Fresh Produce Discussion Blog

Created by The Packer's National Editor Tom Karst

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

Blog search

One potentially overlooked feature of this blog is found at the upper left. Readers can search the entire blog and pull up all posts with that word. Tesco, AgJobs, COOL, Wal-Mart...You get the idea. Now that there are over 1,000 posts, it makes a handy way to search the archives.

I had a conversation with Bob Keeney of AMS earlier today. We talked a little about the farm bill amendment that added food safety to the list of activities for marketing orders. He said that AMS lawyers had already concluded that food safety was in the domain of accepted marketing order activities. The farm bill language, while not necessary, helps clarify and settle the issue.

He also took issue with my characterization that the food safety audits may be an attractive income stream for AMS in these days of deficit budgets for the Fresh Product Branch. Keeney said most of the GAP/GHP audits are performed (the California leafy greens agreement, for example) by state inspectors, and USDA only keeps a small percentage of the cost of each inspection. He resented any inference that USDA would want to become involved in food safety inspections for any reason other than serving the interests of the industry. They are not money-grubbing or opportunistic.

I believe Bob was sincerely miffed about that and I apologize for any perceived inference that the USDA would put the interests of the agency ahead of the industry. Yet at that same time, USDA AMS has a "business" to run. I would expect them to look for ways to cross purpose their f/v grade inspectors and maximize their utility.

I also told Bob I hoped I get to visit the USDA's training center for inspectors during one of the sessions put on for the trade. I put in an earlier inquiry with Amy Philpott at United to attend a day at the training center with an industry class, but USDA oddly okayed only a half a day for this trade reporter.

Labels: , , , , , ,

1 Comments:

At July 24, 2007 at 10:50:00 PM CDT , Blogger Tom Karst said...

This is TK here: Below is part of a comment filed on the above post:
Edited a bit to take some of the heat out.
--------


He clouds the issue by saying AMS just wants the law to clarify its position. Title 7 broadly worded regs that encompass almost anything agriculture used as a pretext to claim existing authority, then the new farm bill tweak (without comment from the industry) to slam bang the enforcement muscle, then comes the cash.
It already is FDA responsibility and should be kept there.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home