The case for regulation

The consumer group Consumers Union gave testimony at the FDA hearing in Oakland yesterday. Here is the link to the testimony of Elisa Odabashian, West Coast director of Consumers Union.

Some excerpts:

I appreciate today’s opportunity to participate in this public conversation with the FDA about the safety of fresh produce. You have heard today from a number of scientific experts from government and industry about all that has been done and is being done to ensure the safety of fresh fruits and vegetables, much of which is grown in California.

I’ve been asked to give you the consumer perspective. That perspective is currently worth $100 million—that’s $100 million in lost revenue to the California leafy green industry in just the last five months alone because last September more than 200 unlucky consumers across 26 states ate spinach contaminated by a particularly virulent form of E. coli (0157:H7) that killed as many as five, hospitalized more than 100 and sickened another 100. This spinach disaster was quickly followed by a Salmonella outbreak from contaminated tomatoes served at a restaurant, which sickened 183 people in 21 states. On the heels of this came another E. coli outbreak from shredded lettuce at Taco Bell and Taco John Restaurants that sickened 152 individuals.

At this moment all across America, the consumer perspective is one of deep disappointment in government agencies, both at federal and state levels, that have failed to safeguard the food supply, deep distrust in the leafy green industry that is responsible for two dozen food-borne illness outbreaks in the last ten years, and confusion about whether fresh vegetables and fruits are the most healthful foods to eat or whether they’re potentially deadly.

There is only one way to ensure that all fruits and vegetables that reach the marketplace are safe, only one way to rebuild consumer confidence—FDA or the California Department of Health Services, separately or in conjunction, must assume the authority and be given the staff to effectively mandate Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) for every farm and Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) programs for every processor, including thorough and regular inspection programs, effective trace-back systems, third-party audits, and rigorous enforcement of standards.

In California, the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) in partnership with the leafy green industry, is furiously pushing forward a marketing agreement to develop voluntary Best Practices standards. This is being done behind closed doors without any public input.

By its very nature, a voluntary program of safety standards does not account for the bad actors and does not ensure that all products that come to market are safe. Nor do voluntary standards create an incentive for everyone to comply, particularly when meeting safety standards costs money. If not all producers and processors are subject to the same standards, the door remains open for contaminated produce to reach consumers, with all the attendant negative public health effects, publicity and economic impact that that incurs.

Another bad idea that has come out of California’s industry-driven marketing agreement is the use of a certification mark to convey to consumers that leafy green products from participating farms and processors in California are subject to Best Practices. This approach turns safety into value-added in the marketplace. The safety of the food we buy is a fundamental expectation of consumers, and government must ensure it. Safety should not be used as a marketing tool when it comes to food; it should not be something that consumers must search out and possibly pay extra for, leaving poor consumers at risk.

I leave you today with a couple of $100 million questions from the consumer perspective:
1) Why is the FDA only “suggesting” and “recommending” safe practices for the fresh produce industry, and not requiring them, despite numerous incidences of contaminated fresh produce reaching the marketplace and harming, even killing, consumers?
2) How many more deadly outbreaks must there be before FDA’s should becomes a must, and their “suggestions, recommendations and current thinking” become rigorous, mandatory oversight by a credible government watchdog that is well-funded and adamant about protecting the food supply and public health?
Consumers are sitting on their pocketbooks, waiting for the answers.

TK: It is virtually impossible for the FDA (and California's marketing agreement) to come out looking good in the way this argument is framed. Although the industry is more comfortable with the concept, consumers and the press can't make the mental leap required to understand that FDA guidance equals oversight.