Food safety initiatives move forward on several fronts
California leafy greens have been under fire after recent E. coli outbreaks, and a number of food safety initiatives are moving forward to make produce safer for consumers. They are taking different forms, with the California leafy green producers recently affirming a regional marketing agreement, a California legislator introducing a bill to mandate state oversight of production and the United Fresh Produce Association (UFPA) testifying on behalf of federal oversight – and responding to a government report that said the food safety chain is “broken.”
Voluntary Efforts
In January, more than 40 companies that wash, package or ship more than 90 percent of California’s leafy greens signed the California Leafy Green Marketing Agreement. The plan was approved by the California Department of Food and Agriculture in early February.
It’s the first plan that’s been proposed by the industry to improve food safety, said Tim Chelling, vice president of communications for Western Growers Association, which represents about 90 percent of the fruit and vegetable producers in California.
“It’s a very heavy and substantial first step,” he said.
Within 90 days of being proposed, the marketing agreement was written and accepted by the state of California. That’s much quicker than the years it will take for federal or state governments to write produce safety into law, Chelling said.
The agreement calls for shippers and handlers of leafy greens to buy only from growers who take steps to ensure their product is not contaminated. The next step in the marketing agreement process is the formation of an oversight board and the creation of guidelines for Good Agricultural Practices. Drafts of the best practices and sanitary requirements were submitted to food safety experts in February and will be approved by the marketing agreement board, which was appointed by the state in February.
Although the document spells out standards that are technically voluntary, with most of the leafy green processors and handlers signing it would be difficult for a grower to sell leafy green produce that hasn’t been grown following the document’s procedures.
“We are proceeding to dramatically boost food safety in the fresh produce industry and we hope these efforts, and others, point the way for further action as we proceed,” said Tom Nassif, president and CEO of Western Growers.
“This is just a first step. There will be others. Our top priority is the health and safety of the people who consume our product. This action, and others, represents the industry’s commitment to take substantial action to address the cracks in our food safety system. We have stated that we intend to declare war on food borne illnesses. This is a substantial step on our path to fulfill that commitment to American consumers.”
Companies that sign the leafy green agreement will be able to display a seal on the packaging that will let customers know that the produce was grown, packed and shipped according to the current best practices. That seal, or mark, will be selected by the board as the marketing agreement moves forward, Chelling said.
The leafy greens included in the agreement are iceberg, romaine, green leaf, red leaf, butter and baby leaf lettuce, escarole, endive, spring mix, spinach, cabbage, kale, arugula and chard.
Federal oversight
Industry associations, most noticeably UFPA, are calling on the federal government to step in and oversee the food safety system. The goal of federal involvement is to build trust in produce safety, so when an outbreak occurs – and they always will – the industry can stand with FDA and consumers can trust what they have to say.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) – the congressional agency that investigates how the government spends its money – released a report in January that criticized a fragmented food safety system that results in “inconsistent oversight, ineffective coordination and inefficient use of resources.” Fifteen agencies are responsible for administering 30-plus laws on food safety, with most of the responsibility falling on FDA for food items and USDA responsible for meat, poultry and processed egg products.
The GAO report noted three specific examples of ineffective and inefficient management: different enforcement and regulatory powers of FDA and USDA, voluntary food recalls with little follow-up and overlapping activities, such as port inspections by both FDA and USDA inspectors.
The solution, according to the GAO report, is to integrate the various regulatory bodies into one agency to create “synergy and economies of scale.”
But industry leaders – most notably UFPA – are opposed to changing the current system. Tom Stenzel, president and CEO of United Fresh, testified before a congressional subcommittee Feb. 8 that there was no need to change the current system, and that ultimately government must instill consumers with confidence in the food they eat.
“It is important to note that we believe FDA already has the regulatory authority by statute to achieve these goals,” Stenzel said. “FDA has the authority to promulgate rules and regulations, issue guidance that compels industry action, enter into agreements with states to allow for field investigations and generally set standards to protect the public health. While we will be open to listen should FDA specifically request new legislative authority from the Congress, we do not at this time see that need.”
Instead, Stenzel proposed four principles that should be a part of the nation’s food safety framework (see sidebar).
1. Harmonized Produce Food Safety Standards. The GAO report said inspections and regulations on imported food are fragmented and inconsistent at times. The standards for imported food should be examined just as closely as the guidelines for crops grown in California or anywhere else in the country.
“Consumers must have the confidence that safety standards are met no matter where the commodity is grown or processed. Because of the variation in our industry’s growing and harvesting practices in different climates and regions, flexibility is very appropriate and necessary,” Stenzel said. “We strongly applaud industry groups in different states and regions that are working to enhance local practices. Their work demonstrates the industry’s commitment to do all we can to enhance safe growing and handling practices. But to build consumer trust, any individual produce commodity grown anywhere in the United States or imported into the United States must be held to the same standards.”
2. Federal Oversight. Stenzel affirmed during his testimony that the industry has sufficient standards to ensure the safety of produce – governmental oversight could not make the produce any safer – but the fact that there is never zero risk with ready-to-eat produce means the industry and government have to be on the same page.
“Never again do we want to face a situation such as that surrounding the spinach outbreak last fall, when an entire industry was shut down; consumers were scared for months, if not years, about the safety of spinach; and yet the actual contaminated product came only from one day’s raw product bagged in one processing plant. Preventing even one incident of contamination such as this remains our highest priority, but we must also focus on the lack of trust in a food safety regulatory system when public confidence in spinach is shattered by that one incident, and fears are raised about many other fresh produce items. Government must be able to reassure consumers in a time of crisis, not throw up its hands with a ‘buyer beware’ message. If that demands greater resources and a more intense focus on produce to enable FDA to do its job, it is a small price for the public to pay,” Stenzel said.
3. Assured Compliance. While United Fresh believes it is good that growers look at their practices on a state level, voluntary marketing or certification programs aren’t enough. Labels identifying a particular region’s or state’s program can be confusing to consumers and give the impression of a state-by-state food safety “patchwork.”
“Consumers simply must have confidence in all fresh produce available in the store, not be looking for specific labels or seals to discern which item is safe and which is not,” Stenzel said. “While many product attributes are appropriate for competitive marketing, food safety is not one of them. And that holds true for produce from different states. Food safety is not something that should be legislated or regulated differently by the different states. We appreciate the good motives of some state legislators and regulatory officials to look at growing and handling practices within their states, but American consumers demand that food safety be uniform across the country.”
4. Commodity Specific, Scientific Approach. Creating regulations in “broad strokes” would be a mistake, Stenzel said, because crops have different food safety characteristics. Leafy greens grown close to the ground need to take more precautions than those taken for fruit trees, for example.
“Every produce commodity is different, and a federal regulatory approach must contain needed scientific flexibility to address specific commodities differently based on their unique production and handling practices,” Stenzel said. “This will be an extremely important point moving forward. The FDA has to be careful that broad strokes do not result in requirements that should not apply to specific commodities and do nothing to enhance safety. Taking a general approach would be far too easy to add regulatory costs and burdens to sectors where those requirements are unneeded, without doing anything to enhance safety where most critical.”
California Legislature
Dean Florez, a Democrat representing California’s Central Valley, introduced a bill in the state Legislature Feb. 1 that would address “shortcomings” in the California leafy green food supply chain. Growers and industry representatives are opposed to the bill because it puts too much power in the hands of the state, not food safety experts and growers.
“While these outbreaks may have dealt a temporary blow to consumer confidence, we have an opportunity here to take what we’ve learned from the experience and create a food safety system that is second to none, just like California produce,” Florez said in a statement.
Florez’s proposed bill – the California Produce Safety Action Plan – includes three measures that he believes will ensure a safe food chain. First, the bill gives the California Department of Health Services (DHS) the power to recall, quarantine or destroy tainted produce. All growers would be required to be licensed by DHS, which would also have an inspection team that would test water, soil and produce for contaminants – paid for by licensing fees.
The second measure is a requirement for DHS to create Good Agricultural Practices growers would be accountable to. The proposed bill includes specific prohibitions on the use of raw manure for fertilizer and creek water for irrigation. The bill would require that water used on leafy green produce be tested every two weeks during the growing season and immediately before harvest. Growers would be responsible for maintaining records, which would be reviewed before the leafy greens could be transported.
The third and final measure in Florez’s bill requires traceback measures from the field to retail shelves. Florez claimed that a traceback system would have prevented the FDA warning in 2006 that stopped almost all sales of spinach, because DHS could quickly trace contaminated greens to their source.
Florez has asked the state to allocate $25 million to hire inspectors, who would have the power to quarantine farms that violate regulations.
With food safety fresh in consumers’ minds, there will be many legislators taking their shot at regulating the produce industry, said Western Growers’ Chelling. He said some of Florez’s bill is a good start, but other provisions are a “question mark.”
“That’s the problem with legislating without experts,” Chelling said.
