To further his plan to make the US an international food safety leader, Taylor wants a pass a "law that includes a mandate and authority to pursue systematic prevention of foodborne disease from the farm to the table through HACCP-based process control or other preventive strategies. The law should make HACCP mandatory for all processing operations, unless exempt"" [35]
In testimony he gave on July 29, 2009, before the Subcommittee of Domestic Policy Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Michael Taylor told those assembled that "the FDA is leading an effort through the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the international food safety standards body, with support of the Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization, to develop commodity-specific annexes to the Codex hygienic code for fresh fruit and vegetable production, starting with an annex for fresh leafy vegetables and herbs. In June 2009, FDA conducted the first Codex international electronic working group with members of the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene (CCFH) to advance the draft Annex for Fresh Leafy Vegetables to the next stage of completion. In November 2009, CCFH will consider how to proceed with the next tier of priority commodities." [36]
What this means is that the Draft Guidance for fresh leafy vegetables recently released for comment by the FDA is already being integrated into Codex guidelines. The FDA is only required to given the public an opportunity to provide comments to the proposed regulations; the public shouldn't be under the impression that its input matters to the FDA or will be incorporated into FDA regulations.
But according to Dr. Sperber, the Codex Alimentariius Commission is not the appropriate international agency to oversee food safety, because Codex doesn't do anything to assure food is safe; rather, Codex issues guidelines used for trade-compliance purposes by the World Trade Organization. Sperber says boots-on-the-ground inspectors are needed and recommends the creation of a new international agency -- a Food Protection Organization -- along the lines of the WHO or FAO that would be responsible for food protection issues.[37]
If it were only so easy: These organizations' missions were hijacked long ago by financial and corporate interests and don't really serve their stated, usually somewhat noble-sounding, purpose. The same multinational corporations that control our federal regulatory agencies likewise own and operate the supranational organizations. While harmonizing US laws with Codex might not improve food safety, Taylor is undoubtedly aware it will do much to advance global governance.
And, with the advancement of global governance, sustainable agriculture, wholesome food and health freedom will go the way of the buffalo and the American Indian.
Don't Get Fooled Again
We might want to stop letting lawyers establish policies that are better made by scientists with actual professional experience and without certain financial entanglements that call their scientific independence into question. As Sperber has observed, one of the barriers to effective food protection is the absence of food industry expertise in top government positions. Instead, those key jobs are filled by lawyers and former lobbyists.[38]
FSEA 2009 is scientifically unsupportable and will not make the food supply any safer.
It's a con job.
Don't fall for it.
And don't let your Senators fall for it, either.
References
[1] A.V. Krebs, The Corporate Reapers: The Book of Agribusiness. Essential Books, Washington DC, 1992, pp 289-299.
[2] Agriculture in an Expanding Economy: A Statement by the Research Committee of the Committee for Economic Development, 1945. Republished by AstroLogos Books, New York. www.AstroLogos.org (Books on Demand)
[3} An Adaptive Program for Agriculture: A Statement on National Policy by the Research and Policy Committee of the Committee for Economic Development. The Committee for Economic Development. July 1962. http://www.normeconomics.org/adaptive.html
