Florez's Antibiotic Bill Up For Hearing Wednesday Before Assembly Ag Committee
Sen. Dean Florez's (D-Shafter) latest attempt to limit the use of antibiotics in animal agriculture. will be heard Wednesday before the Assembly Agriculture Committee.
Florez has turned to a tried and true tactic known as "gut and amend" whereby he took an existing bill, SB 562 that dealt with the citrus industry, and amended it so that it now mandates a warning on the label of any animal product derived from an animal that was administered a non-therapeutic dosage of an antibiotic. Many legislative observers believe that this new attempt at antibiotic labeling faces a rough road ahead as federal labeling laws preempt any attempts by state governments to label products.
The Assembly Ag Committee hearing begins at 1:30 p.m. on Wednesday, July 1 in Room 126 of the Capitol. Link
Sen. Dean Florez is still trying to limit the ability of animal agriculture to keep their livestock healthy in California. Antibiotics are a great tool that is used to ensure our livestock don’t suffer needlessly through a preventable disease. Remember the saying that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure? Apparently Florez would rather see us use the pound of cure. Seems like a strange way to reduce antibiotic use.
Showing posts with label Dean Florez. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dean Florez. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Florez Proposal Bad for Ag and Consumers
Fresh produce industry opposes California senator’s threat to cut California agriculture department
Published on 06/29/2009 11:59am By Don Schrack
In the wake of a June 16 Senate Food and Agriculture hearing — chaired by California state senator Dean Florez — the list of grower-shippers displeased with the senator appears to be growing. The hearing focused on the senator’s proposal to consolidate or eliminate the California Department of Food and Agriculture.
“It would make absolutely no sense to destroy the agency that oversees diseases — everything from cow pox to anthrax, from the West Nile virus to some of the most dangerous pests that can destroy agriculture and our landscape,” said Manuel Cunha, president of the Fresno-based Nisei Farmers League. “Who does he represent? What constituency?”
The proposal is designed to provide a more streamlined, more efficient government entity, Florez said, and to reduce the cost of the department for taxpayers. His proposal includes — among other things — moving oversight of fertilizer, chemical and pest control to the Department of Pesticide Regulation, giving the tasks of health and animal inspection to other agencies and eliminating the department’s marketing efforts by converting to private, non-profit corporations the state’s roughly four dozen marketing commissions.
“By breaking up CDFA, it certainly doesn’t look as if it would increase efficiencies,” said Barry Bedwell, president of the California Grape & Tree Fruit League, Fresno. “You’d probably be going the other direction, and I doubt it would save money.”
California taxpayers foot the bill for less than 30% of the agency’s budget, said Mike Jarvis, the department’s deputy secretary of public affairs. State tax dollars in the agency’s budget amount to $3.67 for each California resident, he said, but combined grower fees and federal funds in the budget make up more than $15 per resident.
”The problem is there’s an assumption that if you just move things, it’s going to be cheaper, and it doesn’t work that way,” Jarvis said. Read More
It’s interesting that many times politicians feel that departments of agriculture are expendable. They apparently think they will appear to be some sort of fiscal hero by eliminating an entire department. However, to me it is a sign of complete ignorance as to the importance of our food supply. Anyone who is willing to risk the safety and dependability of our country’s food supply should first go hungry and naked for a few days to see how they like it.
Published on 06/29/2009 11:59am By Don Schrack
In the wake of a June 16 Senate Food and Agriculture hearing — chaired by California state senator Dean Florez — the list of grower-shippers displeased with the senator appears to be growing. The hearing focused on the senator’s proposal to consolidate or eliminate the California Department of Food and Agriculture.
“It would make absolutely no sense to destroy the agency that oversees diseases — everything from cow pox to anthrax, from the West Nile virus to some of the most dangerous pests that can destroy agriculture and our landscape,” said Manuel Cunha, president of the Fresno-based Nisei Farmers League. “Who does he represent? What constituency?”
The proposal is designed to provide a more streamlined, more efficient government entity, Florez said, and to reduce the cost of the department for taxpayers. His proposal includes — among other things — moving oversight of fertilizer, chemical and pest control to the Department of Pesticide Regulation, giving the tasks of health and animal inspection to other agencies and eliminating the department’s marketing efforts by converting to private, non-profit corporations the state’s roughly four dozen marketing commissions.
“By breaking up CDFA, it certainly doesn’t look as if it would increase efficiencies,” said Barry Bedwell, president of the California Grape & Tree Fruit League, Fresno. “You’d probably be going the other direction, and I doubt it would save money.”
California taxpayers foot the bill for less than 30% of the agency’s budget, said Mike Jarvis, the department’s deputy secretary of public affairs. State tax dollars in the agency’s budget amount to $3.67 for each California resident, he said, but combined grower fees and federal funds in the budget make up more than $15 per resident.
”The problem is there’s an assumption that if you just move things, it’s going to be cheaper, and it doesn’t work that way,” Jarvis said. Read More
It’s interesting that many times politicians feel that departments of agriculture are expendable. They apparently think they will appear to be some sort of fiscal hero by eliminating an entire department. However, to me it is a sign of complete ignorance as to the importance of our food supply. Anyone who is willing to risk the safety and dependability of our country’s food supply should first go hungry and naked for a few days to see how they like it.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Florez's Antibiotic Bill Rejected
June 4, 2009
Food-safety bill stalls in Senate
By JAKE HENSHA
Wjhenshaw@gannett.com
SACRAMENTO A food-safety campaign to tighten up the standard for meat served in schools and to give the state new power to recall contaminated food largely stalled Wednesday in the Senate.
Senators rejected Senate Bill 416 by Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter, that would have authorized schools to buy meat and poultry that hadn't been routinely treated with antibiotic drugs.
It also would have required state school officials to collect and report to the Legislature on information from the U.S. Department of Agriculture about the use of antibiotics in meat going to California schools.
Originally, SB 416 would have banned serving meat and poultry in schools that had been routinely treated with antibiotics. Read More
The bill in California that would have required schools to purchase as much meat as possible from livestock that hadn’t been fed antibiotics was defeated. Sen. Florez has introduced a flurry of anti-agriculture bills in the CA Senate since the passage of Proposition 2. All of the bills he has brought forward have been based on emotional feeling rather than rational thought. Bills such as this one would actually decrease our ability to keep livestock healthy. I truly believe the mark of a good elected official is not the one that gets the most bills passed, rather it’s the one the gets the most bills killed.
Food-safety bill stalls in Senate
By JAKE HENSHA
Wjhenshaw@gannett.com
SACRAMENTO A food-safety campaign to tighten up the standard for meat served in schools and to give the state new power to recall contaminated food largely stalled Wednesday in the Senate.
Senators rejected Senate Bill 416 by Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter, that would have authorized schools to buy meat and poultry that hadn't been routinely treated with antibiotic drugs.
It also would have required state school officials to collect and report to the Legislature on information from the U.S. Department of Agriculture about the use of antibiotics in meat going to California schools.
Originally, SB 416 would have banned serving meat and poultry in schools that had been routinely treated with antibiotics. Read More
The bill in California that would have required schools to purchase as much meat as possible from livestock that hadn’t been fed antibiotics was defeated. Sen. Florez has introduced a flurry of anti-agriculture bills in the CA Senate since the passage of Proposition 2. All of the bills he has brought forward have been based on emotional feeling rather than rational thought. Bills such as this one would actually decrease our ability to keep livestock healthy. I truly believe the mark of a good elected official is not the one that gets the most bills passed, rather it’s the one the gets the most bills killed.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
CA's Antibiotic Limiting Bill
Antibiotics bill takes the next step
By Dairy Herd staff Tuesday, June 02, 2009
Legislation that would limit the use of antibiotics by licensed veterinarians to prevent and control disease in animal agriculture was approved last week in California by the Senate Appropriations Committee and now goes to the Senate floor for consideration.
Bill SB416, amended earlier this month by the Senate Education Committee, would require school districts to make every effort to purchase poultry and meat products that have not been treated with non-therapeutic antibiotics.
Any school district that purchases poultry or meat products from treated animals (or doesn’t know the status of the products) would be required to report annually to the Superintendent of Public Instruction the reasons those products were purchased. The bill would require the Superintendent to compile those reports and report to Legislature starting Jan. 1, 2012.
The original bill prohibited schools from serving poultry or meat products from animals that had been treated with antibiotics at any time during the life of the animal.
In addition, this bill would prohibit a person from using antibiotics for non-therapeutic use in any animal raised for the production of any human food product as of Jan. 1, 2015.
State Senator Dean Florez, chairman of the Senate Committee on Food and Agriculture, introduced this legislation.
Western United Dairymen opposes the bill, along with the Alliance of Western Milk Producers, California Dairies Inc., California Farm Bureau Federation, California Poultry Federation, California School Nutrition Association, and the California Teamsters.
Read the entire bill SB416. Article Link
I would argue that the levels of antibiotics used in animal feed currently are therapeutic. After all, the levels used are helping prevent the possibility of an animal catching a disease. There is also plenty of evidence to suggest that a ban on the current practice of using feed-based antibiotics will actually increase the usage. In addition to this, the cost for these meat products will also increase. The only message that can be heard from legislation like this is that the state of California no longer welcomes animal agriculture because sound science doesn’t agree. Judging by the state of their budget, increasing costs based on emotional thinking is the last thing they need.
By Dairy Herd staff Tuesday, June 02, 2009
Legislation that would limit the use of antibiotics by licensed veterinarians to prevent and control disease in animal agriculture was approved last week in California by the Senate Appropriations Committee and now goes to the Senate floor for consideration.
Bill SB416, amended earlier this month by the Senate Education Committee, would require school districts to make every effort to purchase poultry and meat products that have not been treated with non-therapeutic antibiotics.
Any school district that purchases poultry or meat products from treated animals (or doesn’t know the status of the products) would be required to report annually to the Superintendent of Public Instruction the reasons those products were purchased. The bill would require the Superintendent to compile those reports and report to Legislature starting Jan. 1, 2012.
The original bill prohibited schools from serving poultry or meat products from animals that had been treated with antibiotics at any time during the life of the animal.
In addition, this bill would prohibit a person from using antibiotics for non-therapeutic use in any animal raised for the production of any human food product as of Jan. 1, 2015.
State Senator Dean Florez, chairman of the Senate Committee on Food and Agriculture, introduced this legislation.
Western United Dairymen opposes the bill, along with the Alliance of Western Milk Producers, California Dairies Inc., California Farm Bureau Federation, California Poultry Federation, California School Nutrition Association, and the California Teamsters.
Read the entire bill SB416. Article Link
I would argue that the levels of antibiotics used in animal feed currently are therapeutic. After all, the levels used are helping prevent the possibility of an animal catching a disease. There is also plenty of evidence to suggest that a ban on the current practice of using feed-based antibiotics will actually increase the usage. In addition to this, the cost for these meat products will also increase. The only message that can be heard from legislation like this is that the state of California no longer welcomes animal agriculture because sound science doesn’t agree. Judging by the state of their budget, increasing costs based on emotional thinking is the last thing they need.
Monday, May 4, 2009
CA's Food & Ag Cmte
New Senate Food and Ag Committee not following the herd
By Malcolm Maclachlan 05/04/09 12:00 AM PST
One of the first things you'll see upon entering the office of Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter, is a big stack of books by authors such as Michael Pollan, the Berkeley writer known for his opposition to large-scale agribusiness. Along the far wall is a poster for Proposition 2, the 2008 Farm Animal Protection Act.
"It looks a little different that most Ag committee chair's libraries," Florez said. He chuckled, then added, "I think the Ag industry comes in and looks at this and goes, ‘Oh.'"
They're also saying similar things about the bills coming out of his committee, Florez said. In January, he and Senate Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, held a press conference announcing that Florez was taking over the committee and adding the word "Food" to its name.
This signaled a new direction for a committee that, according to many, has traditionally represented the interests of the agriculture industry. The committee held a hearing last week and passed out three Florez bills opposed by agribusiness groups. His SB 135 would ban the practice of cutting off cow's tails, while his SB 416 would bar antibiotics from meat served in school lunches. SB 173 imposes stricter responsibilities around food-borne pathogens. Florez is also carrying bills that would restrict agricultural crop burning and impose new requirements for food safety.
Jennifer Fearing, a lobbyist for the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and one of the chief strategists behind last year's Prop. 2, said this was a big part of the reason for the revamping of the committee. She and her boss, HSUS president Wayne Pacelle, sat down with Florez in December to talk strategy.
"Twenty years of attempting to pass modest reforms on animal welfare have gotten us nowhere," Fearing said. "Does it really have to be this way? We posed that question to Senator Florez as someone who had really supported Prop. 2." Read More
This new Food and Ag Committee in the California Senate appears to have been the brainchild of the Humane Society of the US. Their meeting with Dean Florez is apparently where this new committee was born. Between that and Florez’s agreement with Michael Pollan on food production ideas, California agriculture is in trouble. So far, many of the bills that are coming out of this committee have been detrimental to not only our ability to produce food, but also have been detrimental to animal welfare. These are feel good ideas that will not fill anyone’s stomach.
By Malcolm Maclachlan 05/04/09 12:00 AM PST
One of the first things you'll see upon entering the office of Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter, is a big stack of books by authors such as Michael Pollan, the Berkeley writer known for his opposition to large-scale agribusiness. Along the far wall is a poster for Proposition 2, the 2008 Farm Animal Protection Act.
"It looks a little different that most Ag committee chair's libraries," Florez said. He chuckled, then added, "I think the Ag industry comes in and looks at this and goes, ‘Oh.'"
They're also saying similar things about the bills coming out of his committee, Florez said. In January, he and Senate Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, held a press conference announcing that Florez was taking over the committee and adding the word "Food" to its name.
This signaled a new direction for a committee that, according to many, has traditionally represented the interests of the agriculture industry. The committee held a hearing last week and passed out three Florez bills opposed by agribusiness groups. His SB 135 would ban the practice of cutting off cow's tails, while his SB 416 would bar antibiotics from meat served in school lunches. SB 173 imposes stricter responsibilities around food-borne pathogens. Florez is also carrying bills that would restrict agricultural crop burning and impose new requirements for food safety.
Jennifer Fearing, a lobbyist for the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and one of the chief strategists behind last year's Prop. 2, said this was a big part of the reason for the revamping of the committee. She and her boss, HSUS president Wayne Pacelle, sat down with Florez in December to talk strategy.
"Twenty years of attempting to pass modest reforms on animal welfare have gotten us nowhere," Fearing said. "Does it really have to be this way? We posed that question to Senator Florez as someone who had really supported Prop. 2." Read More
This new Food and Ag Committee in the California Senate appears to have been the brainchild of the Humane Society of the US. Their meeting with Dean Florez is apparently where this new committee was born. Between that and Florez’s agreement with Michael Pollan on food production ideas, California agriculture is in trouble. So far, many of the bills that are coming out of this committee have been detrimental to not only our ability to produce food, but also have been detrimental to animal welfare. These are feel good ideas that will not fill anyone’s stomach.
Friday, April 24, 2009
CA Cmte. Votes on Animal Antibiotics
State Senate committee votes against some animal antibiotics
The California Senate Food and Agriculture Committee passed a bill, by a 3-1 vote, to phase out the use of non-therapeutic antibiotics in animals raised for food.
Senate Bill 416, by Senate Majority Leader Dean Florez (D-Shafter), next goes to the Senate Education Committee.
Florez made school meal programs the initial target of the bill, which would forbid schools from serving meat or poultry treated with non-therapeutic antibiotics after Jan. 1, 2012. By 2015, the ban would apply to all animals raised for human consumption in the state. “We tell people to take antibiotics only as prescribed for the very reason that they not develop resistance to these drugs they may need when they are truly sick,” Florez said in a statement. “Then we feed those same antibiotics daily to the animals they will consume.”
Several food producers and organizations opposed the bill. Among objections are that the provisions reduces the illness prevention tools that farmers or ranchers have and that banning non-therapeutic drugs could lead to an increased use of therapeutic antibiotics. Another Florez bill, which would require food growers and processors to promptly report a positive test for any food-borne illness to the California Department of Public Health, also passed the committee Tuesday. Senate Bill 173 would also give state public health authorities the power of mandatory recall.
So why aren’t animal rights activists up in arms about this? The California Legislature is considering taking away a very successful and proven method of preventing disease in livestock. Preventing disease is always going to be preferable to treating a disease. It’s obvious that the care and comfort of livestock were not considered by this committee. Agriculture was the only one there to speak for the animals yesterday in California.
The California Senate Food and Agriculture Committee passed a bill, by a 3-1 vote, to phase out the use of non-therapeutic antibiotics in animals raised for food.
Senate Bill 416, by Senate Majority Leader Dean Florez (D-Shafter), next goes to the Senate Education Committee.
Florez made school meal programs the initial target of the bill, which would forbid schools from serving meat or poultry treated with non-therapeutic antibiotics after Jan. 1, 2012. By 2015, the ban would apply to all animals raised for human consumption in the state. “We tell people to take antibiotics only as prescribed for the very reason that they not develop resistance to these drugs they may need when they are truly sick,” Florez said in a statement. “Then we feed those same antibiotics daily to the animals they will consume.”
Several food producers and organizations opposed the bill. Among objections are that the provisions reduces the illness prevention tools that farmers or ranchers have and that banning non-therapeutic drugs could lead to an increased use of therapeutic antibiotics. Another Florez bill, which would require food growers and processors to promptly report a positive test for any food-borne illness to the California Department of Public Health, also passed the committee Tuesday. Senate Bill 173 would also give state public health authorities the power of mandatory recall.
So why aren’t animal rights activists up in arms about this? The California Legislature is considering taking away a very successful and proven method of preventing disease in livestock. Preventing disease is always going to be preferable to treating a disease. It’s obvious that the care and comfort of livestock were not considered by this committee. Agriculture was the only one there to speak for the animals yesterday in California.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)