Page 85 - Summer2015

and farmers markets, through community sup- WHO DECIDES OUR LAWS? Documents
ported agriculture (CSA) programs, and “any While trying to influence laws and regula-
other such direct sales platform” FDA identifies. tions at the federal level is difficult, it pales in leaked
Note that this was in addition to the exemp- comparison to the fights in international forums. earlier this year
tion created in the Tester-Hagan amendment The grassroots has no meaningful access to deci- show that the
from the new HARPC requirements for small, sionmaking in these forums, creating the perfect
direct-marketing producers; that exemption is opportunity for large multinational companies to secretive
both narrower and broader than the retail food write the rules to suit themselves. TPP trade
establishment one, since it only covers those with This fact was displayed yet again in May agreement
sales of less than half a million dollars annually, when the World Trade Organization (WTO) is-
but includes sales to local restaurants and retail- sued its latest decision: labels that tell Americans would
ers within the umbrella of “direct sales.” what country our food comes from is a “trade dramatically
The Tester-Hagan language clarifying the barrier.” This ruling leaves the U.S. vulnerable expand the
definition of retail food establishments addressed to trade sanctions and penalties if it continues to
all food businesses. But when FDA proposed enforce its domestic law for Country of Origin power of
regulations on facility registration this spring, Labeling (COOL). Similar claims have been re- corporations
it limited this provision to just those businesses jected in the U.S. courts, but the WTO was not to use
that are located on farms. This would leave many bound by those rulings.
direct marketing artisan food producers within COOL was a significant victory for Ameri- closed-door
the definition of “facility” and subject to exten- can farmers and consumers in the 2008 Farm international
sive regulation. Bill, and the vast majority of Americans support courts to
The FDA further limited the scope of the it. Yet, bowing to the demands of the WTO, the
amendment by restricting roadside stands and U.S. House Agriculture Committee swiftly voted challenge our
farmers markets to farmers only. While the ma- to get rid of COOL in June. (We are hopeful that domestic
jority of the vendors at a market should be farm- we can fight it in the Senate, so our work is not laws.
ers for it to be classified as a “farmers market,” over yet.)
artisan food providers have an important role in The continuing assault on common-sense
these markets. There are very few farmers mar- U.S. food labels is just another example of how
kets in the country that have only farmers, and corporate-controlled trade policy threatens to
limiting the definition in this way significantly undermine basic protections for Americans.
undermines the scope of the exemption. And if the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is
In addition, for those businesses that must approved, there could be more of these kinds of
register, the proposed rule requires electronic international challenges to our democratically
registration and a contact email address. The enacted laws.
proposed rule also requires that every food Documents leaked earlier this year show
business also register with Dun & Bradstreet’s that the secretive TPP trade agreement would
system to get a universal number, which is then dramatically expand the power of corporations
also filed with the FDA. These new requirements to use closed-door international courts to chal-
will burden small food businesses whose owners lenge our domestic laws. Specifically, the docu-
do not have convenient Internet access or use ments confirm reports that the TPP, as currently
email regularly, whether for religious or practical drafted, includes the infamous "investor-state
reasons. dispute settlement" system (ISDS). This system
The Weston A. Price Foundation sent out a gives multinational companies the right to sue
public action alert to encourage individuals to governments, and therefore taxpayers, in interna-
submit comments to FDA on this issue, and is tional courts. This goes even further than many
also submitting its own comments as an organi- of the current trade agreements, in which only
zation. As with the rest of the proposed FSMA sovereign nations are allowed to bring claims to
rules at this moment, we now wait to see how international tribunals.
FDA responds. Under the ISDS, the companies can claim
loss of "expected future profit," and the inter-
Wise Traditions SUMMER 2015 Wise Traditions 85

154242_V16N2_text.indd 85 6/25/15 3:55 PM