Fresh Produce Discussion Blog

Created by The Packer's National Editor Tom Karst

Friday, August 3, 2007

Marketing orders and food safety

I would like to delve into the issue of marketing orders and food safety over the next week or so. I would appreciate any input blog readers can provide as to the use of marketing orders for food safety purposes. Such applications have been limited in the past but appear to be gaining momentum for the future. For example, California's leafy green handlers may want to upsize their state marketing agreement to a federal marketing order.

I also would like to look at how these marketing orders with food safety elements would apply to imported produce. I have interviewed Bob Keeney of USDA for his perspective and I will be unpacking that interview.

My beginning understanding of the use of marketing orders for food safety purposes is that the regulations would only apply to imports only if the marketing order applies to all domestic production. Perhaps some of our informed readers may have a different interpretation.

Again, I would like to commend the participation of our Fresh Produce Industry Discussion Group members, found here. There is an ongoing discussion there of the pros and cons of the avocado provision in the farm bill, as well as some thoughts about the recent notice destination inspection fee increases.

Here is HR 2419's language on the food safety provisos for marketing orders:

SEC. 10106. IMPLEMENTATION OF FOOD SAFETY PROGRAMS UNDER MARKETING ORDERS.
Section 8c(6) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 608c(6)), reenacted with amendments by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(K) In the case of an order related to a specialty crop (as such term is defined in section 3(1) of the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-465; 118 Stat. 3883)), authorizing the implementation of quality-related food safety programs designed to enhance the safety of the specialty crop and products derived from specialty crops.'.



Here is coverage from The Packer's John Chadwel earlier in July:

By John Chadwell, Staff Writer
U.S. Department of Agriculture officials are working with California leafy greens growers to take their voluntary food safety marketing agreement nationwide.
The initial stages of the agreement may be just weeks away, said Lloyd Day, administrator for USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service, Washington, D.C. An advance notice in the Federal Register, a precursor to the agreement, is under consideration, Day said.
He said because of the heightened awareness about food safety in Congress, the move may happen within a few weeks.
"It would provide the industry with the opportunity to submit their comments and proposals regarding the possible establishment of a national marketing agreement for leafy green products," he said. "I'd like to push it as much as possible because it's an important issue."
Even so, the process leading to a national marketing agreement would take at least a year, allowing for public hearings, rule-making notices and the USDA's final recommendation.


From The Packer's Doug Ohlemeier in June

After three years of work, the state's tomato growers persuaded Florida lawmakers to pass a farsighted program that will make the Sunshine State one of the leaders in produce food safety.
The grower and packer members of the Florida Tomato Exchange and the Florida Tomato Growers Exchange, both based in Maitland, worked to establish an industry-wide tomato food safety program.
The growers formulated the Florida rules after the Food and Drug Administration in 2004 called to their attention that tomatoes pose a possible food illness risk.
The food regulatory agency's wake-up call prompted Florida's grower-shippers to aggressively move toward addressing the issue and trying as much as a grower-shipper of any commodity could to reduce risk of contamination.
The new rules, which are mandatory, allow Florida's tomato industry to say it is the first required statewide commodity-wide food safety program.
Because the program hasn't officially started, some packers say they haven't received a lot of reaction to the effort from their customers.


TK: Apart from the practical effectiveness of food safety programs/provisions in marketing orders, I have question about the cost and sustainability. How much will these programs cost growers and are those costs sustainable in the market palce. That is, will buyers pay for it?



Labels: , , , ,

1 Comments:

At August 3, 2007 at 12:41:00 PM CDT , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Leaving issues of overlapping rules and jurisdiction and the hope of inter agency cooperation and accountability, I feel its a cost burden everyone should share and not just be passed on to the consumer. Safety is a shared responsibility. The grower/shipper, broker, transporter, wholesaler, livery, retailer and consumer each have a responsibility. But why should the consumer who, last I checked, doesn't have a program in the farm bill always fork over the lettuce.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home