Canada looks to update food safety laws

From a May 11 report from the USDA FAS, signs that the U.S. and Canada are once again in harmonic convergence, this time on food safety.

GOC INTRODUCES IMPROVED IMPORT SAFETY LEGISLATION: The Canadian government introduced legislation in the House of Commons this week that will allow Ottawa to be tougher on food and consumer products that endanger the safety of Canadians. This legislation is yet another step in the government’s Food and Consumer Safety Action Plan, first announced in December 2007. Highlights of the legislation announced in the government’s press statement are: (1) new powers for the federal government to order recalls of unsafe products, (2) increases in fines for violations, (3) A crack down on negligent, manufacturers, importers and retailers who knowingly endanger their customers, (4) improved access to public information on product safety, and (5) a requirement of mandatory reporting by suppliers of serious product-related incidents. The legislation package proposes amendments to the Food and Drug Act, as well as a new Canada Consumer Product Safety Act. Like the US who is in the process of strengthening its import safety laws after recalls of products from China that threatened consumer’s health, Canada feels that the current the provisions of the 1969 Hazardous Product Act are out of step with current import flows and need to be updated to reflect the times. Details of Bill C-52, an act respecting the safety of consumer products is available at the following website: www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=3397415&file=4

SCFBA - strongly supports farm bill

Getting an overwhelming vote for the farm bill is the goal of industry lobbyists now. Fighting for $3 billion....from the Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance:

SPECIALTY CROP FARM BILL ALLIANCE STRONGLY SUPPORTS FARM BILL CONFERENCE REPORT

Report contains historic investments for specialty crop producers and address key policy priorities

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance (SCFBA), a national coalition of more than 120 specialty crop organizations representing 350 individual specialty crops, announced their strong support for the Farm Bill Conference Report which was filed today by the House and Senate Farm Bill Conferees. The report contains approximately $3 billion in funding for specialty crop priorities and addresses important specialty crop policy recommendations that will enhance the competitiveness of the specialty crop producers in this country. Specialty crop producers do not receive direct payments or subsidies from the federal government.
“This Farm Bill makes a tremendous investment in specialty crop priorities by dedicating approximately $3 billion in funding for our priorities. Specialty crop producers will be encouraging their lawmakers in Washington to support this legislation when it’s considered before the House and Senate this week. We also applaud the determination by the House and Senate leadership along with the conferees in both chambers for maintaining their commitment to specialty crop producers across the nation.”

The legislation recognizes important SCFBA priorities based on infrastructure investments through enhanced state competitiveness grants, targeted research programs, increased access to fruits and vegetables through federal nutrition programs, improved pest and disease programs, expanded international market access, and increased access to conservation programs.

Specialty Crop Funding Highlights

$1.02 billion - Expands the Fresh Fruit & Vegetable Snack Program to all 50 states. The nationwide expansion of the Snack Program will develop life-long healthy eating habits for millions of children by providing fresh fruits and vegetables in our nation’s schools.

$466 million – Enhances “Specialty Crop Block Grants” that focus on local efforts to enhance producers’ ability to compete in the marketplace and provide consumers with safe, abundant food.

$ 377 million – Creates a new Pest and Disease Program focused on combating invasive pests and disease, which cost the economy billions of dollars a year.

$230 million – Establishes the Specialty Crop Research Initiative to develop and disseminate science-based tools to address the needs of specific crops and their regions.

Specialty Crop Policy Highlights

Successfully adds “processing (packing), storing and transportation” to the approved list of on-farm income related to the AGI (adjusted gross income) conservation programs.

Prioritizes federal research activities for specialty crops.

Requires the Secretary to conduct a census of specialty crops to assist in the development and dissemination of specialty crop information.

Improves provision for technical assistance under conservation programs

Managers statement - Specialty crop block grants

Escalating money for specialty crop block grants; From page 242 of the managers statement:

(5) Specialty crop block grants
The House bill amends section 101 of the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act
by continuing the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program through 2012, and increasing the
mandatory levels of funding to:
$60,000,000 in FY’08
$65,000,000 in FY’09
$70,000,000 in FY’10
$75,000,000 in FY’11
$95,000,000 in FY’12.
The House provision changes the definition of “specialty crop” under the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act of 2004 to include “horticulture,” and the definition of “State” to include Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands and the Northern Mariana Islands. (Section 10102) The Senate amendment is the same as the House bill, except funding is discontinued after FY’11. The Senate definitions are the same as in the House bill, but also includes “turfgrass sod” and “herbal crops” in the definition of “specialty crop”. The Senate amendment modifies section 101(e) to require that states, to the maximum extent practicable and appropriate, develop plans that take into consideration the views of beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers who produce specialty crops. It also changes the minimum grant amount from $100,000 to one-half of one percent of the overall funding allocated to the program in a given fiscal year. (Section 1841) The Conference substitute adopts the House provision with amendments to specify that any funds made available for a fiscal year under the program that are not expended by certain date, to be determined by the Secretary, will be reallocated to other States; change the minimum grant amount to $100,000 or one-third of one percent of the overall funding allocated to the program in a given fiscal year (whichever is higher);provide mandatory levels of funding in the amounts of:
$10 million for fiscal year 2008; $49 million for fiscal year 2009; and $55 million for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2012. (Section 10109) The Managers expect that the Secretary will encourage each state making applications for funding under the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program to provide a written plan detailing the affirmative steps it will take to perform outreach to specialty crop producers in the development of the State’s overall grant plan, including outreach to socially disadvantaged and beginning farmers of specialty crops. The Managers also note that herbal crops fall within the statutory definition of eligible specialty crops under the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program, and direct the Agricultural Marketing Service to include a comprehensive list of specific categories of eligible specialty crops in all relevant promotional materials distributed in connection to the program. The Managers expect the Secretary to continue to consider the cultivation of turfgrass sod as horticulture, and therefore included as part of the definition of specialty crop under the Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act of 2004, and as a specialty crop for any other purposes in this or any other Act. The Managers urge the Secretary to encourage state departments of agriculture to develop their grant plans through a competitive process in order to ensure maximum public input and benefit. The Managers expect the Secretary to ensure that States conduct extensive outreach to interested parties through a transparent process of receiving and considering public comment so that grant applications are developed with proven and justified public support, particularly when developing applications for multistate projects. Further, the Managers expect the Secretary to carefully review requests that extend existing projects to ensure that support remains across the broad array of public-private partnerships unique to the structure of the specialty crop industry. The Managers note that since 2006 many states have used specialty crop block grant funding for marketing programs, some of which promote state grown products. The Managers expect the Secretary to carefully monitor the use of funds under grant awards to ensure that funds are promoting specialty crops as defined under the Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act of 2004 and are not being used in generically cross-marketing other commodities which fall under state marketing programs but are outside the scope of the Act’s definition. The Managers recognize the ability of States to submit multi-state projects under current program regulations. The Managers also recognize the growing need for solutions to problems that cross state boundaries and may therefore be addressed more effectively by multi-state projects. These problems include addressing good agricultural practices, research on crop productivity or quality, enhancing access to federal nutrition programs, pest and disease management, or commodity-specific projects addressing common issues in multi-state regions. The Managers therefore request that the Secretary encourage state departments of agriculture to submit grant plans that include multi-state and regional project proposals. The Managers also request that the Secretary give strong consideration to multi-state projects when reallocating unobligated block grant funding.

Statement of managers - Senior farmers' market nutrition program

From page 109 of the statement of managers, on the Seniors Farmers' Market Nutrition Program:



(55) Seniors Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program
The House bill amends section 4402 of FSRIA by: (1) extending mandatory funding of $15,000,000 for the Senior Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program through fiscal year 2012; and (2) authorizing additional appropriations of $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2009, $45,000,000 for fiscal year 2010, $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2011, and $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2012. Honey is added to the list of items to be covered by program vouchers. The value of benefits provided to eligible Senior Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program recipients is prohibited from being considered income or resources for any purposes under any Federal, State or local law. State and local governments are also prohibited from collecting taxes on food purchased with vouchers distributed under the program. (Section 4401) The Senate amendment amends section 4402 by permanently extending mandatory funding for the senior farmers’ market nutrition program (at $15 million a year). It also mandates additional funding of $10 million a year. Provisions regarding the treatment of senior farmers’ market nutrition program benefits are the same as in the House bill. (Section (4701, 4702) The Conference substitute adopts the House provision with an amendment to strike the authorization of additional appropriations to carry out the program, and to make other technical changes. The Senate provision requiring additional mandatory funds is adopted and appears in section 4405 with an amendment to increase current mandatory funding to $20,600,000 a year. (Section 4231).

Statement of managers - Purchases of locally produced foods

From page 106 of the statement of managers:

(54) Purchases of Locally Produced Foods
The House bill amends section 9(j) of the NSLA by authorizing the Secretary to: (1) encourage institutions that receive funds under the NSLA and the Child Nutrition Act (CNA) to purchase, to the maximum extent practicable and appropriate, locally-produced foods; (2) advise institutions about the policy related to purchasing locally-produced foods and post information related to this policy on the website maintained by the Secretary; and (3) allow institutions receiving funds under the NSLA and the CNA, including the DoD Fruit and Vegetable Program, to use geographic preference in their procurement of locally-produced foods. (Section 4304) The Senate amendment is the same as the House bill, except that Senate amendment pertains to locally produced fruits and vegetables. (Section 4902)
The Conference substitute adopts the House provision with an amendment to specify that the Department of Agriculture is required to allow institutions to use a geographic preference for the procurement of unprocessed, locally grown and raised agricultural products. (Section 4302)
The Managers do not intend that the Food and Nutrition Service interpret the term “unprocessed” literally, but rather intend that it be logically implemented. In specifying the term “unprocessed,” the Managers’ use of the term intends to preclude the use of geographic preference for agricultural products that have significant value added components. The Managers do not intend to preclude de minimis handling and preparation such as may be necessary to present an agricultural product to a school food authority in a useable form, such as washing vegetables, bagging greens, butchering livestock and poultry, pasteurizing milk, and putting eggs in a carton.

Statement of managers - Expansion of Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program

This is a biggie for the industry. From page 107 of the statement of managers:


(53) Expansion of Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program
The House bill amends section 18(f) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (NSLA) by expanding the fresh fruit and vegetable program in elementary and secondary schools. Mandatory funding is increased from $9,000,000 to $70,000,000 a`year, and the program is to be available nationwide in: (A) 35 elementary and secondaryschools in each State; and (B) additional elementary and secondary schools in each State in proportion to the student population of the State. The Senate amendment replaces the current fresh fruit and vegetable program, beginning with the 2008-2009 school year. The new program would provide mandatory funding ($225 million in the first year, indexed for inflation in later years) and authorize additional appropriations for a program to make free fresh fruits and vegetables available in participating elementary schools nationwide. Participating elementary schools would be selected by States with priority generally given to schools with the highest proportion of children eligible for free or reduced-price school meals, those that partner with entities that provide non-federal resources, and those that evidence efforts to integrate the program with other efforts to promote sound health and nutrition, reduce overweight and obesity, or promote physical activity. Funding would be allocated among States under a formula distributing roughly
half of the funds equally among States and apportioning the remainder based on State population. At least 100 schools chosen to participate must be operated on Indian reservations. Per-student grants would be determined by the State but could not be less than $50, or more than $75, annually. An evaluation is required and provided funding of $3 million to remain available until expended.
The Senate amendment changes the final report’s due date to December 31, 2012. The Secretary is authorized, in selecting schools to participate in the program, to encourage plans for implementation that include locally grown foods. The Secretary is required to establish requirements to be followed by States in administering the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program—the initial set of requirements must be established not later than 1 year after the enactment. The Secretary is allowed to reserve up to 1% of program funding for administrative expenses related to the program. States may use up to 5% of program funding for administrative expenses. (Section 4904)
The Conference substitute adopts the Senate provision with several amendments. The substitute deletes Senate language allowing a consortia of schools to apply for funding. The substitute includes a new requirement that state agencies administering the program initiate special outreach to schools with significant numbers of children eligible for free or reduced price meals informing them of their eligibility for the program. The substitute includes a new provision to ensure that states currently receiving funding under the program do not see a reduction in their funding as the program is phased in over time. The substitute includes an amendment which allows states to reserve funding for program administration, in accordance with regulations promulgated by the Secretary. And the substitute includes several provisions intended to aid the Secretary as the program transitions from the existing requirements of section 18(f) to the new requirements established by this section. Mandatory funding is provided through section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935 in the amounts of $40,000,000 on October 1, 2008; $65,000,000 on July 1, 2009; $101,000,000 on July 1, 2010; $150,000,000 on July 1, 2011; $150,000,000 indexed for inflation according to the CPI-U on July 1, 2012. (Section 4304) It is the intent of the Managers to specifically target available program funding to schools with the highest proportion of children who are eligible for free and reduced price meals, in accordance with (d)(1)(B). Accordingly, the Managers expect that, provided the rest of a school’s application is acceptable, that a school with a higher proportion of children eligible for free and reduced-price meals will be selected to participate rather than a school with a lower proportion of children eligible for free and reduced-price meals. As the name of the program makes clear, it is the intent of the program to provide children with free fresh fruits and vegetables. It is not the intent of the Managers to allow this program to provide other products, such as nuts, either on their own or comingled with other foods, such as in a trail mix. The Managers support the inclusion of all fruits and vegetables in the federal nutrition programs where supported by science and will continue to work with the Department on promoting access to all fruits and vegetables.

Statement of managers - purchase of fresh fruits and vegetables for distribution to schools

DOD Fresh stands pat. From page 106 of 423 of statement of managers:

(51) Purchase of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables for Distribution to Schools and Service
Institutions
The House bill amends section 10603 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (FSRIA) by increasing the dollar amount of fresh fruits, vegetables and other specialty foods the Secretary must procure for schools and service institutions participating in programs under the National School Lunch Act to at least $50,000,000 a year for each of the fiscal years 2008 and 2009 and $75,000,000 a year for each of the fiscal years 2010 through 2012. As under current law, these amounts may be spent through the Department of Defense (DoD) Fresh Program. (Section 4301) The Senate amendment provides that, in lieu of purchases required under Sec. 10603, the Secretary purchase fruits, vegetables, and nuts for use in domestic food assistance programs using Section 32 funds. Purchase amounts are set at: $390 million for fiscal year 2008, $393 million for fiscal year 2009, $399 million for fiscal year 2010, $403 million for fiscal year 2011, and $406 million for fiscal year 2012 and each year hereafter. Items purchased may be in frozen, canned, dried, or fresh form. The Senate amendment also allows the Secretary to offer value-added products containing fruits, vegetables or nuts after taking into consideration whether demand exists for the value-added product and the interest of entities that receive fruits, vegetables and nuts under this program. (Section 4907)
The Conference substitute adopts the House language with an amendment to retain the current $50 million a year requirement to acquire fresh fruits and vegetables for distribution in accordance with section 6(a) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act. The Managers expect the purchases of fresh fruits and vegetables previously made through the Department of Defense Fresh Program will continue under an equivalent procurement mechanism. (Section 4404)
(52) Buy America Requirements
The House bill includes Congressional findings that: (1) Federal law requires that commodities and products purchased with Federal funds be, to the extent practicable, of domestic origin; (2) Federal Buy American statutory requirements seek to ensure that purchases made with Federal funds benefit domestic producers; and (3) the School Lunch Act requires the use of domestic food products for all meals served under the program, including food products purchased with local funds. (Section 4302) The Senate amendment is the same as the House bill, with technical differences. (Section 4906). The Conference substitute adopts the House provision. (Section 4306).

Statement of managers - nutrition education and promotion initiative to address obesity

From the nutrition title, the statement of managers, page 100 of 423. Again, look for what the House bill does, the Senate and how the Conference bill reconciles the two.


(38) Nutrition Education and Promotion Initiative to Address Obesity

The House bill amends section 17 of the FSA by adding a new section that authorizes the Secretary to establish a demonstration program, to be known as the “Initiative to Address Obesity Among Low-Income Americans,” to develop and implement strategies to reduce obesity among low-income Americans. The Secretary is authorized to enter into competitively awarded contracts, cooperative agreements, or grants with public or private organizations or agencies. Agencies are required to submit applications to the Secretary, and the Secretary is to evaluate demonstration proposals using a variety of criteria, including: (1) identifying a low-income target audience that corresponds to individuals living with incomes at or below 185 percent of the poverty level; (2) incorporating scientifically-based strategies that are designed to improve diet quality through more healthful food purchases, preparation, or consumption; and (3) a commitment to a demonstration plan that allows for rigorous outcome evaluation, including data collection. Projects that limit the use of SSNAP program benefits are prohibited from receiving funding. The Secretary is authorized to use funds to pay costs associated with monitoring, evaluating, and disseminating the Initiative’s findings. An appropriation of $10,000,000 is authorized for fiscal years 2008 through 2012.
No new grants are to be made after September 30, 2012. (Section 4023) The Senate amendment amends section 17 to require and fund pilot projects to develop and test methods of using the Food and Nutrition program to improve the dietary and health status of participants and to reduce overweight, obesity, and associated comorbidities. Among other initiatives, projects may include those providing increased program benefits, increased access to farmers’ markets, incentives to participating vendors to increase the availability of healthy foods, adding vendor approval requirements with respect to carrying healthy foods, point-of-purchase incentives to encourage program participants to buy fruits, vegetables, and other healthy foods, and providing integrated communication and education programs (including school-based nutrition coordinators). These pilot health and nutrition promotion projects would include independent evaluations and annual reports on their status. Mandatory funding of $50 million is provided, and up to $25 million must be used for point-of-purchase incentive projects. (Section 4403)
The Conference substitute adopts the House provision with amendments to specify that the purpose of the section is to carry out pilot projects to develop and test methods for improving the dietary and health status of households in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, as well as to reduce obesity and other diet-related diseases in the United States; specify the types of pilot projects that the Secretary may consider; include a requirement relating to evaluations and reports of the pilot projects; specify mandatory funding amounts and require that the Secretary use not more than $20 million of that mandatory funding to carry out a point-of-purchase pilot project to encourage households to purchase fruits, vegetables, or other healthy foods. (Section 4141)

Statement of managers - Planting flexibility

The conference farm bill has a fairly large allowance for planting f/v's on program crop ground, so specialty crop growers may be facing some unknowns with this provision. From the House Web site, the farm bill conference statement of managers from the commodity title on planting flexibility:




(8) Planting Flexibility
The House bill is the same as current law, but it includes peanuts and establishes a pilot Farm Flex project in Indiana for the 2008-2012 crop years, under which tomatoes for processing may be planted on up to 10,000 base acres. (Section 1106) The Senate amendment is the same as current law, except provides an exception for mung beans and pulse crops and provides a pilot flexibility project in Indiana for the 2008 and 2009 crop years. (Section 1106) The Conference substitute provides that mung beans and pulse crops can be planted on base acres, and provides a pilot project to allow the production of specified fruits or vegetables for processing for the 2009-2012 crop years on up to 9,000 base acre in the State of Illinois; 9,000 base acres in the State of Indiana; 1,000 base acres in the State of Iowa; 9,000 base acres in the State of Michigan; 34,000 base acres in the State of Minnesota; 4,000 base acres in the State of Ohio; and 9,000 base acres in the State of Wisconsin; that base acres will be protected; and that the Secretary will evaluate the effects of the pilot project on the supply and demand of fresh fruits and vegetables and fruits and vegetables for processing. The Conference substitute adopts the Senate structure for the peanut program. (Sections 1107 and 1306) The Managers expect the Secretary to establish a process to ensure that the quantity of fruits or vegetables delivered for processing under the pilot project does not exceed the quantity reflected in the original contract between the producer and the processor. The Managers further expect the Secretary to seek evidence that the amount of fruits or vegetables planted for processing under this pilot project is delivered to the processing facility or in the case of crop loss is determined by the Secretary to have been destroyed. In evaluating the effects of the program on the supply of and price of fresh fruits and vegetables and fruits and vegetables for processing, the Managers encourage the Secretary to examine the impact of the program on bonus buys under the authority of Section 46 of the Agricultural Act of 1949 and surplus removal under the authority of Section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935. The Managers recognize the importance of assessing the impact of the expansion of the planting flexibility pilot program upon specialty crop producers. For greater efficiency, the Managers expect the Secretary to include the information and evaluations derived from Section 1101(d)(3) and Section 1302(d)(3) into the report required under this Section prior to its submission to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry of the Senate.

Shining light on helping others

From Rick Bella, guest blogger:
I recently returned from the United Fresh (United) & Food Marketing Institute (FMI) Trade show held in Las Vegas. Each year, these two organizations ask exhibitors to donate display food to the local America’s Second Harvest food bank. This year was no different. After the show closing on Wednesday, over 100,000 pounds of food including 60,000 pounds of fresh produce was collected by food bank volunteers. As some readers can attest to, the show closing is certainly organized chaos as workers remove carpet from the show floor, fork lift drivers deliver display shipping containers and exhibitors begin to break down their booths. After all, they have been there day after day and it is time to exit and get back to the dozens of emails that we all seem to receive these days.

The local member located in Las Vegas is called Three Square Food Bank and they were able to seek help from over 75 volunteers who all removed display products that were tagged by exhibitors for “donation”. It is certainly moving to see how vendors protect their food so they can offer good quality to the food bank. One exhibitor on the FMI side of the show used what looked like police crime scene tape to “tape off and protect” their entire booth area and placed signage around the booth informing guests that All Product is For Donation “Don’t Take” so that show attendees, other exhibitors and even show workers didn’t help themselves to some samples.

It’s that kind of understanding that was so impressive at this particular show, my personal 12th show that I’ve attended over the years. United and FMI did an excellent job of notifying the exhibitors as to the need for donations as well as provided organized communication tools for vendors to use to let the food bank know that their food was indeed for donation. One exhibitor named Mike Beausang was with Sunkist/Jelly Belly Candy Company and I caught him loading items from the Sunkist display directly into the food bank totes. I asked him what he was doing and his response was simple but impactful, “there are many folks out there who can use these donations”. Naturally, I snapped his photo.

As for the volunteers, how can we thank enough the people who serve to assist the food banks across the country without compensation? They are caring individuals who want to help, perhaps make a difference; one of the most sought after desires of most in the workforce these days. Imagine that, money doesn’t even top the list. Some will never personally see the end recipient of food that they collect. They only know that agencies across the country (about 60,000 of them) need food to assist American’s with hunger issues. These volunteers worked tirelessly collected 112,000 pounds of food to assist their neighbors in Las Vegas.
As we all “think greener”, it is certainly a wonderful feeling knowing that display food at trade shows is going to good use. Thank you United, FMI and the Produce Marketing Association for continued support of helping the hungry. It is great that our need to market goods to buyers across the U.S. is also used to support less fortunate American’s right here at home. Thank you to all that were involved in making this each and every year. It’s the right thing to do.

~Rick Bella, America’s Second Harvest-The Nation's Food Bank Network.

Legislative language arrives!

A spokesperson for the House Ag Committee said it is not certain if the farm bill will taken up Wednesday or Thursday by the full House. From the House Agriculture Committee:


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, May 13, 2008

*Publication Notice*
Farm Bill Conference Report

The Farm Bill conference report has been posted today. It is available online at:
http://agriculture.house.gov/inside/2007FarmBill.html. The conference report will be filed in the U.S. House of Representatives today.