Is there FDA discrimination by country of orign?

One reader left a note in a previous post and asks if the FDA treats domestic and foreign farms even handedly. He observed that Mexican cantaloupe exporters were hit hard by the FDA.
You can find the "anonymous" comment after the "5 deaths" post and I'll post it here, too:


Why the USA companies with similar contaminated products get the same punishment as the Mexican cantaloupe growers got?Any produce origin discrimination there? Is the USDA/FDA law applied differently for USA grown produce as for foreign grown products?Was going in on here? Has NAFTA agreements also different for this type of treatment for out of the USA produce?


TK: I think the comment brings up a point of sensitivity that many foreign suppliers might voice. Yet at the same time, domestic producers are rightly concerned that there is no way that foreign growers will have the same kind of scrutiny from FDA inspectors that they have to endure and anticipate.

Mexico map

Gail O'Connor, deputy press secretary for U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, sent this map (at the Fresh Produce Industry Discussion Group) that details U.S. agricultural activity in Mexico. The argument for AgJobs is that some of these more than 10,000 jobs and tens of thousands of acres would be in the U.S., not Mexico, if America had adequate immigration provisions for the required number of legal workers needed in agriculture.

Still no word on whether AgJobs will be attached to an appropriations bill or the Farm Bill. If the Dream Act is attached to defense appropriations, that would make AgJobs germane to that legislation, one lobbyist told me.

New Poll question

Here is the latest Fresh Talk poll result:
Houston doesn't get a lot of love, and San Diego gets the highest marks. No surprises here, but maybe Houston will surprise this year.

What is the best convention city for the PMA?

Orlando 3 (13%)
San Diego 10 (43%)
Anaheim 2 (8%)
Atlanta 3 (13%)
Houston 1 (4%)
San Antonio 4 (17%)


TK: The new poll question asks:


What will be the result of the Senate work on the farm bill this year?

The options:
Senate will pass a farm bill with more money than the House for f/v priorities.
Senate will pass a farm bill with less mandatory funds for f/v priorities
Senate fails to pass a new farm bill this fall

Help!

Is it time for the leafy greens industry to invite regulation? The Monterey County Herald wrote this editorial on Sept. 21:

Time for grower industry to get outside help
THE HERALD'S VIEW Where we see successful and honorable farmers, processors, shippers and packers, much of the country is now seeing hooves.
An ancient piece of wisdom goes something like this: If someone calls you a donkey, ignore them. But if quite a few people call you a donkey, check for hooves.
It may be time for the Salinas Valley produce industry to check for hooves.
In the aftermath of last year's E. coli outbreak in the spinach industry, the local ag community did a great job of assessing likely causes and quickly improving handling, testing and tracking procedures.
The industry, acting logically and not at all like a donkey, pressed for industry-designed and industry-monitored standards, which eventually became known as the Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement, calling it a faster and more effective alternative to new layers of government regulation.
The thinking was that no one knows the issues and the processes better than the industry. Certainly not the USDA, FDA or other government entities with limited experience in the produce fields. No one has more incentive to get it right than the industry.
While the idea of large fines hanging over the industry's head might comfort some buyers, industry leaders saw it as a weak supplement to the industry's unquestioned need to rebuild and retain consumer confidence.
On the one hand: fear of sanctions. On the other: fear of lost markets and economic ruin. The second course, chosen by the industry, was no less demanding than the first.
Despite inability to cite shining examples of government food-safety programs, consumer groups and some legislators fought the industry plan, making too much of the notion that its requirements were "voluntary."
Through some effective lobbying, the industry managed to ward off efforts to impose a more laborious system led by the state — more laborious but not necessarily any more effective.
The industry essentially prevailed, but the prize was to be put into the hopeless position of needing to deliver perfect product with virtually no margin for error.
With a dozen years of less dramatic but well documented E. coli cases behind it, with three deaths traced to Central Coast spinach a year ago, the industry was under tremendous pressure to ensure that the troubles were over.
Adding to the pressure was the fact that the full lineup of industry experts, federal regulators and plant scientists still don't know exactly how the system had broken down in the past. And with the pressure came tremendous scrutiny.
An expanding group of industry critics pounced last month after a recall of local spinach when samples tested positive for salmonella. They've pounced even more energetically following last weekend's news of an E. coli discovery in a bag of Dole salad mix Canada.
Despite no reports of health problems, speedy confirmation that some lettuce in the shipment came from the Salinas Valley prompted an excited round of "gotcha" aimed at the local industry.
It didn't seem to matter that no one could tell yet whether the contamination originated here or somewhere else along the line, such as the fields of Colorado or Ohio, where some of the greens were grown, or in an Ohio processing plant.
Still, the loud reaction all across the nation shows that the industry's relationship with the consuming public, regulatory agencies, legislators, produce buyers and others who matter has dropped far below where it needs to be if the industry is to move forward and prosper, which is critical to the region as well as the industry.
We remain convinced that the industry is fully capable of protecting the consumer as well or better than state or federal regulators could. That's because we know the people in the industry. They're our neighbors. Most are family farmers in various permutations, not greedy cost-cutters.
Unfortunately, a nation of nervous salad eaters doesn't know them in the same way. Where we see successful and honorable farmers, processors, shippers and packers, much of the country is now seeing hooves.
It seems time for the industry to accept all the help it can get from state and federal regulators, time to work quickly toward establishing stronger nationwide safety standards and to reassess both its testing procedures and the practice of mixing products from different sources.
Rather than shouldering all the responsibility themselves, it seems time for industry leaders to agree to additional conditions, even those that make little sense except from a public relations perspective.
Taking that path would take much of the pressure off and, at the same time, could actually make the products safer.
It could even provide a ompetitive boost to the local industry by requiring the industry in other states to adopt new safety practices, some of them quite expensive, that are already in place here.

TK: This editorial was posted in the Fresh Produce Industry Discussion Group. From that thread, I'm posting a comment from Luis. He makes a good point about perception and consumer attitudes. From Luis:

Obviously perception can be shaped. See it Court TV all the time when two members of a jury are presented with the same situation but come to different conclusions depending on how the case is made by the defense and the prosecution.
At any rate, the idea that industry is somehow "resisting" government oversight is such a huge misperception. The industry is regulated and is and has been working all along to improve food safety with State and Federal partners. However, the China import situation etc. now has some consumers suspicious of producers as well as government.
Why, some would argue, do we need more regulation if the regulatory agencies do not have enough inspectors (in house or outsourced) and are not fully equipped to provide sound scientific risk assessments that can guide growers and policy makers. On the other hand, some feel that growers may know field conditions and growing practice best but are not microbiologist/epidemiologists or disinterested parties either.
I guess if regulatory agencies, growers, politicos and activistas are seen squabbling with each other rather than credibly fighting the real enemy. Namely, Salmonella, E. coli O157:H7 etc. we may end up looking a bit internally like China and externally having US product being no so welcome overseas.

Suing Canada and other discussion group topics

Here is an update on what's fresh on the Fresh Produce Industry Discussion Group this morning:

U.S. company sues Canadian agency following recall of packaged carrots AK links to this Canadian Press story about disputed test results:

Despite running tests on more than 60 samples of its product, an American company couldn't duplicate results that led to a recall of baby carrots in Canada, a lawyer for the company said Friday.
The Los Angeles Salad Co. has filed a suit in B.C. Supreme Court in Vancouver following a recall of packaged carrots issued by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency on Aug. 17 and again three days later.

Our public guardians Big Apple links to this report about phosphate pollution in Idaho and an alleged cover up.

Ethanol's price Big Apple links to this report that says ethanol-related demand for corn is contributing to a quickening drawdown of the Ogallala aquifer

Point to ponder Big Apple links to a story that asks the question whether the benefits of immigration reform will be long lasting.

New crop apples