John McClung - FDA public meeting Oct. 16

Comments from John McClung, president of the Texas Produce Association, at the Oct. 16 FDA meeting on traceability. Some excerpts:

--First, our shared objective is to drive all possible threat to consumers from pathogens out of the fresh fruit and vegetable supply. For industry, this is both a moral and an economic necessity.

--But, we must recognize that with fresh product, not all risk can be eliminated given today’s technology. Therefore, accurate and efficient traceback becomes imperative when there is an outbreak. This is particularly true—and more problematic—in the face of the rapid globalization of the produce industry.

--Before we can benefit from traceback technology and commitment, we must have prompt, credible epidemiological analyses. We have to know what food is making people sick before we can ferret out the origin. Not only is there a real assault on public wellbeing and confidence absent that information, but as we have repeatedly seen there is grievous economic damage throughout the industry. I have no illusions this is a simple task, but whether in FDA’s or CDC’s hands, we have to do better with this fundamental piece of the puzzle.

--Finally, we must assign the same safety standards to imported produce—and to the marketing chain for imports—that we do to domestic produce. Easy to say, not at all easy to do.

Later....

In the U.S., and in Mexico, there are grower/shippers who adhere to the highest standards, and fortunately, those suppliers represent the lion’s share of product. As a practical matter, they are the larger, more sophisticated and better financed operations. However, for the foreseeable future we will be sourcing at least some commodities from hundreds upon hundreds of smaller, less science-driven, and less conscientious suppliers. These suppliers represent the greatest challenge to this agency, and to the industry.

As we saw in the recent jalapeno episode, small farmers slowly feeding relatively tiny volumes of tainted product into the marketing chain over an extended time period, have the ability to bring the industry and the FDA to its knees. There are no easy fixes. This produce works its way to consumers through a complex distribution web, involving farmers, field workers, truckers, importers, packing sheds, repackers, customs brokers, other brokers, wholesalers, central warehouses, retailers, food service operators, restaurants, consumers, and others.

So where do we go from here? The only effective way I can envision to minimize risk is to mandate GAP’s and/or similar blueprints for merging good science with good farming and handling practices, and then establishing statistically valid oversight of that system, both domestically and in nations that supply the U.S. But doing so, even if we can get beyond the practical problems, will result in a disproportionate burden on small business, and therefore carries its own social, economic and political downside. And even if we succeed, it won’t be 100 percent successful.

Clearly, traceback is the fallback when good practices fail. It is essential there be a paper trail on all commodities to assure traceback. That paper trail must originate with the farms. Produce comingling is possible, but only when comingled product is properly credentialed.

Even given suitable paperwork, FDA must provide expanded oversight, and that includes additional and more rapid lab results at key ports of entry.

The agency must be prepared to work closely with importers, shippers, customs brokers and others to make certain requirements are clearly understood, to spot check product, and to quickly determine the source during outbreaks. I respect the reluctance of many in the agency to get “too close” to the regulated industry, and I am mindful of the criticism that inevitably comes from Congress, the media and advocacy groups when a perceived unholy alliance is exposed, real or unreal. And I am aware of the agency’s concerns about complying with the federal laws on advisory committees. But it is in the best interests of consumers, government and industry that we find a way to share pertinent information to minimize the scope and result of outbreaks, and I do not accept that it cannot be done.

To minimize the disproportionate economic bruising to small businesses from increased regulations and oversight, the FDA should be prepared to engage in extensive efforts to educate this universe, to explain the need for paper trails and other demands, and to encourage cooperation both in the U.S. and abroad.

As we all know, the Congress is poised to help us all secure food safety as soon after January as possible, and in fact, Congressional zeal may well overwhelm the risk as lawmaking progresses. Whatever the Congress concludes, it must include significant additional support and funding for the FDA, if there is to be any realistic expectation the agency can meet the demands made of it.

For its part, industry must police the paper trail to make certain every participant records the proper data. To do this, we must make quite rigid demands on producers to assure approved GAP’s are followed, and paperwork is accurate and complete.

Additionally, industry must try to eliminate the risky temptation to purchase on the spot market and to make purchases to cover shorts unless the product is accompanied by proper paperwork.

And finally, government and industry should work toward a “crisis management” protocol to minimize the consequences of any future outbreaks.