1

Lydia Tausz
Melina Probst Martin
ENGLI 1102
7 December 2016
The Food Safety Modernization Act and Small Farms
In January of 2011, the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) was signed into the
Constitution. The intent of this law is to prevent food-related deaths and illnesses from occurring
by enforcing more inspections and preventive controls. An Issues & Controversies article asserts
that According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA), 48 million Americans become sick each year from food-related
diseases, 128,000 are hospitalized, and 3,000 die. The FSMA, instituted to try and stop these
illnesses, has been met with mixed emotions. Supporters state that the Food Safety
Modernization Act (FSMA) represents a much-needed shift from an FDA that responds
reflexively to outbreaks of food-borne illness to one that is able to prevent the spread of disease
in the first place. However, while the bill attempts to do good, it does so at the cost of small
farms and their ability to produce. Professor Samuel R. Wiseman, in his American Journal of
Law & Medicine article asserts that By imposing new and costly burdens on small producers,
some warned, the FSMA would reduce access to fresh, local produce and other minimallyprocessed foods from farmers markets. The Food Safety Modernization Act, though well
intentioned, has serious problems with its intended plan. While trying to help with health and
safety, the Act restricts the freedoms of small farmers and their ability to produce.
The Food Safety Modernization Act puts forward some negative effects, especially for
small farmers. While the FSMA might be a good idea in theory, it does have repercussions, and

2
there are objections from those asking what harm it will cause. Most of these objections come
from small farmers, whose output will struggle if they are forced to comply with the new
directives. The Issues & Controversies article explains that: Over-regulating food products will
ultimately hurt farmersparticularly smaller agricultural operations. Unfortunately, the FSMA
rulings are hurting these small-scale operations, and they are simply unable to keep up with the
new demands. Some farmers are attempting to work towards FSMA compliance. A study
conducted by the Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering at Iowa State
University explains how farmers are doing their best to adapt these new regulations. The authors
explain that they interviewed an academic professional, who has much experience with nutrition
and food safety. This professional was working with small food and grain industries around
the Midwest to help resolve various challenges of FSMA adoption by conducting training for
employees of these companies. However, the constraints of the Food Safety Act are proving to
be too great for many farms. In an article published in Food Control magazine, the authors
explain that Constraints to small farm participation in the food system have significant negative
implications for the accessibility, availability, and consumption of farm products, specifically,
produce. It is foreseen that at least some of these farmers will be unable to sell on a smaller
scale, such as in farmers markets across the country. With these government regulations, small
farms are becoming more and more stifled and unable to produce what they can. While some
regulation is important, the FSMA is simply making higher costs and standards for farmers to
meet. For a majority of these operations [small farms], the proposed regulations will require
some, if not substantial, costly changes to their operational and administrative practices.
Unfortunately, in some cases, these standards will force farms to shut down.

3
These regulations are simply too much for small farmers. The basis of the Food Safety
Modernization Act lies in the idea that food borne illnesses should be stopped before they occur.
The Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering at Iowa State University explain
this: The FSMA legislation was aimed at overhauling the existing approach to food safety by
enabling stakeholders to concentrate on preventive controls rather than simply reacting to food
safety events. The law provides the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with increased
authority to inspect food products and authorize mandatory recalls for contaminated products.
The Food Safety Modernization Acts legislation shifts food safety regulations over to before the
food is sold to others. Most of its regulations are now put on the growers, and in (hopefully)
preventing these illnesses from happening in the first place. While this is, in theory, a fine idea, it
builds up problems for small-scale agricultural producers, like these small farmers. With more
regulations and rules assigned to them, it is more and more difficult for these farmers to even
make a profit on their goods. The American Journal of Law & Medicine explains this. The
average cost, for example, to a small domestic farm of implementing provisions in the proposed
Produce Rule are estimated to be $4,697 per year, or 6% of average annual food sales revenue.
These costs are high and exceed the profit margins earned by many small farms. This is highly
problematic for many small farms, who, if they are made to implement the FSMA would face the
possibility of having to shut down their productions. The journal goes on to outline the problem
of price competitiveness, which would ultimately drive these farms out of business. Unit prices
for small farm products will increase relative to those for larger farms who can spread the costs
of FSMA implementation across a larger volume of output. Thus, in markets where large and
small farms compete directly, FSMA will likely harm the price competitiveness of small farms.
The Food Safety Modernization Act authorizes some quite substantial restrictions. The

4
implications and requirements of this legislation are extensive. FSMA authorizes, for the first
time, the FDA to oversee some on-farm activities. For the farms, food handlers, processors,
transportation services, and other firms in the food sector that must implement the new
regulations, these proposed requirements affect an extensive range of business and production
practices. The FSMA does nothing short of drive small farmers out of the market. Since the
scale of these farms is just not large at all, implementing such costly restrictions and regulations
would require funds which the farmers simply do not have.
Thankfully, the FDA did understand the burden the FSMA gave to small farmers. The
government responded to some of these concerns, and added the Tester Amendment to the Food
Safety Modernization Act. Professor Samuel R. Wiseman writes in the American Journal of Law
& Medicine:Efforts by small-farm advocates led to the introduction of the Tester-Hagan
Amendment to the FSMA, which provides an exemption from the produce safety standards if a
farm can demonstrate a previous three-year average gross income of less than $500,000 and over
50% of sales were to [consumers, restaurants, or retailers within a certain geographic region].
Another article in the American Journal of Law and Medicine also states: An exception for
small farms from the full provisions of FSMA was granted through an amendment co-sponsored
by Senators Jon Tester (D-MT) and Kay Hagan (D-NC). The rationale for excluding small farms
from some of the provisions of FSMA was well grounded. According to the Tester Amendment,
certain small farms do not need to adhere to the FSMA, since the cost would far outweigh their
profits. However, the Tester Amendment still leaves unanswered questions. While it does seek to
exempt certain small farmers, the question remains as to who exactly is excluded. At present,
there is deep concern and confusion regarding who, to what extent, and which of these various
exemptions and rules would apply to a particular small farm operation. The Amendment needs

5
clarification if it is going to do farmers any good. Unfortunately, according to Boys article, It is
unlikely, however, that lawmakers will make an effort to harmonize definitions across rules.
The FSMA and the Tester Amendment are ultimately going to have to go through considerable
modification if they are to help small farms out of this predicament. While the Tester amendment
does try to alleviate the problems the FSMA produces, there are no clear guidelines as to who
benefits from the Tester amendment exemptions.
For those farms that do not benefit from the Tester Amendments exemptions, the FSMA
has many directives in order. According to Margaret Grossmans article in European Food &
Feed Law Review, The regulation governs biological hazards from five major types of
contamination: microbial contamination of produce from agricultural water, biological soil
amendments (e.g., manure), health and hygiene practices of workers, contamination from
domestic or wild animals in the growing area, and equipment, tools and buildings. According to
this, most every aspect of how a farmer grows his produce will be examined and regulated. The
cost of this will rise extremely high for these farmers. A good example of this is in how the
farmers are allowed to fertilize their crops under the FSMA. Professor Samuel Wiseman explains
this specific problem A variety of groups representing small farmers argued that many small,
sustainable, and/or organic operations would be unable to comply with the proposed manure and
compost rules for a variety of reasons. The author then goes on to tell of specific cases in which
practicing the FSMA compliance in regards to manure application would be unfeasible. The
FSMA covers a wide variety of preventive controls. Neva Hassanein asserts in her article in
Agriculture & Human Values that, Under FSMA, food manufacturers must examine their
professing systems to identify ways that food products might become contaminated, and then
they have to develop plans to try to keep contamination from happening. The Food Safety

6
Modernization Act puts strict mandates on farmers that are just too heavy. While the Food Safety
Modernization Act could work to regulate larger food businesses and producers, for small
farmers and their produce, it is simply not going to work.
Though well intentioned, the Food Safety Modernization Act infringes on small farms
and their ability to produce. While something does need to be done to reduce these 48 million
food borne illnesses per year, it is questionable if the FSMA is the right way to go. While these
new legislations work for larger food producers, for small farms the FSMA is just too stifling.
Granted, there does need to be a change in the system, and these illnesses should be prevented.
However, the way to achieve this shouldn't be at the expense of these farms. Even with the Tester
Amendment implemented to its optimal potential, there are great risks in place for small farms.
Some agriculture experts and authors have asserted that more illnesses can be prevented by just
fixing the current food safety system, not adding more legislation. Stephanie Tai, in her article
for the American Journal of Law & Medicine states that Numerous studies have suggested that
one of the largest flaws in the U.S. food safety regulatory system is its fragmentation and lack off
coordination. Perhaps this aspect of the current system should be more explored. Small-scale
farms are an important part of not just society, but the fresh produce market. Boys, Ollingers
and Geyers article claims that Care must be taken to ensure the operational constraints and
marketing challenges of small farms are fully considered and adequately weighted in
implementing FSMA. While the FSMA has many positive aspects to it, it simply cannot be a
one size fits all piece of regulation. What works for larger scale producers simply does not work
for small farmers. The Food Safety Modernization Act has problems with its current plan, and
needs to be altered before it is at its optimal potential.

Works Cited
Food Safety. Issues & Controversies. Infobase Learning, 22 Jan. 2016. Web. 11 Nov. 2016.
<http://icof.infobaselearning.com/recordurl.aspx?ID=6328>
Wiseman, Samuel R. The Implementation Of The Food Safety Modernization Act And The
Strength Of The Sustainable Agriculture Movement. American Journal Of Law
&
2016.

Medicine 41.2/3 (2015): 259-273. Academic Search Complete. Web. 11 Nov.

8
Grover, Abhay K, Schweta Chopra, and Gretchen A. Mosher. Food Safety Modernization Act:
A Quality Management Approach To Identify And Prioritize Factors Affecting
Adoption

Of Preventive Controls Among Small Food Facilities. Food Control 66.

(2016):

241-249. Academic Search Complete. Web. 11 Nov. 2016.

Boys, Kathryn A., Michael Ollinger, and Leon L. Geyer. The Food Safety Modernization Act:
Implications For U.S. Small Scale Farms. American Journal of Law & Medicine
41.2/3

(2015): 395-405. Academic Search Complete. Web. 11 Nov. 2016.

Grossman, Margaret Rosso. FDA Issues Final Rules Under the 2011 Food Safety Modernization
Act. European For & Feed Law Review 11.1 (2016): 63-66. Academic Search Complete.
Web. 6 Dec. 2016.
Hassanein, Neva. Matters Of Scale And The Politics Of The Food Safety Modernization Act.
Agriculture & Human Values Dec. 2011: 577. Associates Programs Source Plus.
Web.

14 Nov. 2016.

Tai, Stephanie. Whole Foods: The FSMA And The Challenges Of Defragmenting Food Safety
Regulation. American Journal Of Law & Medicine 41.2/3 (2015): 447-458.
Academic

Search Complete. Web. 11 Nov. 2016.