Back from Wisconsin

I visited with Tom Stenzel of United Fresh this morning about his trip to Wisconsin to testify before the Senate Appropriations subcommittee. He said the event featured a lot of give and take among panelists, perhaps more so than if it had been at DC.

Of, course it wasn't a meeting with a lot of closure, he noted. "There is going to be a large food safety debate in Congress for some time to come," he said. He noted United will be testifying at both FDA hearings on food safety later this month and in April.
Through it all, Stenzel said United will stress a uniform playing field among all growers, mandatory oversight by the federal government and commodity specific guidelines when it comes to farm and field practices.

Stenzel said that the FDA's issuance of guidance documents - such as the final draft on fresh cut safety guidance released yesterday - could be the path toward mandatory oversight.

"I look at (the fresh cut guidance document) as very much in the line of mandatory regulations," he said. Stenzel noted the sprout guidance issued by the FDA sometime back says "guidance" but the message is if you don't (comply with the "guidance") you are considered to be not in compliance.

If I understand Tom correctly, the nuance looking forward is that the government - not industry - will be responsible for issuing the GAP/GHP guidance for growers.

Over the next few months, it will be compelling to see if the industry's call for strong federal oversight can be met with a response from Congress that can restore consumer confidence without unduly burdening growers and the rest of the supply chain with costly regulations. That could be a challenge. Consumers - and the mainstream press - may have a hard time equating "guidance" with oversight. And if strong federal oversight equals enforcement of guidance, what will that look like?