Upon further review

Yesterday's bold stroke by United to call for "strong federal oversight of food safety" is a watershed moment for the industry. As members of United Board describe it, Tom Stenzel's presentation to the United board over the past weekend was masterful, sobering and convincing.

There are many reasons that this move asking for government oversight makes sense. First of all, if industry is going to be further regulated, it should be a part of the process with other stakeholders in helping to set the parameters of those new rules. A second issue is that any PR element needs a solid footing. The industry can't say, "Well, most of our growers do it this way."
And California can't be the only agent of change.

Also, there is a sense that having stronger oversight will mean the industry won't be on an island if additional outbreaks occur. The perception is that government may be more of an ally in this scenario, and vouch for industry practices.

At the same time, observers I talked with want to make sure there is "no grower left behind." It's hard not to get ahead of the industry when you are leading the industry, but there must be buy-in to the process. That will be a key component in the next few weeks.

Getting the industry "all together now" before food safety hearings begin in Congress is critical.

In any case, any new paradigm for government and industry will take perhaps two years to hammer out, or perhaps longer. Where will Congress find the money to give FDA the tools it needs to do the job?

What the industry does in the short term with the California marketing agreement and other initiatives - a national marketing agreement was floated during the advisory committee meeting - could determine if United's vision of strong federal oversight will come to pass.