Produce safety; farm inspections, civil penalty. (SB1195)

Introduced By

Sen. Richard Stuart (R-Westmoreland)

Progress

Introduced
Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law

Description

Produce safety; farm inspections; Agriculture Civil Penalty Fund; penalties. Prohibits certain farms from violating the federal regulations that set minimum standards for the safe growing, harvesting, packing, and holding of fruits and vegetables. The bill authorizes the Board of Agriculture and Consumer Services to adopt regulations to carry out the purposes of the law and gives the Commissioner of Agriculture and Consumer Services free access at all reasonable hours to any farm to inspect the farm and take samples. The Commissioner also is authorized to seize certain produce that he believes to violate the federal regulations or state law. The bill makes the act of obstructing an inspector a Class 2 misdemeanor and of violating any other provision of the law or a Board regulation a Class 1 misdemeanor. In lieu of a criminal penalty, the Board is authorized to levy a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation, to be deposited in an Agriculture Civil Penalty Fund that is created by the bill. Read the Bill »

Status

02/17/2017: Passed the House

History

  • 01/10/2017 Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/11/17 17101491D
  • 01/10/2017 Referred to Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources
  • 01/18/2017 Impact statement from DPB (SB1195)
  • 01/26/2017 Reported from Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources with substitite (12-Y 1-N 1-A) (see vote tally)
  • 01/26/2017 Committee substitute printed 17104861D-S1
  • 01/30/2017 Constitutional reading dispensed (39-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
  • 01/31/2017 Read second time
  • 01/31/2017 Reading of substitute waived
  • 01/31/2017 Committee substitute agreed to 17104861D-S1
  • 01/31/2017 Engrossed by Senate - committee substitute SB1195S1
  • 02/01/2017 Read third time and passed Senate (25-Y 15-N) (see vote tally)
  • 02/01/2017 Impact statement from DPB (SB1195S1)
  • 02/03/2017 Placed on Calendar
  • 02/03/2017 Read first time
  • 02/03/2017 Referred to Committee on Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources
  • 02/06/2017 Assigned ACNR sub: Agriculture
  • 02/13/2017 Subcommittee recommends reporting with substitute (7-Y 0-N)
  • 02/15/2017 Reported from Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources with substitute (19-Y 3-N) (see vote tally)
  • 02/15/2017 Committee substitute printed 17105502D-H1
  • 02/16/2017 Read second time
  • 02/17/2017 Read third time
  • 02/17/2017 Committee substitute agreed to 17105502D-H1
  • 02/17/2017 Engrossed by House - committee substitute SB1195H1
  • 02/17/2017 Passed House with substitute (73-Y 26-N)
  • 02/17/2017 VOTE: PASSAGE (73-Y 26-N) (see vote tally)

Video

This bill was discussed on the floor of the General Assembly. Below is all of the video that we have of that discussion, 3 clips in all, totaling 8 minutes.

Transcript

This is a transcript of the video clips in which this bill is discussed.



Sen. Dick Black (R-Leesburg): NOT ALLOW PERMISSION TO ENTER PROPERTY, THEN THE AMENDMENT REQUIRES POLICE TO ENTER A SEARCH WARRANT TO SEARCH FOR THE PERSON SUBJECT TO ARREST. HOWEVER, THE CURRENT VIRGINIA CRIMINAL SEARCH WARRANT STATUTES DO NOT SPECIFICALLY ALLOW FOR A SEARCH WARRANT TO BE ISSUED UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. THE BILL WILL ALLOW NOR A SEARCH WARRANT FOR A PERSON TO BE ISSUED UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES. THE CRIME COMMISSION EXAMINED THIS MEASURE DURING THE PAST YEAR, THEY VETTED IT THROUGH THE MAGISTRATES, COMMONWEALTH AND DEFENSE COMMISSION, ALL OF WHOM SAID THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES IF THE LEGISLATION AND THE BILL DOES NOT ALTER THE WAY SEARCH WARRANTS ARE ISSUED AND DOES NOT ALTER ANY CRITERIA FOR THE WAY SEARCH WARRANTS ARE CURRENTLY ISSUED. IT SIMPLY MANAGES TO CLOSE A GAP IN THE WAY THIS STATUTE IS DRAFTED CRIME COMMISSION SUPPORTED IT. IT'S BEEN UNIVERSALLY SUPPORTED AND I ENCOURAGE YOU TO VOTE FOR THE BILL.

[Unknown]: THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE SENATOR FROM EASTERN FAIRFAX COUNTY, SENATOR SUROVELL.

Comments

Brent West writes:

Please know that we are opposed to SB1195, we hope that you will represent us in our opposition to this bill.

M. Vitttitow writes:

We are vehemently opposed to SB1195. Please represent our strong commitment to the value and right to function independently of our small local farms.

E. Samuelson writes:

As a consumer, I prefer to know my farmer and visit them myself. Please don't use the power of government to do my job for me. Freedom comes with responsibility. I respectfully encourage you to vote no on SB1195.

Wayne Porter writes:

No on SB1195.

Maureen Moutoux writes:

I am STRONGLY opposed to this bill. As a small organic farmer, this would seriously hurt our business and our livelihood. We hope that you will represent small Virginia farmers in opposition to this bill.

Lynne Ridgeway writes:

Please vote this measure down. I can visit my local farmers, ask them at markets how they grow their food. My family has never been sickened by food from small farming operations. However, I do believe that agribusiness needs stricter inspections. The FDA and Virginia should spend my tax dollars there.

Diane Keller writes:

Keep the government off of small farmers land. NO TO BIG GOVERNMENT! Yes to small farmers who are saving the few of us who want choices other than to be poisoned by the FDA who is sold out to Monsanto!!! Too many senators on their board of directors and not looking out for the small farmers they will work to shut us all down and regulate us to use federally approved poisons on our crops! VOTE NO ON SB115

Lance Flournoy writes:

As a small ethically raised animal farm this is a horrible law.
For so many years we have been hearing the government supports "eat local" and "know your farmer" but since this is the second BAD legislation law to make its way to the Senate and House in less then a months time I am beginning to think it was just a rouse. Please DO NOT support this bill. If you believe they need to do more inspections, tell the writers to find a more constructive method.

Victoria Shelton writes:

Vote NO on SB115. I prefer to know my local small farmer,ask my questions directly and make my own choice. Keep the nanny state out of small farms and focus on holding big agribusiness accountable for the contaminated produce they introduce via large scale distribution. Leave our small ethical farms alone.

Ann Murdock writes:

Please do not support this bill. It is terrible. We do not need small farms inspected. We need more small farms but this bill will put many out of business.

Ellen Baize writes:

We do not need more regulations, especially federal regulations. Support the small farmers. They provide better, healthier and safer food than the big agribusiness farms.

Sherri Flaminio writes:

Although your intent to introduce SB1195 may be based with the consumer in mind, I think it's important to check in with your constituents on this matter. Most consumers who buy local produce have a relationship with their local farmers or with their farmers market vendors and they don't support this type of legislation.
Locally grown food has an excellent safety rating and the introduction of SB1195 would prove to be strong government overreach to a non existent problem. This bill may also discourage future farmers from starting up small businesses. Overall this is bad legislation and I encourage you all to please reject this bill!

Post a Public Comment About this Bill



if you have one


(Limited HTML is OK: <a>, <em>, <strong>, <s>, <embed>)