Inspector gone bad

Did you hear about the case of the agricultural inspector who was busted at the border? Big Apple posted about it on Fresh Produce Industry Discussion Group. It's an ugly tale, this from a press release earlier this month:

( LAREDO, Texas) - A U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) employee has pleaded guilty to illegally permitting infested agricultural products to enter the United States from Mexico, United States Attorney Don DeGabrielle announced today. He will be sentenced Sept. 3, 2008.
Jose Homero Reyes, 48, who worked as a USDA plant protection and quarantine officer, pleaded guilty to three counts of the superseding indictment. As part of the guilty plea, Reyes admitted that beginning in or about 2005, and continuing to April 15, 2008, he conspired with others to not properly perform fumigations, thereby permitting agricultural products infested with a plant pest to enter the United States.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agricultural inspectors are responsible for initially inspecting trucks carrying agricultural products into the United States via Laredo from Mexico. At or near the initial inspection, CBP agricultural inspectors send a sample of any agricultural product suspected of being infested with a plant pest to plant protection and quarantine for a final determination. If a determination is made that a truck entering the U.S. is carrying an agricultural product infested with a plant pest, the infested product must be fumigated before the truck is permitted to leave Laredo.
A plant protection and quarantine officer is required to be present during the fumigation, because the officer must make initial calculations regarding the level of gas needed to spray the agricultural product infested with a plant pest and subsequently advise the fumigation technician of the same prior to beginning the fumigation. Following this, the officer is required to submit a written report to the USDA documenting the fumigation results. The truck carrying the agricultural products is not permitted to leave Laredo until the plant protection and quarantine officer provides consent.
The fumigations normally occur after-hours, and the plant protection and quarantine officers are paid overtime for their work related to the fumigations. The overtime paid to the plant protection and quarantine officers as well as the cost for the company performing the fumigations are ultimately passed onto either the Mexican exporter or the owner of the agricultural goods.
As part of his guilty plea, Reyes admitted he provided consent to the freight forwarding company/customs broker, allowing the trucks carrying agricultural products infested with a plant pest to leave Laredo, knowing that the agricultural products were not properly fumigated. Reyes would also falsely claim overtime for hours he never worked in addition to submitting false written reports to the USDA falsely documenting the fumigation results.
Arturo Ramirez, 46, the owner of Ambush Exterminators, a pest control service located in Laredo, and Robert Perez, 35, who previously worked as a USDA plant protection and quarantine officer, are also charged in the superseding indictment. Ramirez previously pleaded guilty June 17, 2008. Perez is scheduled for trial Sept. 12, 2008. Rafael Edmundo Melo Jr., a fourth USDA plant protection and quarantine officer, was also originally charged by indictment in this case. The indictment against Melo was dismissed by the government after he committed suicide.
The guilty plea to conspiracy to permit agricultural products infested with a plant pest to enter the United States carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment and a $250,000 fine upon conviction. Each of the guilty pleas to the substantive counts of permitting an infested agricultural product from entering the U.S. carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment and a $250,000 fine.
The investigation leading to these guilty pleas was a joint investigation by the FBI’s Public Corruption Task Force and the USDA - Office of Inspector General. The Task Force includes the Laredo Police Department, Department of Homeland Security - Office of the Inspector General and CBP - Office of Internal Affairs. Special agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement also assisted in the operation. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Sam Sheldon and James Seaman.

TK: This prosecution may help push back corruption of this sort in the future, but the case is a disconcerting sign that the best science can be thwarted by the worst motives.

NCAE White Paper - E-Verify and federal contracts

Mike Gempler, president of the National Council of Agricultural Employers, graciously passed on an analysis of proposed change by the Administration to federal contracting regulations that would require certain contractors and subcontractors to use E-Verify.

From the 9-page report, here is a summary of where the regulation stands:

On June 12, 2008, the Department of Defense, the General Services Administration, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration published a proposed rule amending the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) 2 in the Federal Register. If adopted in its current form, the proposed rule would insert a requirement that each federal prime contractor and a potentially large subset of federal subcontractors at every tier use the Department of Homeland Security’s EVerify system to check employees’ work authorization.3 Comments on the proposed rule are due by August 11, 2008. The proposed rule anticipates an effective date sometime in fiscal year 2009.

The NCAE paper devised scenarios to illustrate "what appears to be clear and what remains ambiguous about the regulation. " From the report:

Scenario No. 1: A Producer Sells Fruit Directly To USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service’s Commodity Purchase Program.


Scenario No. 2: A Producer Sells Fruit Directly To USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service’s Commodity Purchase Program, But A Portion Of The Product Comes From Another Grower.


Scenario No. 3: A Producer Of An Agricultural Product Sells Directly To A ‘Broker’ Which Then Sells To USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service’s Commodity Purchase Program.


Scenario No. 4: A Fruit or Vegetable Producer Sells Directly To A Processing Company Which Processes, Freezes or Cans The Produce And Then Sells Its Product To The Government.


TK: Each of the scenarios are fully evaluated for their implications under the proposed regulation. Under the heading "What should you do," the white paper stated:



The basic outlines of the proposed regulation are clear. If a business sells to the federal government, it will likely be required to use E-Verify under the proposed regulation. If a prime
contractor subcontracts with an entity to provide a food item at least in part to fulfill its xontract with the government, the subcontractor is likely not going to be required to use E-Verify. Conversely, if a subcontractor was hired to perform an identifiable task in connection with the prime contract (i.e., a “service”) or “construction,” it is likely going to be required to use EVerify. Moreover, because the proposed regulation is intended to reach as many businesses as possible, it is not unreasonable to anticipate that any ambiguities pointed out during the public comment period will likely be resolved in favor of expanded coverage.


TK: The NCAE asks members to consider the potential impact to their businesses and comment to federal authorities by the deadline. Clearly, this regulation would cast a wide net; the white paper cites an estimate that in the first year alone, an estimated 168,324 employers will required to enroll in E-Verify, affecting about 3.8 million employees.

Find the white paper here.

Question and answers : Is a single food safety agency best?

Relating to the Fresh Talk poll question this week, I asked a question on the Food Safe message board about the wisdom of creating a single food safety agency. Here is my question and a few responses from the group. The NACMSF refers to the National Advisory Committee on. Microbiological Criteria for Food. As you can see, there is a difference of opinion among food safety professionals about broad reform.


Congress will likely push hard for a single food safety agency next year, led by Rosa DeLauro and Dingell and others.Would creating a a unified food safety agency be a positive long term move for food safety efforts in this country? Are there are strong opinions yea or nay about tihs issue among the Food Safe group? Tom K


Tom,

A single agency isn't going to help a lot. What they need is a single group to write the process standards that all the agencies and inspectors have to use, and we have that, the NACMSF. Give the NACMSF the funds to let contracts with labs to get the science to write one set of processing rules that the retail uses, Fish HACCP, FDA processing uses and FSIS uses. That is what is wrong. Every agency wants there own cooling, pasteurization, acidification etc, and you don't know the research basis for the control. For the last 15 years, the NACMSF has been used by both FDA and FSIS as the group to write unified process rules and it seems to work.

Pete




Yes, I've come to the conclusion that for political reasons a single federal food agency is required. The FDA and their funding is one problem, the USDA and their other roles (agricultural marketing) is another. A "naked" regulatory agency covering all foods may show more clearly where the shortcomings are in either the executive, legislative , or judicial branches of the government and where industry may be using its influence to the disadvantage of the public at large.
Jeff Lewis



I can't agree with Carl more about the need to communicate with your members of Congress about the strong need to fix things at the federal level in food safety during this upcoming election. Let them know that we are "fed up" with all the problems and gaps in the system.
While I believe that the Single Agency would be the best answer to the problems, I'm not certain that it can be done quickly. For this reason we are working on some smaller steps to address funding deficiences and gaps in authority at FDA. There is some progress and promising developments. Clearly if it doesn't happen this year (and time is too short to think it will), many of these ideas will emerge early in the next Congress.
So communicating with your own members will help to move the ball now and in the future.

Caroline Smith DeWaal
Food Safety Director
Center for Science in the Public Interest




Everyone knows what a busy body I am so with that in mind, I suggested to Dr. Acheson directly that he make the model food code into a closed loop model food code "Wiki".
That would allow everyone to add and contribute within a 12 month period and at the end of the year the CFP would look over the changes, add issues and on January 1 of each year the public version would be online.
Any registered user, with qualification, would be able to submit changes like on Wikipedia, Then the CDC, FDA, ARS, ERS and other agencies could add or modify what they see and then click on "submit", perhaps it would require three approvals to publish but changes would be not only up to date but relevant to the needs of today.
This fits in tightly with what Pete said below.
"That is what is wrong. Every agency wants their own cooling, pasteurization, acidification etc, and you don't know the research basis for the control. For the last 15 years, the NACMSF has been used by both FDA and FSIS as the group to write unified process rules and it seems to work."

Rich

VOA: Peppers linked