, your voice makes a difference! Write your local legislators and let them know what you think about the bills you read about in the California Food & Farming Policy Update. You can find your Assemblymember and Senator and their contact information atwww.assembly.ca.gov and www.sen.ca.gov