They got state approval to operate their butcher shop today, 7 years in the making.
[Update: see the article on the history of their efforts here, informative even for someone who's followed the blog for a number of years.]
Blogging on bureaucracy, organizations, USDA, agriculture programs, American history, the food movement, and other interests. Often contrarian, usually optimistic, sometimes didactic, occasionally funny, rarely wrong, always a nitpicker.
Friday, October 09, 2015
When Is a Farm a Farm? II
Illinois extension has a post on the FDA definition of a "farm".
To quote: "The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA).... directs the FDA to implement comprehensive, prevention-based controls throughout the food supply chain...." (Think of mad-cow concerns, as well as listeria and similar food-borne diseases.)
Without quoting the whole thing, the issues seem to be two-fold: when a "farm" also includes food preparation, and when a "farm" also includes preparing feed for animals. There's still more regulations to come, particularly on the human food chain. (As in my previous posts on farm constitution, the purpose of the federal program governs the definition of the farm--there is no platonic ideal of a "farm".)
FDA is setting up training: "The three Alliances—Produce Safety Alliance (PSA), Food Safety Preventive Controls Alliance (FSPCA), and Sprout Safety Alliance (SSA) — are developing Train-the-Trainer programs to ensure that lead trainers are familiar with, and prepared to deliver, the curricula and that they understand the requirements of the FSMA rules." (from the FDA site linked to from the ILext post.)
To quote: "The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA).... directs the FDA to implement comprehensive, prevention-based controls throughout the food supply chain...." (Think of mad-cow concerns, as well as listeria and similar food-borne diseases.)
Without quoting the whole thing, the issues seem to be two-fold: when a "farm" also includes food preparation, and when a "farm" also includes preparing feed for animals. There's still more regulations to come, particularly on the human food chain. (As in my previous posts on farm constitution, the purpose of the federal program governs the definition of the farm--there is no platonic ideal of a "farm".)
FDA is setting up training: "The three Alliances—Produce Safety Alliance (PSA), Food Safety Preventive Controls Alliance (FSPCA), and Sprout Safety Alliance (SSA) — are developing Train-the-Trainer programs to ensure that lead trainers are familiar with, and prepared to deliver, the curricula and that they understand the requirements of the FSMA rules." (from the FDA site linked to from the ILext post.)
Al Kamen and the Post
Al Kamen was the Federal Page man for the Washington Post. He's retiring today, but presumably the page continues. Before him the Post had a page devoted to the federal government for a number of years, maybe as long as I've been reading it. (There currently is a separate column on federal employee matters.)
Thursday, October 08, 2015
Mom's on a Roll
First, earlier this year the government said that eggs were good for you, as my now-departed mother had always said.
Now they're in the process of saying that whole milk is also good for you, that the fat doesn't matter.
So the wisdom of my parents in running a dairy-poultry farm has now been vindicated; their products were and are good for you.
Now they're in the process of saying that whole milk is also good for you, that the fat doesn't matter.
So the wisdom of my parents in running a dairy-poultry farm has now been vindicated; their products were and are good for you.
The Importance of Role Models: Carson
" Black medical students are about five times as likely as their
non-black classmates to choose neurological surgery as their specialty."
That's from a Post piece on Dr. Ben Carson
That's from a Post piece on Dr. Ben Carson
Wednesday, October 07, 2015
Farm Constitution Rears Its Ugly Head
The question of what a "farm" seems simple. It's actually complex. From a bureaucratic standpoint it depends on the purpose of the farm program.
Back in the day, Farmers' Home Administration would not talk of a farm, but a farming operation, which as I understand it included all the land, animals and equipment belonging to or operated by the "farmer". Essentially when FmHA made a loan to a "farmer", they wanted to consider everything which could impact the viability of the loan. They didn't care about location.
Soil Conservation Service cared only about location. They worked with the conservation practices on a plot of land, their offices served soil and water conservation districts (usually but not always a county) so what a farmer did in county B was irrelevant to conservation in county A.
ASCS was ambivalent, having to deal with both people and land, both landowners and operators/producers. In the days when disaster programs were uppermost, we wanted to combine land to spread losses and production over the widest area. In the days when production adjustment was foremost, we wanted to divide land, so the operator had the least ability to designate less-productive land as her set-aside/conservation acreage. When programs shifted (as in the early 80's, our rules were often out-of-date.
Apparently today's programs may have impacted FSA's rules on farm constitution. DTN has pieces from Marcia Zarley Taylor and Chris Clayton on the issue. Because some payments under the new farm bill are now determined using county-level data, whether land located in more than one county is administratively consider to be one farm and located in one county can make a difference. The articles point out the possibility of losses (farm is located in county B when county A has a higher payment rate). As usual, they don't point out the possibility of what one might call "windfalls", the farm is located in county A even though much of the land is in the lower rate county B.
Back in the day, Farmers' Home Administration would not talk of a farm, but a farming operation, which as I understand it included all the land, animals and equipment belonging to or operated by the "farmer". Essentially when FmHA made a loan to a "farmer", they wanted to consider everything which could impact the viability of the loan. They didn't care about location.
Soil Conservation Service cared only about location. They worked with the conservation practices on a plot of land, their offices served soil and water conservation districts (usually but not always a county) so what a farmer did in county B was irrelevant to conservation in county A.
ASCS was ambivalent, having to deal with both people and land, both landowners and operators/producers. In the days when disaster programs were uppermost, we wanted to combine land to spread losses and production over the widest area. In the days when production adjustment was foremost, we wanted to divide land, so the operator had the least ability to designate less-productive land as her set-aside/conservation acreage. When programs shifted (as in the early 80's, our rules were often out-of-date.
Apparently today's programs may have impacted FSA's rules on farm constitution. DTN has pieces from Marcia Zarley Taylor and Chris Clayton on the issue. Because some payments under the new farm bill are now determined using county-level data, whether land located in more than one county is administratively consider to be one farm and located in one county can make a difference. The articles point out the possibility of losses (farm is located in county B when county A has a higher payment rate). As usual, they don't point out the possibility of what one might call "windfalls", the farm is located in county A even though much of the land is in the lower rate county B.
The LImits of Progress: Lynching in Brazil
From a Post piece on Brazil:
Every day, according to sociologist José de Souza Martins, at least one person is lynched in Brazil. Since 2011, he’s tallied over 2,500 cases.
Tuesday, October 06, 2015
Dust in the Hen House
Extension has a post on poultry housing options. From personal experience I can testify to the dusty conditions in a hen house (what they categorize as a barn).
As you might expect they've reservations about cage systems. Whether or not they properly weigh the tradeoffs I won't judge, but there are tradeoffs.
Air quality is often poorer in alternative housing systems, and this can affect health and hygiene, which is relevant not only for hen welfare but also for food safety.
The large amount of litter and the greater bird movement in alternative systems result in greater concentrations of bacteria and fungi in the air and in greater dust concentrations compared with conventional and furnished cage systems. Greater dust concentrations have been associated with more serious pulmonary lesions, typical of chronic bronchitis, in cage-free birds (Michel and Huonnic, 2003).
Good for Secret Service
Homeland Security secretary Johnson gave the Secret Service plaudits for getting the pope, the Chinese president, and the heads of state at the UN in and out of the country safely, with no bad press.
It's nice to see big shots recognizing the work people do.
It's nice to see big shots recognizing the work people do.
Monday, October 05, 2015
Historical Errors
Thinkprogress has a piece where a mother who's also a historian challenges a Texas schoolbook used by her child. From the piece:
But there's another error which passes unnoticed: "millions".
From Gilderlehrman:
"A Texas mother spoke out against part of McGraw-Hill’s textbook, “World Geography,” when she noticed that the language erased slavery by calling slaves “workers” and including them in the section “Patterns of Immigration.” One example of the text:The challenge is to "workers" instead of "slaves", a challenge with which I agree.
The Atlantic Slave Trade between the 1500s and 1800s brought millions of workers from Africa to the southern United States to work on agricultural plantations."
But there's another error which passes unnoticed: "millions".
From Gilderlehrman:
Approximately 11,863,000 Africans were shipped across the Atlantic, with a death rate during the Middle Passage reducing this number by 10-20 percent. As a result between 9.6 and 10.8 million Africans arrived in the Americas.
About 500,000 Africans were imported into what is now the U.S. between 1619 and 1807--or about 6 percent of all Africans forcibly imported into the Americas. About 70 percent arrived directly from Africa.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)