United's plan

There are many questions about what strong federal oversight - advocated yesterday by United Fresh - will mean to the fresh produce industry. More than that, what will it mean for apples compared with melons, or cabbage compared with spinach?
I stopped by United's HQ on Pennsylvania Ave. and visited with Amy Philpott and Tom Stenzel a little bit this afternoon. Stenzel said that United doesn't necessarily see a "one size fits all" approach. At the same time, all commodities should be under the regulatory umbrella.
"Clearly lettuce and leafy greens are in the bulls eye, but our board feels strongly that everyone is losing public confidence with every outbreak," he said.

Flexibility and variability are the keys to implementing food safety regulations (getting way ahead of myself here) , and without it strong federal oversight could be a hard deal to live with.

AgJobs in the balance

Sharon Hughes of the National Council of Agricultural Employers gave an update to the fruit and vegetable industry advisory committee this morning. She noted that Senate Democrats may try to attach AgJobs to the minimum wage bill next week. Failing that, it will be a longer process to bring AgJobs to the Senate floor.
Earlier this morning at the Monaco Hotel, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California told the NCAE annual meeting that comprehensive immigration reform seems to be falling apart, with increasing skepticism that the plan passed last year by the Senate could work. The idea that people in the country less than five years would go back to their home country is falling out of favor.

Mr. Secretary

Ag Secretary Mike Johanns spoke before the fruit and vegetable industry advisory committee on Tuesday and he was warmly received. He answered a few questions from the committee, including one about the WIC food packages proposal. Johanns said the agency was working to get a rule out by September, and seemed genuine on that point.

Meanwhile, he said the Administration is close to releasing their recommendations on the 2007 farm bill, which may go a long way in telling how reform-minded farm policy will be. Look for that document by mid-February.

Upon further review

Yesterday's bold stroke by United to call for "strong federal oversight of food safety" is a watershed moment for the industry. As members of United Board describe it, Tom Stenzel's presentation to the United board over the past weekend was masterful, sobering and convincing.

There are many reasons that this move asking for government oversight makes sense. First of all, if industry is going to be further regulated, it should be a part of the process with other stakeholders in helping to set the parameters of those new rules. A second issue is that any PR element needs a solid footing. The industry can't say, "Well, most of our growers do it this way."
And California can't be the only agent of change.

Also, there is a sense that having stronger oversight will mean the industry won't be on an island if additional outbreaks occur. The perception is that government may be more of an ally in this scenario, and vouch for industry practices.

At the same time, observers I talked with want to make sure there is "no grower left behind." It's hard not to get ahead of the industry when you are leading the industry, but there must be buy-in to the process. That will be a key component in the next few weeks.

Getting the industry "all together now" before food safety hearings begin in Congress is critical.

In any case, any new paradigm for government and industry will take perhaps two years to hammer out, or perhaps longer. Where will Congress find the money to give FDA the tools it needs to do the job?

What the industry does in the short term with the California marketing agreement and other initiatives - a national marketing agreement was floated during the advisory committee meeting - could determine if United's vision of strong federal oversight will come to pass.