Feds Drop the Ball on Egg Safety

Today's Sarasota Herald-Tribune features a front page story: Tainted Eggs and Fractured Oversight that reveals that in addition to mismanagement at two large Iowa egg farms that sickened 1,900 people, the federal government did not have rules on safe egg production until this past July! Among the findings mentioned in the story:

• "There are more than 15 federal agencies and 71 interagency agreements dealing with food safety. Experts in public health and government accountability say that fragmentation weakens oversight, wastes tax dollars through redundancy and creates dangerous gaps."

• Both Bush and Clinton administrations stalled rules.

• The company responsible for the salmonella outbreak operates 73 different egg production facilities.

• "The health of chickens falls under the USDA, but the FDA oversees the safety of whole eggs. Once an egg is broken and made into an "egg product" responsibility for its safety switches back to the USDA."

• "Over the past five years, the FDA has sent inspectors to just a handful of more than 4,000 egg farms in the country. . ."

• "From May to August this year, USDA officials did not pass along to the FDA concerns about sanitation problems that they had noticed repeatedly in the packing houses at Wright County Egg . . . dirty equipment, unsanitary cooler and storage areas, eggs left unrefrigerated overnight, and the presence of bugs. . ."

No wonder citizens concerned about food safety are interested in having more control over their eggs!

Sarasota CLUCK podcast from WSLR Local Matters show

Listen to a podcast of a local radio show Local Matters on WSLR. The show starts with in interview with Jono Miller, one of the founders of CLUCK, who discusses the local effort to re-legalize a few hens in the City of Sarasota.

CLUCK blog sets new record: 1,000 pageviews in 12 days

I hope you weren't expecting a long article. We're just pointing out that on November 28 we posted an entry CLUCK by the Numbers stating that there had been 3,102 pageviews so far.

On the morning of December 10th, we passed 4,102 pageviews. We're talking 83 pageviews a day for the last twelve days and while there is no proof these readers are all supporters, it is hard to believe rank and file chicken opponents or alektorophobes are going to lavish a lot of time on the blog.

And while the internet does make is possible for people all over the planet to access our blog (See Local Info Source or International Curiosity?), we suspect the vast majority of interest originates here in Sarasota, reflecting the growing acceptance of backyard hens as a legitimate and valued part of our community.

Chicken Coop Setbacks: Clearing the Air

A lot of misinformation has been circulating about appropriate setbacks from property lines when it comes to chicken coops and runs. [The runs are basically chicken lanais that allow them access to the ground, fresh air, and sunshine during the day, but not as much protection as is needed at night in the secure coop.]

Part of the confusion stems from testimony at the City Planning Board, where one board member stated, inaccurately and without contradiction, that a study provided by the planning staff said "And in the materials about other ordinances from other locations they say the average distance to property lines was 20 to 50 feet required. Why did you choose, when the average in other areas is 20 to 50 feet, why did you chose 10?"

In reality, the document being referred to said something completely different. Here is the opening paragraph of the section on distance restrictions:

Distance restrictions between the location of the chicken coop and property lines, or coop

and nearby residences, were stated in 16 of the ordinances evaluated. There were no

restrictions in 3 of the ordinances and 5 were unclear. Of the 16 with distance

restrictions, 12 were distances required from residences, while 3 were distances required

from property lines. The distance required from property lines ranged from 10 to 90 feet,

while the distances from residences ranged from 20 to 50 feet.

[You can tell its a quote because it is pasted in.]

To summarize: the authors looked at 25 cities that allowed chickens. Five were unclear about setbacks from the property line. That leaves 20. There were no restrictions in three. That leaves 17, although the report only refers to 16. Of the 16 only three required setbacks from the property line. Those three varied widely -- 10 feet, 25 feet and 90 feet. Clearly 90 feet is an anomalous outlier. The fact is the most common setback for the coop from the property line is zero feet.

CLUCK is going along with 10 feet, even though the mobility of the Sarasota coops will allow distances to be adjusted "on the fly". Since the coops can be moved, there is no need to obsess about distances when they are not fixed.

As for distances from residences, chicken opponents should argue for coops closer to the owner's own residences so that they might be aware of any problems.

Uncle Sam Expects You to Keep Hens

First Martha Stewart, now Uncle Sam. Have to wonder who else will be supporting backyard chickens.

CLUCK withdraws offer to provide correspondence with public official

In an abrupt change, the Sarasota CLUCK blogsite withdrew an offer to provide copies of two exchanges of correspondence with the Chair of the City Planning Commission. Yesterday the offers were prominent parts of a posting critical of a Sarasota Herald-Tribune editorial, but as of this morning they are marked with asterisks and an explanation stating that the messages are attorney privileged and confidential information. In light of this unambiguous warning from an attorney's office, CLUCK has withdrawn the offer until the matter can be clarified.

Below is the text as it appears in the email, although one has to wonder if printing it is also a violation.

 

IMPORTANT MESSAGE

The information contained in this message is attorney privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above.  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and return the original message to the sender at the above E Mail address. 

 

Sarasota Herald-Tribune Continues Ominous Trend

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune continued an ominous trend by printing an editorial Hatch a Compromise today on the subject of backyard chickens without bothering to meet with backyard chicken advocates first.

First, the editorial takes a swipe at the testimony of young professionals and others who emphasized that allowing chickens would signal to the post-college set that Sarasota is welcoming to the young people the City purports to want to attract. By dismissing the compelling testimony of several citizens, the Herald Tribune took a cheep shot. In this editorial, the Herald Tribune is actually arguing that the City should not be "hip" and by doing so is sending subtle signals that young professionals are not wanted. This is truly sad and the Herald-Tribune should know better. In addition, selecting an ancillary argument and pretending it was the central objective of the initiative is another cheep shot.

The real story that the paper apparently chose to ignore was the behavior of the Planning Board's chair who used (or abused?) her position to personally attack at least two advocates, and who seriously misrepresented the truth on at least three occasions. CLUCK can provide an email* from the chair conceding one mistruth, although without any apology, contrition, regret or remorse. Many of her spurious claims could have been addressed had the Zoning Text Amendment applicant been allowed to rebut or clarify, but that is not a right afforded proponents.

APPARENTLY CLUCK CANNOT PROVIDE THIS EMAIL. IT ARRIVED WITH AN OMINOUS POSTCRIPT LABELED "IMPORTANT MESSAGE" THAT INFORMED US THAT THE INFORMATION IN THE MESSAGE WAS ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR USE BY THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. IT GOES ON TO PROHIBIT THE RECIPIENT FROM DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING. SO, UNTIL THIS IS CLEARED UP, YOU'LL JUST HAVE TO TAKE OUR WORD FOR IT. In the meantime, feel free to ask yourself how correspondence with a public official could be confidential.

One of the most offensive tactics of the Chair was to admonish CLUCK and probably staff for failing to incorporate the views of those opposed to or with concerns regarding backyard hens. CLUCK was publicly excoriated for failure to solicit these views and, in response, CLUCK would be happy to provide copies of the email correspondence from CLUCK asking to meet with Chair, specifically "to review the provisions of the staff recommendation regarding chickens, try to answer any questions you may have, and better understand your concerns" as well as the return email* from the Chair denying the request.

*APPARENTLY CLUCK CANNOT PROVIDE THIS EMAIL. IT ARRIVED WITH AN OMINOUS POSTCRIPT LABELED "IMPORTANT MESSAGE" THAT INFORMED US THAT THE INFORMATION IN THE MESSAGE WAS ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR USE BY THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. IT GOES ON TO PROHIBIT THE RECIPIENT FROM DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING. SO, UNTIL THIS IS CLEARED UP, YOU'LL JUST HAVE TO TAKE OUR WORD FOR IT. In the meantime, feel free to ask yourself how correspondence with a public official could be confidential.

The Board engaged in a lengthy discussion amongst themselves with creating any opportunity to correct erroneous statements. One citizen wryly noted afterward that while citizens have to raise their hands and swear to tell the truth, the board does not. CLUCK is not suggesting that any board member deliberately lied during their discussions, but in their ignorance they did end up voting on a tainted record compromised by several significant inaccuracies that could have been corrected had the Chair allowed those most familiar with the initiative a few minutes at the end of the discussion. Of course, the newspaper was unaware of, and perpetuated, these errors because they also didn't bother to get the other side.

The newspaper fails to note that none of the neighborhood opposition was based on the document being proposed, that none of the neighborhoods expressing opposition had involved CLUCK advocates in their decision-making process, and the revelation that one neighborhood spokesperson had never bothered to read what was being considered. These are the hallmarks of prejudice – that is pre-judging, and it is unfortunate when done inadvertently and shameful when defended as legitimate practice. Watching the newspaper ratify these behaviors is indeed unfortunate.

One of the most perplexing statements in the editorial is the proposition that "areas of the city with small treeless lots --think of them baking in the hot summer sun -- are inappropriate for backyard fowl." First, it is hard to decipher exactly what part of the city they are coyly attempting to refer to, secondly chickens are derived from jungle fowl and obviously do quite well throughout Mexico and Caribbean, and thirdly this is inherently an argument against small treeless lots, and not chickens.

The Herald-Tribune also apparently ignored the testimony of Senior Planning Staff who expressed belief that adequate enforcement provisions already exist, both in 99-4163 and in the City's general nuisance laws.

Perhaps the most aggravating aspects are the cavalier, unsubstantiated accusations such as “overly broad sweep” and “enforcement difficulties”. Talk about over broad sweep!

CLUCK has worked a year and a half on its proposal, the majority of which has been spent on what the Tribune might characterize as a compromise. The City's professional planning staff continues to advance the proposal and had the Herald-Tribune taken the time to thoroughly review the record, they would have discovered the thirteen provisions specifically included out consideration for neighbors. This measure is laden with compromise, and one has to wonder if the Tribune also weighed in without actually reading the proposed Code changes.

It is regrettable that institutions such as the Herald Tribune are continuing a trend of adopting a position on backyard hens before they speak with the proponents. This prejudicial approach is unfair and perpetuates the double standard that permeates this (typically one-sided) discussion.

CLUCK has reached out to the community with what may most extensive public outreach effort ever mounted by citizens working on behalf of a City Code change. We have an extensive blog, laden with information about backyard chickens and CLUCK's approach. In return CLUCK's efforts to reach out to the community are being met with biased reactions and questionable behaviors that suggest this campaign is not simply about allowing a few pets, but also about public process, civility, transparency, accountability, and common courtesy run awry.

Six Hens or Four Hens?

So how did City Planning Staff decide to abandon the six chickens specifically advocated by CLUCK and substitute a number one third lower? One likely explanation is that they were influenced by a popular comparative study that looked at urban chicken in 25 locales: Residential Urban Chicken Keeping: An Examination of 25 Cities, a report that points out that "The most common number of birds permitted was 3 or 4, which will supply on average between 1 and 2 dozen eggs per week. Depending on the size of the family in the household, this may be sufficient." In addition, the sample ordinance included at the end of the report limits hens to four.

But the sentence that follows the above quote is significant: "In some cases however, 3 to 4 birds may not be enough for larger family sizes or allow for giving away eggs to neighbors. [Emphasis added]In cities where it is legal to sell your eggs at farmers markets, 3 or 4 birds would not be sufficient. So what is a good number of chickens to allow in residential backyards for home consumption? Thomas Kriese, an urban chicken keeper who writes online about chicken keeping and ordinances,feels that no more than 6 birds should be permitted. [Emphasis added]“That's approximately 3 dozen eggs a week which is a LOT of eggs to consume, plus that's a lot of food to go through, and excrement to clean up,” he stated in a personal correspondence."

And while it is true that the most common numbers cited were 3 or 4, its also true that the average was higher, actually above six. and some of the numbers cited in the study are now outdated. Seattle, for instance, was shown as allowing only 3 hens, the historic limit -- that number has now been increased to 8.

CLUCK wants neighbors to benefit and the best way to achieve that without going overboard on birds is to look to the six bird maximum advocated by chicken expert and blogger Thomas Kriese and CLUCK.