H.R. 2749 – Collectivization by Computer System

On July 30, 2009, H.R. 2749 cited as the ‘Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009’ was passed by the House of Representatives.  It will now go to the Senate.  Despite what the title says about this being about Food Safety, it isn’t about that.  This legislation is a classic example of collectivization by computer system.  It establishes the government management structure and requirements for the supply chain management system for food producers, importers and exporters.   [ Full Text of H.R. 2749 ]


H.R. 2749

“An Act to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to improve

the safety of food in the global market, and for other purposes”.



If you own a farm, you can keep the deed in your name, but it will be under new management and you will become an unpaid employee of the government – induction into government service by the incremental addition of reporting and procedural requirements over a period of several years.  Some people have tried to point to Sec. 5. USDA exemptions to say that farms are excluded but they aren’t.  The exemption reads:


Sec. 5. USDA Exemptions.


(d) Farms – A farm is exempt from the requirements of this Act to the extent such farm raises animals from which food is derived that is regulated under the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Poultry Products Inspection Act, or the Egg Products Inspection Act.


Your food animals are covered under other legislation as indicated above and by the NAIS Animal tracking system whenever the government IT System Architects can slip it into law making it mandatory. But if you grow crops for sale, you are still included in the H.R. 2749 legislation.  


Section 101. Changes in Registration of Food Facilities


(b) Annual Registration

(1)(A) The term ‘facility’ means any factory, warehouse, or establishment (including a factory warehouse, or establishment of an importer) that manufactures, processes, packs, or holds food.


Under Section D, it defines a ‘farm’ as being ‘an operation in one general physical location devoted to the growing and harvesting of crops, the raising of animals (including seafood), or both’.  But you can only be considered a ‘farm’ for these purposes if you don’t sell anything you grow to anybody but a consumer – with consumer being defined a ‘not a business’.    


For the privilege of having the government takeover management of your farm, you will have to pay a $500 annual registration fee – subject to increases every year of course.  Failure to pay will be treated as a claim of the United States Government against your property – presumably meaning, they can attach it.   


This legislation defines some very expensive “science-based” analysis and reporting requirements.  Hazard and Food Safety specify Category 1 Facilities.  Farms may either be a Category 2 or Category 3 depending on whether food is packed and labeled or whether it is just held. 


  • Hazard Analysis
  • Food Safety Plan – including description of recordkeeping procedures, distribution history for tracing, storage procedures, preventative controls, hazard mitigation, etc.


  • Food Defense Plan


There are no category qualifiers on the Food Defense Plan (FDP) so presumably it covers all categories of facilities.  The FDP requires the facility to identify conditions and practices that may permit a hazard that may be intentionally introduced including by an act of terrorism.  This assessment includes evaluating processing security, cyber security, material security, personnel security, storage security, shipping and receiving security, and utility security.  Below, there is a copy of the section that contains the Food Defense Plan requirements.  It's worth reading to see what the government expects from farmers (and the consultants they will have to hire to produce the report and do the electronic submission). 



My favorite section in this legislation is the Access to Records section.  It doesn't appear to apply to farmers - YET but the M.O. of these writers of legislation is that they work it like a puzzle - the frame first and then filling in the pieces section by section.  The chilling part of it is the mandatory remote government access to the computer system of a private business.  Also, as a consumer of processed foods, item (B) is unnerving because you have to know that when they read the report, it will count as an inspection - rodent hairs and filth in the food notwithstanding.  Just be good at the paperwork and you'll slide under the radar if you are a "chosen one" - a member of club - authorized to own a business.  



(a) Records Access- Subsection (a) of section 414 (21 U.S.C. 350c) is amended...




`(A) REMOTE ACCESS IN EMERGENCIES- If the Secretary has a reasonable belief that an article of food presents a threat of serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals, the Secretary may require each person who manufactures, processes, packs, transports, distributes, receives, holds, or imports such article of food, or any article of food that the Secretary determines may be affected in a similar manner, to submit to the Secretary all records reasonably related to such article of soon as is reasonably practicable, after receiving written notice (including by notice served personally and outside normal business hours to an agent identified under subparagraph (E) or (F) of section 415(a)(2)) of such requirement.

`(B) REMOTE ACCESS TO RECORDS RELATED TO FOOD SAFETY PLANS- With respect to a facility subject to section 418 and 418A, the Secretary may require the owner, operator, or agent of such facility to submit to the Secretary, as soon as reasonably practicable after receiving written notice of such requirement, the food safety plan, supporting information relied on by the facility to select the preventive controls to include in its food safety plan, and documentation of corrective actions, if any, taken under section 418(e) within the preceding 2 years

`(C) ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION- If the records required to be submitted to the Secretary under subparagraph (A) or (B) are available in electronic format, such records shall be submitted electronically unless the Secretary specifies otherwise in the notice under such subparagraph.


Now, combine the remote access with the next section 'Traceability of Food' and the picture emerges of a government managed network with full visibility of the supply chain for food.  Specifically, your food facility becomes a link in the government system of control.  It doesn't take a crystal ball to figure out that initially, the remote access and trace will be used only during an emergency but sometime down the road, there will be legislation that will call for an open, always on, link.     

SEC. 107. TRACEABILITY OF FOOD.  [emphasis added]

`(c) Tracing System for Food-

`(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall by regulation establish a tracing system for food that is located in the United States or is for import into the United States.


`(A) TRACING TECHNOLOGIES- Before issuing a proposed regulation under this subsection, the Secretary shall--

`(i) identify technologies and methodologies for tracing the distribution history of a food that are, or may be, used by members of different sectors of the food industry, including technologies and methodologies to enable each person who produces, manufactures, processes, pack, transports, or holds a food to--

`(I) maintain the full pedigree of the origin and previous distribution history of the food;

`(II) link that history with the subsequent distribution of the food;

`(III) establish and maintain a system for tracing the food that is interoperable with the systems established and maintained by other such persons; and

`(IV) use a unique identifier for each facility owned or operated by such person for such purpose, as specified under section 1011; and

`(ii) to the extent practicable, assess--

`(I) the costs and benefits associated with the adoption and use of such technologies;

`(II) the feasibility of such technologies for different sectors of the food industry; and

`(III) whether such technologies are compatible with the requirements of this subsection.

`(B) PUBLIC MEETINGS- Before issuing a proposed regulation under this subsection, the Secretary shall conduct not less than 2 public meetings in diverse geographical areas of the United States to provide persons in different regions an opportunity to provide input and information to the Secretary.

`(C) PILOT PROJECTS- Before issuing a proposed regulation under this subsection, the Secretary shall conduct 1 or more pilot projects in coordination with 1 or more sectors of the food industry to explore and evaluate tracing systems for food. The Secretary shall coordinate with the Secretary of Agriculture in conducting pilot projects with respect to farms under this subsection.

And of course, a "full pedigree" in a food tracing system includes your employees - your payroll records.  But actually, this is not really a new requirement, it's just the incremental implementation of yet another government enterprise system, "The National Human Resource Development (Management) System". 


`(A) IN GENERAL- Taking into account information obtained through information gathering under paragraph (2), the Secretary shall issue regulations establishing a tracing system that enables the Secretary to identify each person who grows, produces, manufactures, processes, packs, transports, holds, or sells such food in as short a timeframe as practicable but no longer than 2 business days.

`(B) SCOPE OF REGULATION- The Secretary may include in the regulations establishing a tracing system--

`(i) the establishment and maintenance of lot numbers;

`(ii) a standardized format for pedigree information; and

`(iii) the use of a common nomenclature for food.

`(C) COORDINATION REGARDING FARM IMPACT- In issuing regulations under this paragraph that will impact farms, the Secretary--

`(i) shall coordinate with the Secretary of Agriculture; and

`(ii) take into account the nature of the impact of the regulations on farms.

[ Both of which mean exactly nothing ]



The section on food importers requires that foreign facilities be registered, "certified and accredited" - which is really nothing more than a shallow cya exercise.  It sets an indicator on the database in the registration section but it is only as meaningful as the quality of certification agency and the honesty of the auditor.  The following are just a few noteworthy excerpts from the section on importers.

"In issuing these regulations, the Secretary may rely on or incorporate international certification standards".

(6) ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION- The Secretary shall provide in coordination with the Commissioner responsible for Customs and Border Protection, for the electronic submission of certifications under this section.  (Trusted Shipper)

[Note:  Sec. 112 does not appear to be limited to importers and exporters.  It includes all registrants in the Food Safety Program.]  


`(4) In carrying out this Act, the Secretary may provide any information relating to food that is exempt from disclosure pursuant to section 552 (a) of title 5, United States Code, by reason of subsection (b)(4) of such section, or that is referred to in section 301(j)--

`(A) to any foreign government agency; or

`(B) any international organization established by law, treaty, or other governmental action and having responsibility--

`(i) to facilitate global or regional harmonization of standards and requirements in an area of responsibility of the Food and Drug Administration; or

`(ii) to promote and coordinate public health efforts, if the agency or organization provides adequate assurances to the Secretary that the agency or organization will preserve the confidentiality of the information.


Usurpation of States Rights

This section is very disturbing because they are attempting to exceed their constitutional boundaries of regulating INTERSTATE commerce by specifically legislating the authority to restrict the movement of food products WITHIN state boundaries.  One can see how this section could be used to force farmers into the supply chain in case they try to avoid being a sharecropper for the government by doing business only within state boundaries.  If the government gets away with this, it will be the precedent they will use to require RFID chips on animals not intended for interstate commerce and to control food sales from farms within a state. 


(a) Prohibited Act- Section 301 (21 U.S.C. 331), as amended by sections 110 and 111, is amended by adding at the end by adding the following:

`(ww) The violation of a prohibition or restriction under section 304(i).'.

(b) In General- Section 304 (21 U.S.C. 334) is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(i) Authority to Prohibit or Restrict the Movement of Food Within a State or Portion of a State-



`(i) After consultation with the Governor or other appropriate official of an affected State, if the Secretary determines that there is credible evidence that an article of food presents an imminent threat of serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals, the Secretary may prohibit or restrict the movement of an article of food within a State or
portion of a State for which the Secretary has credible evidence that such food is located within, or originated from, such State or portion thereof.

`(ii) In carrying out clause (i), the Secretary may prohibit or restrict the movement within a State or portion of a State of any article of food or means of conveyance of such article of food, if the Secretary determines that the prohibition or restriction is a necessary protection from an imminent threat of serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals.


Dedicated Foreign Inspectorate

It would appear that the American people will subsidize inspectors for foreign facilities that import food to the United States (and probably other locations as well).   The reason I say subsidize is because the foreign producers will pay exactly the same fee as a domestic producer despite the extra expenses of foreign inspection. 

It's not clear how it's going to work because the inspectors will have no authority and they will be limited by the accommodating spirit of the food producer.  Personally, that doesn't make me feel secure.  I still won't buy food that is labeled as coming from certain countries no matter what they do. 


Section 704 (21 U.S.C. 374), as amended by sections 105, 204, and 205, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(k) Dedicated Foreign Inspectorate- The Secretary shall establish and maintain a corps of inspectors dedicated to inspections of foreign food facilities. This corps shall be staffed and funded by the Secretary at a level sufficient to enable it to assist the Secretary in achieving the frequency of inspections for food facilities as described in this Act.'.


Training Institutes

This section is the "buying off academia" section.  As a rule, the more unconstitutional and un-American the program, the more money the universities get for "research" and "training".  In the case of technology for the police state, foreign students are imported for the "research" because they have no stake in a lawful and bounded American government.   


The Secretary of Health and Human Services, acting through the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, shall provide financial and other assistance to appropriate entities to establish and maintain one or more university-affiliated food protection training institutes that--

(1) conduct training related to food protection activities for Federal, State, local, territorial, and tribal officials; and

(2) meet standards developed by the Secretary.


The Near Future

Consider this a serious and dire warning.  The global and national IT Systems Designers will not stop building these management systems until they have you so tightly controlled and monitored that you, your children and all subsequent generations will live like caged and trained monkeys in the zoo. Freedom and privacy will be erased from the lexicon and will be unknown to our progeny.  We will be - and we will deserve to be reviled for our failure to protect and secure their American heritage. 



Vicky Davis
August 3, 2009



`SEC. 418C. FOOD DEFENSE.   [emphasis added]

`(a) In General- Before a facility (as defined in section 418(i)) introduces or delivers for introduction into interstate commerce any shipment of food, the owner, operator, or agent of the facility shall develop and implement a written food defense plan (in this section referred to as a `food defense plan').

`(b) Contents- The food defense plan shall include each of the following elements:

`(1) A food defense assessment to identify conditions and practices that may permit a hazard that may be intentionally introduced, including by an act of terrorism. This assessment shall evaluate processing security, cybersecurity, material security (including ingredients, finished product, and packaging), personnel security, storage security, shipping and receiving security, and utility security.

`(2) A description of the preventive measures being implemented as a result of such assessment to minimize the risk of intentional contamination.

`(3) A description of the procedures to check for and identify any circumstances in which the preventive measures are not fully implemented or were ineffective.

`(4) A description of the procedures for taking corrective actions to ensure that when preventive measures have not been properly implemented or have been ineffective, appropriate action is taken--

`(A) to reduce the likelihood of recurrence of the failure; and
`(B) to assess the consequences of the failure.

`(5) A description of evaluation activities for the preventive measures, including a review of records provided for under paragraph (6) and procedures to periodically test the effectiveness of the plan.

`(6) A description of the facility's record-keeping procedures, including records documenting implementation of the procedures under paragraphs (3), (4), and (5).

`(c) Hazard- For purposes of this section, the term `hazard that may be intentionally introduced, including by an act of terrorism' means a hazard for which a prudent person who, as applicable, manufactures, processes, packs, transports, or holds food, would establish preventive measures because the hazard has been identified by a food defense assessment by application of--

`(1) a targeting assessment tool recommended by the Secretary by guidance; or

`(2) a comparable targeting assessment tool.

`(d) Food Defense Hazards Identified by the Secretary-

`(1) ESTABLISHMENT- The Secretary may establish by regulation or guidance preventive measures for specific product types to prevent intentional contamination throughout the supply chain. The owner, operator, or agent of a facility shall implement any preventive measures identified by the Secretary under this paragraph.

`(2) ALTERNATIVE MEASURES- Such regulation or guidance shall allow the owner, operator, or agent of a facility to implement an alternative preventive measure to one established by the Secretary, provided that, in response to a request by the Secretary, the owner, operator, or agent can present to the Secretary data or other information sufficient to demonstrate that the alternative measure effectively addresses the hazard.

`(e) Requirement to Reassess and Revise-

 `(1) REQUIREMENT- The owner, operator, or agent of a facility shall--

`(A) review the food defense assessment under subsection (b)(1) for the facility and, as necessary, revise the food defense assessment under subsection (b)(1) for the facility--

 `(i) not less than every 2 years;
`(ii) if there is a change in the process or product that could affect the food defense assessment; and
`(iii) if the Secretary determines that it is appropriate to protect public health; and

`(B) whenever there is a change in the food defense assessment, revise the preventive measures under  subsection (b)(2) for the facility as necessary to ensure that for all hazards identified, the risk is minimized, or document the basis for the conclusion that no such revision is needed.

`(2) NONDELEGATION- Any revisions ordered by the Secretary under this subsection shall be ordered by the Secretary or an official designated by the Secretary. An official may not be so designated unless the official is the director of the district under this Act in which the facility involved is located, or is an official senior to such director.

`(f) Recordkeeping- The owner, operator, or agent of a facility shall maintain, for not less than 2 years, records documenting the activities described in subsections (b) and (e).

`(g) Access to Plan-

`(1) ON INSPECTION- An officer or employee of the Secretary shall have access to the food defense plan of a facility under section 414 (a) only if the Secretary, through an official who is the director of the district under this Act in which the facility is located or an official who is senior to such a director, provides notice under section 414(a)(1)(C).

`(2) NONDISCLOSURE- A food defense plan, and any information derived from such a plan, shall be exempt from disclosure under section 552 of title 5, United States Code.'.

(3) PROHIBITION- Section 301(j) (21 U.S.C. 331(j)) is amended by inserting after `entitled to protection' the following: `or a food defense plan, or any information derived from such a plan, under section 418C'.