Farm Bureau Policies 2022
No. 113 Quality Inspection Programs
point of, andprior to, that party’s possessionof the food; andwhich parties were involved in each such step; subject to inspection by any subsequent party in that chain, including the government; (5) Food created through synthetic food production adhering to antibiotic regulation, as is required in livestockproduction; and (6)The regulatorybodywithprimary jurisdictionover foods cre- atedthroughsynthetic foodproductionbeingdesignatedasUSDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) or in the event that a government reorganizationoccurswith respect to food safety, the applicable food safety agency within the USDA. We acknowledge that FDAmay play a role in determining the safety of these prod- ucts, but the day-to-day primary regulation and oversight for the products should reside withUSDA. (2020). No. 116 Labeling of Agricultural Products We support: (1) Legislationrequiringcountry-of-origin labelingon imported agricultural products at the final point of sale to the consumer. The country of origin should be clearly stated and large enough to be easily identified on blended and nonblended products, with the exception of theminor ingredients in those products. (a)Onlymeat fromanimals that are born, raisedandprocessed in the U.S. are eligible for the U.S. country-of-origin label. (b) All imported animals that could be used for human con- sumption shouldbepermanently identified regarding their coun- try of origin prior to or upon entry into the United States. (2) One hundred percent of a fresh or processed product that is labeled “California-grown” must be grown in California. This applies to the main commodity being sold, not minor in- gredients, additives, or preservatives included with the fresh or processed product. (a) ACalifornia-grown label for voluntaryusebyCaliforniapro- ducers. Wines derived from grapes labeled as American or U.S.A. appellationsmust contain 100%U.S. grapes. (3) Regulations to prohibit product made according to propri- etary formulas that includeabaseof grapewinewithadditives such as spices, fruit juices, sugar andwater (formula wines) frombeing allowed to feature varietal names on their labels. We object to the prominentdisplayof varietal, semi-genericorgeographicnameson ‘formulawine’productsbecausetheyaremisleadingtotheconsum- er and threaten the integrity of U.S. varietal standards. (Rev. 2020). No. 117 Labeling of Synthetic Food Products We do not object to new food products entering the market; however, manufacturers of foods created through synthetic food production and others involved in the foods’ supply chain should be allowed to label such foods with any available name; provided that no reference ismade in that name or any advertising descrip- tion to any food which is being simulated, and no advertisement description is used to imply traditional food origins. We support: (1) Requiring the product label to clearly disclose if any food product created throughsynthetic foodproduction is commingled with meat or plant products not produced that way, including at what percentage and separate from any name or advertising de- scription of the package; and (2) Requiring all food products sold for consumption by hu- mans or animals which are created through synthetic food pro- duction to display a conspicuous label (separate from any name or advertising description of the package) and at point-of-sale that thoroughly describes the process employed to create such foods. Such a label should cover all steps used to create the food until its point of final consumption. We oppose: (1) The use of commonly known and industry recognized “meat,” “dairy products” and “plant” terms in the name and ad- vertisement of all foods created throughsynthetic foodproduction; (2) Theuseof commonlyusednomenclatureor specific “meat” terms such as beef, chicken, pork, turkey, lamb, veal and fish or specific cuts ofmeat suchas roast, steak, ground, breast, chop, filet, etc. on theadvertisingportionof theproduct label of a foodcreated through synthetic food production; (3) Theuseof commonlyusednomenclatureor specific “plant” terms inproduct advertisement suchas fruit, vegetable, nut,mush- room, grain, corn, wheat, barley, sorghum, plant, grass, stalk, or specific plant varieties on the advertising portion of the product label of a food created through synthetic food production; (4) Theuse of commonlyusednomenclature or specific “dairy” terms inproduct advertisement such asmilk, cheese, yogurt, sour cream, kefir, cottage cheese, whey protein, or specific dairy variet- ies on the advertisingportionof theproduct label of a food created through synthetic food production; (5)Theuseof environmental, healthandother claims, including in advertising and product labeling, about foods created through
synthetic food production in the marketing of the product that is not verified by USDA as a regulatory agency and based on sound science. (2020). No. 118 Animal Traceability Wefavor thecontinueduseof legallyrecognizedtraditionalmeth- odsofpermanent identificationof livestockfor individualownership. Anynational animal identificationsystemshouldbe implement- edonaspecies-by-speciesbasisasananimalhealthneedisdemon- strated. Existing systems already providing for premises identifica- tion and animal movement tracking should be used to the extent feasible tomeet theneedsof anational animal identificationsystem. Any newmethod of livestock identification should be consid- ered only if it is proven equally practical and effective as current methods and is a legally recognized formof proof of ownership in all states having livestock brand law. We support theestablishment and implementationof anational animal identificationsystemcapableofprovidingsupport foranimal disease control and eradication, aswell as enhancing food safety. A cost-effective national systemof livestock identification, with adequate cost share among government, industry andproducers, should be implemented and administered by USDA. Any such programmust protect producers from liability for acts of others after livestock leaves the producers’ hands, including nuisance suits naming everyone who handled particular livestock. We support the following guidelines for a livestock identifica- tion program: (1) The program be as simple and inexpensive as possible for producers to implement; (2)Cost sharing support fromthe federal government especially for development and implementation; (3) Producer informationshall be confidential andexempt from disclosure under the Freedomof Information Act (FOIA); (4) Information shall bemade available only to the proper ani- mal health authorities in the event of an animal disease incident. Any unauthorized use inconsistent with the FOIA shall constitute a felony; (5) The identificationof animalswill not be requireduntilmove- ment from the original registered premises; and (6) All imported animals should be permanently identified re- garding their country of origin upon entry into the United States. The program should ensure the security of producer information and respect theprivacyof producers byonly collectingdataneces- sary to establish a trace-back system. We support the development of uniform standards for elec- tronic identification. We support thedevelopment andadoptionof livestock identifi- cation technology that will enhance the implementation of value- basedmarketing. (Rev. 2011) No. 119 Animal Care We do not condone themistreatment of animals. Animals that become permanently incapacitated should be euthanized without delay, disposed of properly, and not used for human consumption. TheCaliforniaDepartment of FoodandAgriculture is theproper state agency to provide assistance to commodity organizations in sponsoring producer-directed informational materials and pro- grams relating to optimal and sound animal care. As animal welfare issues gain a higher profile, we recognize the critical need for a coordinated response to animal-welfare is- sues among agricultural/livestock organizations inCalifornia.We should be engaged in the process and assume a leadership role where appropriate. Regulations shouldnot unduly restrict the right of farmers, dis- tributors, or retailers to hold and sell animals alive. Likewise, the right of individuals to purchase live animals to prepare for food consistent with their personal or cultural beliefs should not be restricted beyond reasonable safeguards relating to the health of the species statewide, humane handling, transportation and processing of animals, and ensuring food safety. We support: (1) Management practices for the humane care of livestock and poultry as developed through scientific research, industry- testedpractices, or as set forth in theAnimal Care Series: Beef Care Practices, Dairy Care Practices, Goat Care Practices, Sheep Care Practices, SwineCarePractices, TurkeyCarePractices, BroilerCare Practices, and Egg-type Layer Flock Care Practices, produced by theUniversityof CaliforniaCooperativeExtension. Thesepractices should be used as guidelines; (2) An aggressive, comprehensive, educational program that presents facts of animal andpoultry production to themedia, pro- ducers, allied service industries, the general public and school children; and
We support efforts to assure compliance with minimum legal standards of maturity, quality, packaging and labeling for fruit, nuts, vegetables andhoney.Webelieve that these standardsbenefit consumers by assuringhighquality, wholesomeproducts and that these benefits should be reflected in State General Fund support for inspection activities. Where individual commodity groupsdetermine that it is in their best interest to supplement state funds, or develop self-financed inspection programs, we support these efforts. CFBF shouldbeactively engaged in thedevelopment ofmarket- ing orders and agreements to deal with food safety and industry guidance standards. We understand that the final decision to ap- prove suchanorderwill restwithaffectedproducers. FarmBureau should be involved in the structuring and educating process and the CFBF board should have the option to take a position on the proposed order or agreement. We support theproductionandsaleof fresh juicesprovided they are produced and processed under a voluntary Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point-based program. (Rev. 2005) No. 114 Consumer Education We strongly support the development and use of consumer educationprograms to raise awareness of the consumer’s respon- sibility as it relates to issues suchas foodsafety, pesticideuse, water quality and other environmental issues. We support an innovative consumer education campaign re- garding California agriculture and the challenges it faces in the current business and regulatory environment. This campaignshouldnot be limited to traditional communica- tionstrategiesbut should incorporateall available communication technologies and strategies. CFBF shouldengagediverse groups of consumers and shouldpartnerwithawide range of organizations with links to consumers. (2009) No. 115 Synthetic Food Production (SFP) We acknowledge that processes to synthesize production of food through the use of complex scientific technology (such as by means of lab-grown protein) will likely continue to develop and yieldproducts that are introduced into themarketplace. Given the manyunknowns surrounding their reliability as a safe food source, we believe that science has an important role to properly evaluate these products for any potential adverse health consequences to humans and animals. We believe that the USDA should oversee this role. It is recommended that: (a) The regulation of SFP not lead to additional regulations for producers of agricultural products or commodities that do not partake in these synthetic processes. (b) The processes by which they are created must have an all- encompassing name towhich they allmay be referred. This name must be a term that takes into account not only synthetic animal products but also synthetic plant products that seek to replicate those produced by plant agriculture. Therefore, for use throughout our policies, we support defining this termas “Synthetic food production” so that it means the por- tion of any food production process inwhich: (1) Food is cultured or grown from cells derived from or syn- thesizing an edible animal (such as meat, seafood, or poultry), eggs, the edible part of a plant, or the edible reproductive body of a plant (such as a fruit, nut, vegetable, grain, or fungus) through the use of technology in a controlled scientific setting (including a laboratory or factory); or (2) Food is createdat least inpart by foodsdescribed in theprevi- ous paragraph (1). We support: (1) Mandatory, thorough, and routine in-depth scientific stud- ies, testing, andmonitoringof foods created throughsynthetic food production to ensure that they are safe; (2) Rules and regulations that guide and oversee the process of scientific studies, testing, andmonitoringof foods created through synthetic foodproductionincludingbothcreationanddistribution. The level of complexity and frequency of requiredparticipationby government and members of the supply chain be as stringent as thatwhichhas beenhistorically imposedon the food safetyof both naturally grownmeat, poultry, egg, seafood, and juiceproduction; (3) That synthetic food production should be afforded no ad- ditional regulatory or administrative benefits over other naturally grown meat, poultry, dairy, egg, seafood, and juice production. We support rules and regulations on synthetic productionof food; (4) Requiring each party in the supply chain of food created through synthetic food production tomaintain documentation of both how that food was made at each step of its production at the
January 26, 2022 Ag Alert 15
Powered by FlippingBook