Left of Center for Science in the Public Interest

Yes, the Center for Science in the Public Interest could easily be seen by industry as a left-leaning, pro big governent advocacy group. Yet they are an important stakeholder in the debate about food safety. Along with Tom Stenzel, Caroline Smith DeWaal of CSPI testified in Madison at the field hearing of the Appropriations Committee, ag subcommittee.
Here is a link to her prepared remarks.

Here is one except:

Last fall’s produce outbreaks are just the latest symptom of an agency that is overwhelmed by responsibility, but lacks the staff and resources to function effectively. The agency responds to crisis after crisis rather than preventing them. Current FDA funding shortfalls have reached a critical level and budget cuts have left the agency with fewer inspectors, even as their workload continues to increase. In fact, since 1972 inspections conducted by the FDA declined 81 percent. Since 2003, the number of FDA field staff dropped by 12 percent and between 2003 and 2006, there was a 47 percent drop in federal inspections. 18 FDA’s food program has a current funding shortfall of $135 million, which an FDA budget official described as equivalent to a 24 percent budget cut. This means that many other parts of the agency’s responsibilities are just not getting attention – things like obesity, dietary supplements, and appropriate oversight of new technologies. Overall consumer confidence in FDA has plummeted. A Harris Poll has documented that those who thought FDA was doing an “excellent” or “good” job went from 61% in 2000 who to 36% in 2006. Equally important is the fact that the federal agencies’ food safety expenditures are disproportionate to the risk posed by the foods they regulate. USDA regulates 20 percent of the food supply, which causes 32 percent of outbreaks, yet its food safety appropriations are double.

TK: Though one can quibble at CSPI's call for a single food safety agency, I think DeWaal's arguments are convincing here for greater Congressional funding of FDA's food safety duties. Even so, her stated wish that the FDA would "prevent outbreaks" rather than respond to them perhaps reflects a tad too much faith in man made bureaucracy and too little respect for the resourcefulness of pathogens.

Crisis - or not

More on the teleconference this morning...

The two FDA officials at the press conference were: Nega Beru, director of the office of food safety at the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, and David Acheson, director of food defense communication and emergency response for the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.

Acheson led off, stressing that the food supply in America is one of the safest in the world (what, not THE safest?) and FDA intends to keep it that way and strive to make it even safer.

"Recent outbreaks have raised concerns about the safety of the food supply, but overall, based on information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there is no indication that the total number of foodborne illnesses is actually on the increase compared to where it was a decade ago."

TK: This is a puzzler. How come we have been hearing so much about surging foodborne illnesses? Note, however, he didn't say produce-related foodborne illnesses....

"However, recent outbreaks have indicated that clearly more need to be done to further minimize the minimize the risk of foodborne illness."

"The vast majority of foodborne illnesses are at least, in theory, preventable, and therefore one of the main focuses in FDA is on prevention."

"However, when tackling prevention, it is important to take a scientific, risk-based approach to devote resources to the areas of greatest risk."

"This history of produce related outbreaks and fresh cut related outbreaks clearly indicates that these are an area of risk and hence the guidance targeted to the fresh cut industry."

Acheson also said that there is a clear need to better understand how and where E. coli and other pathogens get on to produce and how to prevent it. He concluded by saying the FDA is committed to respond to foodborne illness outbreaks quickly and get information to consumers as soon as possible.

TK: A couple of "howevers" one "in theory" and "a clear need to better understand." Like the rest of us, FDA doesn't have all the answers yet.

Beru presented some interesting stats:

"As you know, the fresh cut produce sector is the fast growing segment of the produce industry, with the larger volume and greater variety being available."

At the same time, perhaps because of increasing market share of fresh cut produce, he said there has been greater incidence of foodborne illness related to fresh cut produce.

Between 1996 and 2006, about 25% of all outbreaks related to fresh produce implicated fresh cut produce, he said. He said fresh cut processing may increase the risk of bacterial contamination and growth by breaking the natural exterior barrier of the produce. A higher degree of handling may increase the risk of cross contamination, as well - though he said that use of controls such as adequate chlorine in dump tanks may reduce the risk.


TK: I don't think members of the consumer press "got" what the FDA has done relating to food safety guidance for fresh cut. More on that later.

Here is Congressional reaction from Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn.

Congresswoman Rosa L. DeLauro (Conn.-3) issued the following statement in response to the FDA’s issuance of voluntary new guidance for makers of fresh-cut produce. DeLauro chairs the House Appropriations Agriculture Subcommittee and is a co-chair of the Congressional Food Safety Caucus.

“At a time when the country is experiencing numerous food-borne illness outbreaks, and the industry is looking for the government’s help to repair their image, it is disappointing that the FDA issues a non-binding, voluntary guidance document that does nothing and merely tells growers what they already know.

“The FDA has an opportunity to create a system for the produce industry that focuses on preventing hazards by applying science based controls, from raw material to finished product, and make a declarative statement that the goal is to prevent food-borne illness not just to react when outbreaks occur. Unfortunately, the FDA so far is choosing to maintain the status-quo.

“Stating the obvious is a meaningless activity and it does not respond to the industry’s request for strong, federal regulations critical to restoring consumer confidence in the fresh produce they purchase.”

FDA presser

The FDA had a teleconference this morning about the final draft of guidance for fresh cut processors. Find the guidance here.

Here is a little bit from the press release:

FDA Issues Final Guidance For Safe Production of Fresh-Cut Fruits And Vegetables

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today published a draft final guidance advising processors of fresh-cut produce how to minimize microbial food safety hazards common to the processing of most fresh-cut fruits and vegetables, which are often sold to consumers in a ready-to-eat form.
The document -- “Guide to Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards of Fresh-cut Fruits and Vegetables” -- suggests that fresh-cut processors consider a state-of-the-art food safety program such as the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) system, which is designed to prevent, eliminate, or reduce to acceptable levels the microbial, chemical, and physical hazards associated with food production.

The guidance complements FDA’s regulations of manufacturing practices and incorporates comments received in response to its draft issued in March 2006.


TK: Consumer press reporters in the teleconference were puzzled why this guidance wasn't mandatory. I can see their confusion, considering the furor about food safety outbreaks: the press release is full of soft words..."suggest that fresh-cut processors consider"...
The FDA said a determination of whether science-based mandates are necessary will be explored in upcoming meetings in March and April. One reporter had a question about "HAZMAT" standards; he was corrected by the FDA. I think you mean HACCP standards..... Ouch.

Stenzel testimony and coming FDA news

Amy Philpott of United sends us Tom Stenzel's prepared remarks today before the Senate Appropriations (Ag subcommittee). Stenzel was testifying today in Wisconsin in a field hearing that is also going to generate news from the FDA later today. (FDA sent a release with an embargo till 11 a.m. Central).

Stenzel effectively points out that the industry isn't a Johnny-come-lately to produce safety concerns, outlining long standing industry initiatives for GAP and GHPs in whole and fresh cut produce. He points out the implicated farm in San Benito County represented just a handful of acres among thousands planted to spinach and leafy greens.

He continues:

It is within the context of all of these industry driven efforts that I turn now to discuss what we believe to be the most appropriate regulatory framework for fresh produce safety. While there is much our industry can and must do, we also have to recognize the important role of the federal government.
Today, our country faces a critical public health challenge to increase our consumption of fresh produce. The 2005 U.S. Dietary Guidelines call on Americans to literally double our consumption of fruits and vegetables. And now, our nation is faced with an obesity crisis that threatens the long-term health of our children unless we radically change eating habits and help them learn to make healthier choices for a lifetime.
I am here today because I fear that if we do not ensure public confidence in a strong, credible and comprehensive food safety regulatory framework, we are putting that goal at risk. It is simply unacceptable for Americans to fear consuming those very fresh fruits and vegetables that are essential to their good health.


TK: Stenzel outlined three principles for a regulatory framework. Here is my quick summation
1. Consistent Produce Food Safety Standards - imported and domestic produce should have the same standards
2. Federal Oversight and Responsibility - FDA to determine appropriate nationwide standards; no new authority needed for FDA; USDA may have food safety role in marketing order regs
3. Commodity-Specific Scientific Approach; commodity specific standards should be implemented, depending on risk factors.

I like what Stenzel is saying here, though I'm not convinced the USDA marketing order role in food safety is appropriate.

Crunching carrots

Twenty-one pages on carrots and it reads like a dream. The USDA's Economic Research Service has published a report called "Factors Affecting Carrot Consumption in the United States." Here is the main link to the report.

Here are some highlights:

Despite the popularity and convenience of fresh-cut products, disappearance of carrots declined during the first 6 years of the new millennium. While this drop may have partly reflected reduced demand for whole carrots, it is more likely that the maturation of the fresh-cut industry fostered increased production and processing efficiency, thus reducing waste and allowing lower raw carrot production.

During 2000-05, average disappearance of carrots for the fresh market (down 15 percent) and for processing (down 20 percent) have each declined from the 1990-99 average. Despite this drop, per capita use of all carrots this decade remains 20 percent above the average of the 1980s.

The analysis indicates that per capita carrot consumption is greatest in the East and Central regions of the country. About 80 percent of fresh-market carrots are purchased at retail and consumed at home, with the majority consisting of fresh-cut (including baby) carrots. Per capita use of fresh carrots is strongest among Asians, with per capita use of both fresh and freezing carrots greatest among upper income households.

Within the $1.3-billion fresh-cut vegetable category (excludes pre-packaged salads), carrots account for the largest share (about half) of supermarket sales, followed distantly by potatoes, celery, and others

Adoption of fresh-cut was not a problem for long-time carrot consumers, as households headed by someone over age 65 exceeded national average fresh-cut consumption by 29 percent.

Organic carrots are continuing to make inroads into U.S. carrot markets. According to the 2003 Homescan panel data, organic carrots accounted for about 3 percent of the total at-home carrot market.


Flashback to Feb. 7, 1992. From The Packer's library, I pulled this piece I wrote about the "better mousetrap" of baby carrots.

All this interest in what used to be the culls from regular fresh carrot packing operations. Instead of shipping small carrots to the freezer or cattle feeders, grower-shippers now grow special fields for production of baby peeled carrots.
``The acceptance has been tremendous and we are at a prorate situation everyday,'' said Rich Speidell with Cal World Produce Sales, a division of Mike Yurosek & Son Inc., Lamont, Calif. Though the baby peeled carrot has been offered by Cal World for five years, only recently has the item begun to show its potential.
The 12-ounce, 1-pound and 2-pound cello bags are popular, and some 5-pound bags are moving through the club stores. Bulk packs are being offered to foodservice.
``We projected growth between 5 and 35 percent (in the past year); it's probably grown 70 percent,'' Speidell said. Over the next season, growth of 25 percent to 30 percent is expected.


TK: While we wait for sliced apples to become the next baby peeled carrots, a tribute to ingenuity of Mike Yurosek in 1986 and the hard work of Grimmway, Bolthouse and others that have made the fresh cut carrot category half a billion dollar plus strong and growing.