"Not so fast" and "While you are at it"

There is push back and some alternative ideas on the proposal to create a national marketing agreement/order for leafy greens. Luis notes coverage of the issue from Supermarket News in this post. From SN coverage:

Community Alliance with Family Farmers, a small-farm advocacy group based (in Davis, Calif.) has said it opposes the proposed federal marketing agreement for leafy greens, a national food safety program modeled after the California Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement. Although many growers have publicly expressed support for the plan, CAFF argues that if the U.S. Department of Agriculture makes the agreement mandatory -- by imposing a marketing order -- small farms and local growers could be bankrupted by expensive mandates that are really designed for large, national operations.
"We don't think the federal marketing agreement is a good model for food safety," Kira Pascoe, CAFF's family farm food safety coordinator, said.

TK: Meanwhile, the U.S. government regulation Web site - www.regulations.gov - has other comments posted about the proposal. From a consumer:

"General Comment:Concered about e-coli--I googled it and found over 100,000 sites--all document anywhere from 25,000 to 85,000 cases of e-coli cases per year--e-coli was
identified and named it 1865, certainly not a "new threat" 95% of e-coli is found in the large intestines of humans and animals--in other words feces--in other words fertilizers-- Before the outrageous restrictions on food handling--a moderate amout of e-coli was consumed by everyone and the body produced immunities much the same as vaccines. The very idea that a million packages of spinach was recalled for 30 illnesses in obscene--The product was grown in lands that have produced spinach for generations without the FDA's interference--again OUTRAGEOUS OVER REGULATION !! "

TK: That consumer comment isn't going anywhere, but one thoughtful comment was submitted by Lloyd Ligier, vice president of business development for Pro*Act in Monterey, Calif. Ligier writes to USDA:

"Time and again we see product being delivered to foodservice customers in unrefrigerated trucks or worse, open bed trucks, from facilities that have little or inadequate refrigeration, have no pest control program, are not third party inspected, and do not have HACCP or any other food safety programs in place. This does not bode well for food safety, and is, or soon will be, a major problem in handling safe, source product."
"This is my 42nd year in the wholesale produce industry, all of my time spent in fresh produce distribution. Little has changed in those 42 years regarding jobbers or unqualified produce distributors. Under today's circumstances, with the efforts being put forth with the growers and fresh cut processors, there must be some effort put forth to qualify fresh produce receiving and distribution points."
"My suggestion is that GDP (Good Distribution Practices) should be established, and in order for a distributor to sell to any foodservice account, they should follow and be certified as a GDP distributor. "

TK: That is one bold proposal, my friends, and certainly resonates with the grower community. What do you think? Ligier says the system for GDP for distributors could be voluntary and still work its purpose. As in the case with the national marketing agreement for leafy greens, arguments over the applicability of any regulation to small farmers or small foodservice operators will be the swing issue.